I don't take great offense, Christianity and the Constitution, know your historical facts, Sam.

The founding fathers most were opposed to s***ery and it was the British Crown that allowed for s***ery to exist in British colonies.

Most of the America Christians and founding fathers and the northern United States opposed S***ery.

Here is an Article that explains the American S***ery issues succinctly and goes directly to the heart of the issues of S***ery at the onset of the American revolution.

The Founding Fathers and S***ery
http://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-and-S***ery-1269536


Although many of the Founding Fathers acknowledged that s***ery violated the core American Revolutionary ideal of liberty, their simultaneous commitment to private property rights, principles of limited government, and intersectional harmony prevented them from making a bold move against s***ery. The considerable investment of Southern Founders in s***e-based staple agriculture, combined with their deep-seated racial prejudice, posed additional obstacles to emancipation.

In his initial draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson condemned the injustice of the s***e trade and, by implication, s***ery, but he also blamed the presence of ens***ed Africans in North America on avaricious British colonial policies. Jefferson thus acknowledged that s***ery violated the natural rights of the ens***ed, while at the same time he absolved Americans of any responsibility for owning s***es themselves. The Continental Congress apparently rejected the tortured logic of this passage by deleting it from the final document, but this decision also signaled the Founders’ commitment to subordinating the controversial issue of s***ery to the larger goal of securing the unity and independence of the United States.

Nevertheless, the Founders, with the exception of those from South Carolina and Georgia, exhibited considerable aversion to s***ery during the era of the Articles of Confederation (1781–89) by prohibiting the importation of foreign s***es to individual states and lending their support to a proposal by Jefferson to ban s***ery in the Northwest Territory. Such antis***ery policies, however, only went so far. The prohibition of foreign s***e imports, by limiting the foreign supply, conveniently served the interests of Virginia and Maryland s***eholders, who could then sell their own surplus s***es southward and westward at higher prices. Furthermore, the ban on s***ery in the Northwest tacitly legitimated the expansion of s***ery in the Southwest.

Despite initial disagreements over s***ery at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the Founders once again demonstrated their commitment to maintaining the unity of the new United States by resolving to diffuse sectional tensions over s***ery. To this end the Founders drafted a series of constitutional clauses acknowledging deep-seated regional differences over s***ery while requiring all sections of the new country to make compromises as well. They granted s***eholding states the right to count three-fifths of their s***e population when it came to apportioning the number of a state’s representatives to Congress, thereby enhancing Southern power in the House of Representatives. But they also used this same ratio to determine the federal tax contribution required of each state, thus increasing the direct federal tax burden of s***eholding states. Georgians and South Carolinians won a moratorium until 1808 on any Congressional ban against the importation of s***es, but in the meantime individual states remained free to prohibit s***e imports if they so wished. Southerners also obtained the inclusion of a fugitive s***e clause (see Fugitive S***e Acts) designed to encourage the return of runaway s***es who sought refuge in free states, but the Constitution left enforcement of this clause to the cooperation of the states rather than to the coercion of Congress.

Although the Founders, consistent with their beliefs in limited government, opposed granting the new federal government significant authority over s***ery, several individual Northern Founders promoted antis***ery causes at the state level. Benjamin Franklin in Pennsylvania, as well as John Jay and Alexander Hamilton in New York, served as officers in their respective state antis***ery societies. The prestige they lent to these organizations ultimately contributed to the gradual abolition of s***ery in each of the Northern states.

Although s***ery was legal in every Northern state at the beginning of the American Revolution, its economic impact was marginal. As a result, Northern Founders were freer to explore the libertarian dimensions of Revolutionary ideology. The experience of Franklin was in many ways typical of the evolving attitudes of Northern Founders toward s***ery. Although enmeshed in the s***e system for much of his life, Franklin eventually came to believe that s***ery ought to be abolished gradually and legally. Franklin himself had owned s***es, run ads in his Pennsylvania Gazette to secure the return of fugitive s***es, and defended the honour of s***eholding revolutionaries. By 1781, however, Franklin had divested himself of s***es, and shortly thereafter he became the president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society. He also went further than most of his contemporaries by signing a petition to the First Federal Congress in 1790 for the abolition of s***ery and the s***e trade.

Unlike their Northern counterparts, Southern Founders generally steered clear of organized antis***ery activities, primarily to maintain their legitimacy among s***eholding constituents. Furthermore, while a few Northern and Southern Founders manumitted a small number of s***es, no Southern plantation-owning Founder, except George Washington, freed a sizeable body of ens***ed labourers. Because his own s***es shared familial attachments with the dower s***es of his wife, Martha Custis Washington, he sought to convince her heirs to forego their inheritance rights in favour of a collective manumission so as to ensure that entire families, not just individual family members, might be freed. Washington failed to win the consent of the Custis heirs, but he nevertheless made sure, through his last will and testament, that his own s***es would enjoy the benefit of freedom.

