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?
Don't you have that backwards?
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?
A) The Civil War does not occupy a place of parallel significance in Northern culture/mythology/history as it does in the South.
B)The end of slavery and the bloodshed it entailed is seen as a conflict or struggle for America to live up to its best potential in a way that has nothing to do with the Constitution.