[jmacusa]

You're trying for a ‘’gotcha’’ question here and your not going to get it and again, your attempts are moral relativism are nauseating.

At the time of ratification slavery was a contentious
subject and an embarrassment to the Northern states.

However slavery had given the South an extremely successful and rich economy. Something they did not want to lose. In order to agree to ratification the South argued to maintain it's ''institution''. The infamous ''3/5ths Compromise in effect did that and gave the South a great deal of influence over the presidency, the SCTUS and other areas of the government.

[jeffersondem]

“You're trying for a ‘’gotcha’’ question here and your not going to get it . . .”

It looks like I have already got “it” whatever “it” is.

Your desperate attempt to limit discussion to only what is inside your suffocating vacuum is too clear to deny. Look no further than your post 29: “Listen smart ass, those are my words . . . Let's stick to the subject at hand.”

It seems you don't want to discuss the fact that of the 13 original states, 13 of them were slave states. And of those 13 slave states, 13 of them voted to enshrine slavery into the United States Constitution where it remained well after the Emancipation Proclamation.

If for any reason you want to keep this a secret - just tell me.

I am fully aware that the northern states gradually decided they wanted to restrict slavery to the cotton states; and that the northern states would probably have attempted to eliminate slavery entirely except for the fact it was not in their economic and political best self interest to do so before 1865.

[rockrr]

I see that the fool is still peddling his lies about “enshrining”. Not very intelligent, not at all original, but certainly persistent.