Washington’s act of manumission implied that he could envision a biracial United States where both b****s and w****s might live together as free people. Jefferson, however, explicitly rejected this vision. He acknowledged that s***ery violated the natural rights of s***es and that conflicts over s***ery might one day lead to the dissolution of the union, but he also believed that, given alleged innate racial differences and deeply held prejudices, emancipation would inevitably degrade the character of the republic and unleash violent civil strife between b****s and w****s. Jefferson thus advocated c**pling emancipation with what he called “colonization,” or removal, of the black population beyond the boundaries of the United States. His proposals won considerable support in the North, where racial prejudice was on the rise, but such schemes found little support among the majority of Southern s***eholders.

When the last remaining Founders died in the 1830s, they left behind an ambiguous legacy with regard to s***ery. They had succeeded in gradually abolishing s***ery in the Northern states and Northwestern territories but permitted its rapid expansion in the South and Southwest. Although they eventually enacted a federal ban on the importation of foreign s***es in 1808, the ens***ed population continued to expand through natural reproduction, while the growing internal domestic s***e trade led to an increase in the tragic breakup of ens***ed families.

The surest way to destroy income e******y is not to steal it from one to give to another but thru hard work, sometimes education, innovation and initiative. Progressives are the one's who foolishly believe their secular, socialists, relativistic and materialistic utopia is possible to attain amongst humanity. Some people will always do better than others, that's life and often limited to those with ambition. The only thing the shrew accomplishes with her rhetoric is the very same thing the bastard in the white house accomplished and that is to to divide and cause hatred amongst Americans. May they both be damned!

This article is simply false. The Founding fathers held no such "ambiguity" whatsoever on the immorality of s***ery. Jefferson married one of the "s***es" after his wife died, and the rest were freed as Washington's s***es were freed. You would call this prejudiced? Enough of these liberal lies, once again, defaming America, Free markets and free people. We did fight a Civil War to stomp out this s***ery problem. Would you like to cite all the millions who died for our country and to end this criminal and immoral behavior?

http://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-and-S***ery-1269536
(This article is from the British historical perspective and highly d******e and misleading.)
"Nevertheless, the Founders, with the exception of those from South Carolina and Georgia, exhibited considerable aversion to s***ery during the era of the Articles of Confederation (1781–89) by prohibiting the importation of foreign s***es to individual states and lending their support to a proposal by Jefferson to ban s***ery in the Northwest Territory."

And what was the rest of the story? The Northwest Ordinance became part of the Constitution in 1787, first penned by Thomas Jefferson in 1785, banning s***ery in all newly admitted states to the Union beyond the first 13 former colonies, and further on to the Pacific Ocean. Have you ever picked up a copy of the Constitution that includes this Northwest Ordinance?

No.

Why is that? I'd call it historical revisionism by the Progressive Left in our education system for the past 100 years.

Furthermore, the article you cited above lists Ben Franklin, (a poor vagabond, an apprenticed printer, self taught and a self-made man), as a s***e holder at the beginning of the article, and later on, as a staunch opponent to s***ery at the end of the article. Very misleading again, to the readers and highly d******e.

The Founding Fathers were vehemently opposed to s***ery, publishing widely, shutting down the African shipping s***e trade, while attempting to end Southerners' trafficking. Would you like me to cite some of their voluminous articles?

It was Great Britain that greatly wanted the Southern cotton industry for its own textile mills and condoned s***ery and the Confederacy's secession, something the Founding fathers anticipated long in advance. The northern American Textile mills did not approve of s***ery, which was impeding the industrial revolution.

Read George Washington's parting address to the Union on his fears of foreign entanglement in commerce and wars and their dangerous alliances the southern states.

We fought Great Britain in the American Revolution 1776, in the War of 1812, by proxy in the Civil War, in the British attempted takeover of our private banks triggering the 1st Great Depression of 1893, and the second successful takeover of coining our currency in 1914 by London bankers helping establish the Federal Reserve System. The Brits jumped from subsidizing American s***ery to fomenting American progressive socialism!

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=8
Northwest Ordinance (1787)

http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/turningpoints/search.asp?id=325
Art. 6. There shall be neither s***ery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted: Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid."

The 1793 Fugitive S***e Act was nullified first, by the state of Massachusetts, setting the precedence for nullification to become the tool to fight federal government overreach of State's Rights, from there on, well into in the 21st Century.

My post above does not justify s***ery, and it exposes the fact that neither did our founding fathers. Perhaps the post was too long and you did not read it?

Please review, on your own, the Northwest Ordinance, penned by Thomas Jefferson whose 2nd wife was Black.
Please read "What the Founding Fathers Said About S***ery":
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/s***ery.html

If you are unhappy about your job in a corporation, please feel free to change your job and your circumstances. Good grief!

My post above does not justify s***ery, and it exposes the fact that neither did our founding fathers. Perhaps the post was too long and you did not read it?

Please review, on your own, the Northwest Ordinance, penned by Thomas Jefferson whose 2nd wife was Black.
Please read "What the Founding Fathers Said About S***ery":
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/s***ery.html

If you are unhappy about your job in a corporation, please feel free to change your job and your circumstances. Good grief!