Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: jeffersondem

Please even the slavers among the Founders believe it to be an evil and it became even more so after the Cotton Gin made cotton growing extremely profit. Ironic that the wealth of the South was due to that Yankee, Eli Whitney.

BTW the word “slavery” is not in the Constitution much less “enshrined” in it.

The tolerance of slavery was the compromise which allowed the formation of the Union. The Northern states basically ignored it, not affecting by it much.

Lincoln fought the war because of outrages to federal property and to preserve the Union. When the situation was ripe he made slavery the next issue.


149 posted on 06/25/2018 5:22:47 PM PDT by arrogantsob (See "Chaos and Mayhem" at Amazon.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies ]


To: arrogantsob
BTW the word “slavery” is not in the Constitution much less “enshrined” in it.

No, it was "free Persons" and "all other Persons". From Article I, Section 2:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

The three-fifths compromise was necessary to get the southern states to join the Union. Madison observed, “...[at the Constitutional Convention] the States were divided into different interests not by their difference of size, but principally from their having or not having slaves. It did not lie between the large and small States: it lay between the Northern and Southern.”

The word "slavery" does not appear until Amendment XIII.

317 posted on 06/25/2018 11:03:19 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies ]

To: arrogantsob
BTW the word “slavery” is not in the Constitution

No it isn't, because they were too ashamed to admit it, and so they used euphemistic terminology to describe the same thing.

much less “enshrined” in it.

And there you are wrong. Despite their refusal to use the word, they described the same meaning accurately enough to discern they were specifically referring to slavery. They just couched it in less offensive descriptive language.

Article IV, section 2.

376 posted on 06/26/2018 9:35:03 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies ]

To: arrogantsob

“When the situation was ripe he made slavery the next issue.”

Meaning, after 600,000 men were safely buried?


433 posted on 06/26/2018 2:20:45 PM PDT by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies ]

To: arrogantsob; BroJoeK; OIFVeteran; Bull Snipe; DoodleDawg; DiogenesLamp; central_va; rustbucket; ...

“BTW the word “slavery” is not in the Constitution much less “enshrined” in it.”

Every school boy knows that the original constitution required a national census every ten years after the first census.

But did you know the word “census” does not appear in the original constitution?

And now you tell me slavery is not found in the original constitution.

Is that something you believe, or something you want me to believe?


474 posted on 06/26/2018 3:47:20 PM PDT by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson