If I lived in the South, and the South were to "rise again", that is to say, become the Confederate States of America, I would certainly be against slavery being a part of that new nation.
That's what I was getting at. You seem to have a difficult time answering the original question. But, I will take it from your last answer, that under the above circumstances, that you would also be against slavery. Please correct me if I got that wrong.
As to your question, "Is the Constitution a 'living document', or not?"
I say, "no" because those who use the terminology that it is a "living" document, are too often the people trying to corrupt its original intent.
Other than trying to position me into defending an institution that I never said I agreed with in the first place, you mean?
Why should I have to clarify something that I never even said?
----
I say, "no" because those who use the terminology that it is a "living" document, are too often the people trying to corrupt its original intent.
Exactly. The Constitution is a legal document, not a moral, 'living' one.So, if in the 'original intent', slaves were not people, but property, why is the South so demonized for defending the Constitution?
More importantly, why is the North so idolized for breaking it?