You google slavery in the constitution and then you ask me if i have taken a US history class  . I dont know if youre question is insinuating an insult, but to answer your question, Im sure everyone takes US history somewhere between 1-12 grade.
I know why it had to be changed. I also know something in today's day and age that reassembles the AoC, do you (withou using google)? The point was that the reason the southern states agreed to it was for 2 main reasons 1. BoR and 2. nothing was added to protect slaves(not the act of slavery)
That was covered by checks and balances. Thats why the branches are setup in a way that prevents any branch from becoming to powerful(google checks and balances). The BoR were demanded by the the anti-federalists(southerners) to protect themselves. Another thing about your BoR, in the beginning they only applied to the federal government and not to the state governments(google it and you will realize that there are still 1 or 2 amendments in the BoR that only apply to the federal government).
lol you criticize people for not thinking then you say this. They wanted slavery( the act of being able to have slaves) to be protected NOT slaves. Which goes back to my point as one of the main reasons why the southern states agreed to the new constitution.
you want to have a serious argument but you went from ccn's article to slavery and the constitution. Even after I explained common knowledge regarding our history youre still going to continue arguing for no reason.
Note: what im telling you is coming from the libary in my brain, i dont need google to make my argument. |
When I talk from what I know, you criticize me for not citing sources. So I cite a source, and you criticize me for backing up what I know with a reliable source.
Hypocrisy, much?
I don't think we need to continue talking about the history of constitution/slavery/whatever, it has derailed far too much. Can we just agree that slavery is bad, and humans were selfish to support it? People like to deny rights to others if it doesn't effect them or anyone they care for. The south supporting slavery proved this.
I used an example that is hopefully universally accepted(that slavery was morally corrupt and the product of human selfishness) to prove that humans do not care for the rights of others they don't care about. I didn't intend for it to derail.
Yet my point still stands. No point in arguing with the example I used, I just wanted you to understand that we(the people as a whole) determine as a society was wrong or good. Every law in existence was created by people, thats how this thing works. The point is to live in harmony within our community/society.
|
I don't see how its easy to "live in harmony with our community/society" when people are so hateful and wishing to deny rights. We're incarcerating people for victimless crimes, which wastes hard earned money that's collected in the form of taxes used to fund prisons. Not only are you ruining these people's lives for things that don't harm anyone else, just because you dislike them, but you're wasting the hard work of law abiding citizens.
I don't like the idea of 30% of my paycheck going to Uncle Sam just so they can waste it on things that don't do good. It's a waste of resources.