You know I record these things into audio at Librivox so they get a wider audience. So you should have already heard it by now, I've shown it to you more than once. That and I linked to it here as well to the other user - it was a raw-looking URL even. Meaning, you had to avoid clicking and avoid listening to it in order to hear it. How did you miss it?
"The American Constitution and the Slave - Is the Constitution pro-slavery or anti-slavery?"
"Both."
It's not. The 1619 Project is wrong. You trust progressives too much. Not really sure why you trust progressives, but there it is.
I have absolutely no recollection of you ever showing me Frederick Douglas' argument regarding Article IV, Section 2 of the United States Constitution.
But since you seem to be familiar with it, can you give me the gist of his argument that a requirement to return fugitive slaves to their masters is somehow anti-slavery?
It sure sounds pro-slavery to me.
It's not. The 1619 Project is wrong. You trust progressives too much.
Trusting progressives has nothing to do with it.
The US Constitution allowed Congress to ban the import of slaves in 1808, which they promptly did. I regard that clause as anti-slavery.
The US Constitution also requires fugitive slaves to be returned to their masters. (Article IV, Section 2.) I regard that part as pro-slavery.
So we have an anti-slavery part and a pro-slavery part. Therefore I think it is quite reasonable to say "both", and I have no idea what liberals are saying because I don't listen to them.