[randycrow]

Because of Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 Thomas Jefferson signed the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves March 2, 1807. Virginia had outlawed the importation of slaves a few years before. Up until the end of the 1800s, which marked the end of any country in the world legalizing slave trade, Great Britain dominated the world slave trade. The US Constitution Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 seems to have shamed Britain to outlaw slave trade which Britain did after the US did in an Act that became law in Britain 25 March 1807. Since slavery has been such an important part of the world economy forever, and the NWO ambitions, IMO, are basically to makes slaves of everyone on the planet except the elite, do you think Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 is not a big deal because making it a big deal would expose possibly the biggest future plans of the NWO?

[gutzmank]

Neither country has had slavery for well over a century now, so I don’t understand your question.

[randycrow]

My question is why isn’t a big deal made out of Article I, Section 9, Clause 1? Slavery has been a big deal in US and world history, Civil War is incorrectly blamed on slavery. The US Constitution addresses slavery in this clause, importation of slaves was made illegal actually before the 20 year limit stated in the Constitution, importation of slaves outlawed by Thomas Jefferson signing the bill. Some people seem to want to blame all slavery on the South. When in fact Great Britain was a massive financial beneficiary of slavery which studying this clause would allow Professors to expound and point out. Not to mention slavery is the second oldest profession. Actually studying this Clause could lead to a current discussion on economic slavery which is going on now with the Federal Reserve, continual Wars, Ukraine, Libya, Iraq, Syria,W2 War on Japan nuking which includes the theft of 170 tons of gold from Japan, Golden Lily Gold, NSA, DHS and on and on. Just think Article I Section 9 Clause is missed teaching opportunity.

[Brion McClanahan]

I think you can have a discussion of contemporary slavery without bringing the clause in question into the picture.

[Author]

Posts