Replies

from the article: "” New Left historian Staughton Lynd read causation into this coincidence, claiming that Garrison and his followers seized on James Madison’s “Notes” “to show in detail what they had long suspected: that the revered Constitution was a sordid sectional compromise, in Garrison’s words ‘a covenant with death and an agreement with hell.’”"

And Garrison's is just the argument we've seen posted ad nauseum by Lost Causers here -- they say the Constitution "enshrines" slavery!

But the article's author is trying to argue the opposite: no it doesn't, he says, and Madison's "Notes" prove it.

Well, maybe Madison's "Notes" do, we'd certainly wish they do, but as near as I can tell, it's still a matter of perspective and interpretation.
For example: if the US Constitution did indeed "enshrine" slavery, why would the Confederate constitution go to such lengths to explicitly spell out the, ah, "enshrinement" the US Constitution already contained?

I get the sense here that Pelham is delighted to share with us Garrison's original condemnation of the Constitution as "pro-slavery" while he wishes to carefully ignore this article's point that: no, it's not.