Remember, Remember the 5th of November

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Again, your playing what ifs and I'm playing with your own applied solution.

You want to leave abortion up to the states.

Well guess what? For the time, the woman right to vote and Slavery would of been up to the states.

And I wonder how many states would have neither today?

And even today slavery goes on in certain ways. Example: Caste System in India. Where is the "outrage" from outside India?

India's "Untouchables" Face Violence, Discrimination

No, I believe you've got it backwards. Anyone who takes the time to look at the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution can clearly come to the conclusion that slavery was illegal from the very start. The confusion comes because the founders themselves went against these laws, so people believe that slavery was legal.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." - Preamble of the U.S. Constitution

My argument is that this applied to black people just as much as it applied to white people.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - U.S. Declaration of Independence

Again, applies to black people as much as it does white people.

Therefore, under the Constitution the issue of slavery would not be left to the states because of the nature of the Constitution itself is to protect the liberties of the people. Abortion on the other hand, is not mentioned in the Constitution at all. Therefore, it is left to the states.

 

[Modbert]

No, I believe you've got it backwards. Anyone who takes the time to look at the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution can clearly come to the conclusion that slavery was illegal from the very start. The confusion comes because the founders themselves went against these laws, so people believe that slavery was legal.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." - Preamble of the U.S. Constitution

My argument is that this applied to black people just as much as it applied to white people.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - U.S. Declaration of Independence

Again, applies to black people as much as it does white people.

Therefore, under the Constitution the issue of slavery would not be left to the states because of the nature of the Constitution itself is to protect the liberties of the people. Abortion on the other hand, is not mentioned in the Constitution at all. Therefore, it is left to the states.

You undercut your argument from the very beginning.

Under slavery, African-Americans are not considered people, so therefore not considered men, and therefore the constitution would not apply to them. So therefore, it would be up to the states and slavery would still exist today.

And I'm pretty sure Slavery was legal since it was allowed in the U.S for another 89 years until the North won in the Civil War. Even then, Lincoln declared the SOUTH slaves free in order to demoralize the south and take away their work force.

Emancipation Proclamation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read the first three paragraphs.

Let's put myths to rest

Myth #1: Lincoln invaded the South to free the slaves. Ending slavery and racial injustice is not why the North invaded. As Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley on Aug. 22, 1862: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it"

 

[bk1983]

V for Vendetta minus the masks.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You undercut your argument from the very beginning.

Under slavery, African-Americans are not considered people, so therefore not considered men, and therefore the constitution would not apply to them. So therefore, it would be up to the states and slavery would still exist today.

And I'm pretty sure Slavery was legal since it was allowed in the U.S for another 89 years until the North won in the Civil War. Even then, Lincoln declared the SOUTH slaves free in order to demoralize the south and take away their work force.

Emancipation Proclamation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read the first three paragraphs.

Let's put myths to rest

You and I are going to have to agree to disagree, because we're not going to convince one another.

Believe me when I say that you don't have to tell me about the many failings of Abraham Lincoln.

 

[editec]

You're correct, this was quite the contradiction. As I've stated, however, at the time nobody really believed that African-Americans were people at all. They believed them to be nothing more than animalistic savages, and that they were doing them a favor. I'm not condoning this, but it's a fact. On the issue of slavery and the treatment of African-Americans,

Nonsense. You have been misinformed.

I was previleged to know and speak with a great grandmother who lived in GETTYBURG during the civil war. She HEARD Abe Lincoln give the Gettysburg address.

She was a Moravian, FYI. One of those weird early Protestant sects (predating Lutheranism for example by a century or so) that hated all forms of slavery because they'd been slaves themselves.

You want to know how her religion and she described slavery in her own words?

"An affront to GOD"​

So your theory, that people in those days all thought that slavery was okay, because Balcks were savages, is nothing more than historical revisionism, chum.

It is an apology for slavers. Everyone knew what slavery was...even the people representing the Southern states during the constiutional convention knew it was wrong, and they also knew it was doomed.

They just didn't know how to get rid of it without destroying their economy...and they knew that in 1789!

my argument is that the founders and early Americans went against the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution themselves.

It was a hypocracritical document from the outset.

Those laws were un-Constitutional.

Not sure which laws you're talking about.

I disagree. Every other major nation had already emancipated their slaves, and there would have been pressure on the United States to do the same from within and without the nation. Also, as I stated, slavery was un-Constitutional even before the 13th amendment.

The law is a man made. As such, it can be completely wrong.

And worse, it's a self referential system.

Once a mistake is made by a court, and precedent made, that mistake becomes part of the law which justifies continuing that mistake.


The floundering fathers got a LOT of stuff wrong, from our 2008 perspective.

From their perspective and in their time, of course, they were screaming liberals who were getting it righter than any other government known to man.

They were the leftist radicals of their day.

Ironic, no?

 

[nia588]

The Democrats have done such a great job in Congress for the past 2 years. It's gonna be great with Obama!

like the republicans have done any better

 

[Luc1]

The only reason the democrats haven't done much in the last two years is because Bush vetos absolutely everything they propose. It should be obvious to everyone that stuff only gets done when someone is either willing to cross party lines or both congress and the president are of the same party: Bush has never done this.

 

[Modbert]

Time to get back on-topic.

Does anyone disagree with me and thinks we should blindly trust our government?

I hope not.

 

[bk1983]

Time to get back on-topic.

Does anyone disagree with me and thinks we should blindly trust our government?

I hope not.

Lately it seems everyone who envokes their right to question the government is called unpatriotic. The Iraq war is a conflict resulting from that blind trust, the fact we are still there is proof that we the people have no power, and that our sole purpose is to further the interests of the gov't.

 

[editec]

Time to get back on-topic.

Does anyone disagree with me and thinks we should blindly trust our government?

I hope not.

Does anyone think we should blindly trust anything?

Should we blindly trust corporate power?

Should we blindly trust the invisible hand of the market?

I think it's safe to say, Robert, that given the way you structured your question, you didn't really expect anyone to disagree with you.

 

[N4mddissent]

Time to get back on-topic.

Does anyone disagree with me and thinks we should blindly trust our government?

I hope not.

Of course not. If Jefferson wasn't dead, just that suggestion would have killed him.

 

[Modbert]

Does anyone think we should blindly trust anything?

Should we blindly trust corporate power?

Should we blindly trust the invisible hand of the market?

I think it's safe to say, Robert, that given the way you structured your question, you didn't really expect anyone to disagree with you.

We should not blindly trust anything.

However, the past eight years that is what a great portion of this country has given to our government.

And you would be right, I don't expect anyone to disagree with me. However editec, you forget two thing.

1.) I'm me and 2.) We're on USMB.

So someone will disagree with me probably.

 

[N4mddissent]

Does anyone think we should blindly trust anything?

Should we blindly trust corporate power?

Should we blindly trust the invisible hand of the market?

I think it's safe to say, Robert, that given the way you structured your question, you didn't really expect anyone to disagree with you.

I think an interesting question along these lines would be:

Should we blindly trust our religious beliefs/leaders/ideology?

Blind trust is synonymous with faith after all. And it would even tie into some of the earlier discussions about slavery and abortion, because in both of those instances, religious arguments are or were an important part of the debate. I personally think the intentional absence of any mention of god in the Constitution and the several portions emphasizing separation are the result of the framer's enlightenment view that even one's religious tenents must not be taken for granted as moral or correct- thus a secular constitution that does not have to declare one belief superior to any other.

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson