- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
So true.
0
Posted on 9/4/20 at 9:34 am to EthanHunt
quote:Even New York was a slave state in 1789.
is that correct? Im goin off memory here dude, its not always perfect.
This post was edited on 9/4/20 at 9:36 am
Posted on 9/4/20 at 9:39 am to EthanHunt
Protect it to get the country started with a temporary compromise.
At the same time creating mechanisms to abolish it eventually and enshrine more important rights.
Loaded question.
At the same time creating mechanisms to abolish it eventually and enshrine more important rights.
Loaded question.
Posted on 9/4/20 at 9:52 am to Mulat
Yes, I'm sure this completely unbiased Professors' criticism of the Constitution as a document to promote "honkiness" was solely based on sound reasoning, logic, intellect, Academic integrity and had zero to do with his personal biases........ahem.....
Posted on 9/4/20 at 9:52 am to Taxing Authority
quote:of course it didnt require it, the question is whether or not protected it. And the answer is yes, we punted and kept slavery legal whenever it suited us. Even this original compromise was suppose to give Congress the power to ban it in 1800, but that was moved back to 1808.
Exactly. The Constitution did not require slavery for statehood.
We also said this applied only to the original signing states and anyone new added to the union would have to free their slaves.
But then the US needed to expand west, and suddenly slaves werent the deal breaker we pretended it was, and so when Missouri was admitted in 1820 they kept theirs. The Kansas-Nebraska Act went even further in 1854, allowing any new western states to hold slaves.
thats 75 years from when the Constitution was signed, and we still hadnt quite gotten around to outlawing slavery.
Posted on 9/4/20 at 10:45 am to OGtigerfan87
quote:
It is apparent to anybody who has actually studies the creation of the Constitution that it was written in a way that would eventually lead to the end of slavery. Many of the founders wanted to outright end slavery in America but knew they couldn’t at that time. They made sure language was added that would eventually bring slavery into question. So the idea that the constitution was created to
protect the institution of slavery is not only incorrect but the exact opposite of reality
This is exactly right. It was written in a manner that achieved a compromise at the time, but that would ultimately trigger a reckons down the road. If they didn’t compromise there was no country.
Posted on 9/4/20 at 10:47 am to EthanHunt
quote:
Even this original compromise was suppose to give Congress the power to ban it in 1800, but that was moved back to 1808.
We also said this applied only to the original signing states and anyone new added to the union would have to free their slaves.
But then the US needed to expand west, and suddenly slaves werent the deal breaker we pretended it was, and so when Missouri was admitted in 1820 they kept theirs. The Kansas-Nebraska Act went even further in 1854, allowing any new western states to hold slaves.
thats 75 years from when the Constitution was signed, and we still hadnt quite gotten around to outlawing slavery.
Thanks for proving op correct
Posted on 9/4/20 at 12:21 pm to EthanHunt
quote:
the Constitution was very literally designed to protect the institution of slavery.
So the Constitution only had one construct - slavery?
I thought it was designed for more than one purpose.
That is an interesting take. I guess the Vandy professor was correct according to your belief.
Posted on 9/4/20 at 12:44 pm to EthanHunt
quote:I suppose we have very different definitions of "protect". If you want to say "allowing the banning of" to equal protect... ok.
of course it didnt require it, the question is whether or not protected it. And the answer is yes, we punted and kept slavery legal whenever it suited us. Even this original compromise was suppose to give Congress the power to ban it in 1800, but that was moved back to 1808.
But by that working definition the Constitution protects gun rights of people in Chicago who are denied the the rights to own a gun.
Posted on 9/4/20 at 1:04 pm to RollTide4Ever
quote:Yes, his youngest son, George Washington Vanderbilt II, died during the Civil War after having graduated from West Point. But he died from an illness not from hostile action. In fact, he never saw battle during the war.
Didn't Vanderbilt have a son the died in the civil war (union side)?
Factoid #3: Commodore Vanderbilt's first wife was his first cousin. After she died in 1868, he married again in 1869 to a woman named "Frank Armstrong Crawford" (true) who was 45 years younger than him and was also his cousin.
Posted on 9/4/20 at 1:09 pm to Parmen
quote:
After the Bible and the Ten Commandments, the US Constitution is the greatest document ever written.
The Declaration of Independence is the prima facie document of this country.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News