[ProgressingAmerica]

If anybody wants on/off the revolutionary progressivism ping list, send me a message

Progressives do not want to discuss their own history. I want to discuss their history.

Summary: The progressives have so erased history that they are now stepping in what they don't know and making a mockery of themselves

[Inyo-Mono]

Bookmark.

[jeffersondem]

“AT the framing and adoption of the constitution, they forbore to so much as mention the word “slave” or “slavery” in the whole instrument. In the provision for the recovery of fugitives, the slave is spoken of as a “PERSON HELD TO SERVICE OR LABOR.” In that prohibiting the abolition of the African slave trade for twenty years, that trade is spoken of as “The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States NOW EXISTING, shall think proper to admit,” &c. These are the only provisions alluding to slavery.”

“Only provisions”?

Had Lincoln never read Article I of the U.S. Constitution?

[Widget Jr]

Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.

Since you are posting this from your own blog, do you agree or disagree with this part of what you have cited?

Since the Cornerstone Speech shows the Confederacy unambiguously disagreed with the Framers of the Constitution over the issue of race, how does correctly citing the Founding Fathers in any way deny the Confederacy's support for slavery?

Is it or is it not a fact that the Cornerstone Speech was used by the Confederacy as a justification for secession and later, the Civil War, and by extension slavery?

[Cvengr]

mark