Nonsense, politics is politics.
Representatives often agree to provisions they dislike in order to obtain a larger goal they want more.
One now famous politician wrote a book about it, perhaps you've heard, "The Art of the Deal"?
jeffersondem: "Your arguments conflict.
Thats because you dont have sound schemata."
"Sound schemata"?
Well... there's a $2 word for a mere "schoolboy".
Even if, after a few years, you've now become an "old boy", that's still a pretty specialized term, suggesting some rather focused learning.
Regardless, my arguments are not in conflict and my "schemata" are simply the facts of history.
You should look them up someday.
“Regardless, my arguments are not in conflict . .”
This is another instance where your self-exculpatory statements do not quite settle the matter.
You have argued the South (one southern state at least) forced the other states to adopt a slavery-enshrined Constitution BUT you have argued that all the states adopted the slavery-enshrined Constitution by mutual consent.
If it was forced, then it wasn’t mutual consent.
All this, of course, ties back into the “at pleasure” superstructure of your discredited mother church.
What you should do now is to point out that you were unwittingly, and deliberately, led into a trap. You probably were.
“Nonsense, politics is politics. Representatives often agree to provisions they dislike in order to obtain a larger goal they want more. One now famous politician wrote a book about it, perhaps you’ve heard, “The Art of the Deal”?”
Brother Joe, you are getting close to recognizing that slavery - which some believe the northern states knew to be morally wrong before the Revolutionary War - was enshrined into the United States Constitution as part of a deal for the North to obtain a larger goal.
That “goal” has been referred to elsewhere as the North’s economic and political best self interest.
Some say many years later an archetype Lincoln famously explained how the deal came unglued. See the link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsW9MlYu31g