Posted on 03/19/2017 9:14:52 AM PDT by MtnClimber
But it included slaves. That's the point.
The USA Constitution - the one Lincoln twice swore to defend - mentioned slavery THREE times. Or more accurately, it provided for slavery.
How did that happen?
Like this: the states of New York, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland voted to include slavery in the USA Constitution. Oh yes, let's don't forget that Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia also voted to include slavery in the USA Constitution.
In defense of northern sensibilities, only 9 of the 13 states that voted for slavery were in the north.
Virtue signalling a major sacrament of this church. John Brown a prophet. Abe the messiah. The north the holy land. Infidels not paying obeisance deserving of slaughter and the last vestiges of their evil culture consigned to destruction and fire. The same for their wicked progeny.
Pardon my shorthand, I took notes as fast as a I could. Did I get the lesson right?
Ha, ha, ha. That's so funny, I forgot to laugh. You are now doubling down on your double-speak. Now you have moved from "the northern States included slavery" to the northern states voted for slavery. Please reread post #61. For your edification, in 1783, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled slavery unconstitutional, a decision based on the 1780 Massachusetts constitution. All slaves were immediately freed. I will leave it up to you to figure out how you then overextend yourself to come up with Massachusetts voting for slavery in the Constitution in 1787.
See Article VII. The first sentence reads: “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."
All nine northern states voted to ratify the U.S. Constitution which included slavery.
I think if you check the vote roster you will find that Nathaniel Gorham and Rufus King “subscribed” their names as representatives of Massachusetts.
Those two then brought the proposed document, which they had signed, back to Massachusetts. Then the State ratification process began. Finally, 355 delegates, after considerable debate, took a vote. Massachusetts narrowly ratified the US Constitution by a vote of 187 yea to 168 nay. The final tally included ten votes that switched to yea only upon a guarantee that the Bill Of Rights would be added immediately upon ratification. Otherwise, Massachusetts would not have ratified the US Constitution, and the fact that Nathaniel Gorham and Rufus King had signed the proposed document would have meant diddly-squat.
I put it to you that Massachusetts, at the very first opportunity that it had to abolish slavery, where it could, emphatically did. I put it to you that your claim, that by ratifying the US Constitution, Massachusetts "voted for slavery", is crack-pottery. As a self-proclaimed psycho-ceramist, I'm sure you'll agree.
My shorthand is Rwanda X Bosnia, don’t be around it when it blows.
I continue to be stuck in the vast suburbia of SoCal where we make Babel look like a unified culture.
You better have a rocket.
Why should they favor slavery, when indentured servitude provided them so much more?
The economic crisis which followed the Revolutionary War made long-term labor contracts unattractive.
“Massachusetts narrowly ratified the US Constitution by a vote of 187 yea to 168 nay.”
Your words confirm what you have denied.
Perhaps you are confused about the difference between the state constitution and the federal constitution.
You know that we are discussing the US Constitution of 1787. The Massachusetts State Constitution dates from 1780.
Article IV, Sec 2, Clause 3 of the US Constitution acknowledged that there were slave states and that there were non slave states, and that a fugitive slave, escaping from his master in a slave state and running to a free state did not make him free. He had to be returned to his master upon request. The point of the clause is that states needed to uphold and recognize each other’s rights. To use this clause to say that the North voted for slavery makes about as much sense as using this clause to say the North voted against slavery (note the free states part). Ratifying the US Constitution was not a vote for slavery. Because Georgia among other southern states were throwing a little tantrum and threatening to take their slaves and go home, certain anti-slave northern states compromised for the sake of forming the Union. It would have been very interesting for you to go back and tell Massachusetts that by ratifying the US Constitution they were “voting for slavery”. Actually I’m sure that came up. There was precisely one delegate (out of @80) at the Continental Convention who refused to sign it because it did not free all slaves and abolish slavery. I don’t recall his name or state. But an up/down on ratifying the US Constitution is not the same as an up/down on abolishing slavery. As much as you try to insist otherwise.
“Next you’re gonna be trying to tell me that the parties switched sides.”
No, but that brings up an interesting point: If Lincoln were alive today he would be a Democrat (and, ironically, JFK would be a Republican).
Bttt
From Congo on the lower Mississippi (at nite)
The come out....
Thanks.
Just wait until the power goes out and EBT is a memory.
News you won’t see in the American MSM.
“FBI raid a rural South Carolina home as they hunt for remains of 17-year-old woman who was ‘gang raped, shot and fed to alligators’”
Very insightful posts and article. Sooner or later, the iceberg makes contact.
“Article IV, Sec 2, Clause 3 of the US Constitution acknowledged that there were slave states and that there were non slave states, and that a fugitive slave, escaping from his master in a slave state and running to a free state did not make him free.”
I think what you are saying is Massachusetts wanted to build a Constitution where slavery was safe, rare, and legal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.