Discussion:
Vanderbilt Prof Docks Student for Refusing to Agree That Constitution is White Supremacist
Add Reply
BTR1701
2020-09-04 08:03:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/

A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.

According to Kara Zupkus of the Young America's Foundation (YAF), the
required quiz was part of a class on the 2020 U.S. elections taught by
university professors Josh Clinton, Eunji Kim, Dean John Geer, and Jon
Meacham, the same Jon Meacham who spoke on behalf of former Vice President
Joe Biden at Democrats' virtual convention just two weeks ago.

According to YAF, the class syllabus deems the course "the largest class
that Vanderbilt has ever taught".

Vanderbilt University did not immediately respond to The Federalist's
request for comment.

The idea that the U.S. Constitution was designed to perpetuate racial
oppression is a core message of the Left's cultural revolution to re-write
history, most notably embedded in The New York Times' anti-American "1619
Project". That project is now in thousands of U.S. public school
classrooms.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-09-04 08:45:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
According to Kara Zupkus of the Young America's Foundation (YAF), the
required quiz was part of a class on the 2020 U.S. elections taught by
university professors Josh Clinton, Eunji Kim, Dean John Geer, and Jon
Meacham, the same Jon Meacham who spoke on behalf of former Vice President
Joe Biden at Democrats' virtual convention just two weeks ago.
According to YAF, the class syllabus deems the course "the largest class
that Vanderbilt has ever taught".
Vanderbilt University did not immediately respond to The Federalist's
request for comment.
The idea that the U.S. Constitution was designed to perpetuate racial
oppression is a core message of the Left's cultural revolution to re-write
history, most notably embedded in The New York Times' anti-American "1619
Project". That project is now in thousands of U.S. public school
classrooms.
No one tell the professor that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were
entirely voted upon by white people and intended to thwart racial
oppression of newly freed men and women. Is that white supremacy too or
are amendments simply not part of the Constitution?

I was taught that the Constitution -- specifically the Senate -- was
designed to prevent abolitionists from abolishing slavery. The emphasis
is entirely different.

The vast majority of white farmers did not own slaves. It was just the
elite. They weren't supreme white people via slave owning.
suzeeq
2020-09-04 14:44:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
According to Kara Zupkus of the Young America's Foundation (YAF), the
required quiz was part of a class on the 2020 U.S. elections taught by
university professors Josh Clinton, Eunji Kim, Dean John Geer, and Jon
Meacham, the same Jon Meacham who spoke on behalf of former Vice President
Joe Biden at Democrats' virtual convention just two weeks ago.
According to YAF, the class syllabus deems the course "the largest class
that Vanderbilt has ever taught".
Vanderbilt University did not immediately respond to The Federalist's
request for comment.
The idea that the U.S. Constitution was designed to perpetuate racial
oppression is a core message of the Left's cultural revolution to re-write
history, most notably embedded in The New York Times' anti-American "1619
Project". That project is now in thousands of U.S. public school
classrooms.
No one tell the professor that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were
entirely voted upon by white people and intended to thwart racial
oppression of newly freed men and women. Is that white supremacy too or
are amendments simply not part of the Constitution?
I was taught that the Constitution -- specifically the Senate -- was
designed to prevent abolitionists from abolishing slavery. The emphasis
is entirely different.
The vast majority of white farmers did not own slaves. It was just the
elite. They weren't supreme white people via slave owning.
Apparently my GGGrandfather had a couple slaves. The family wasn't
exactly elite either.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-09-04 16:18:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by suzeeq
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
According to Kara Zupkus of the Young America's Foundation (YAF), the
required quiz was part of a class on the 2020 U.S. elections taught by
university professors Josh Clinton, Eunji Kim, Dean John Geer, and Jon
Meacham, the same Jon Meacham who spoke on behalf of former Vice President
Joe Biden at Democrats' virtual convention just two weeks ago.
According to YAF, the class syllabus deems the course "the largest class
that Vanderbilt has ever taught".
Vanderbilt University did not immediately respond to The Federalist's
request for comment.
The idea that the U.S. Constitution was designed to perpetuate racial
oppression is a core message of the Left's cultural revolution to re-write
history, most notably embedded in The New York Times' anti-American "1619
Project". That project is now in thousands of U.S. public school
classrooms.
No one tell the professor that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were
entirely voted upon by white people and intended to thwart racial
oppression of newly freed men and women. Is that white supremacy too or
are amendments simply not part of the Constitution?
I was taught that the Constitution -- specifically the Senate -- was
designed to prevent abolitionists from abolishing slavery. The emphasis
is entirely different.
The vast majority of white farmers did not own slaves. It was just the
elite. They weren't supreme white people via slave owning.
Apparently my GGGrandfather had a couple slaves. The family wasn't
exactly elite either.
Did he fight in the Civil War to defend his right to do so?
suzeeq
2020-09-04 16:56:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by suzeeq
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
According to Kara Zupkus of the Young America's Foundation (YAF), the
required quiz was part of a class on the 2020 U.S. elections taught by
university professors Josh Clinton, Eunji Kim, Dean John Geer, and Jon
Meacham, the same Jon Meacham who spoke on behalf of former Vice President
Joe Biden at Democrats' virtual convention just two weeks ago.
According to YAF, the class syllabus deems the course "the largest class
that Vanderbilt has ever taught".
Vanderbilt University did not immediately respond to The Federalist's
request for comment.
The idea that the U.S. Constitution was designed to perpetuate racial
oppression is a core message of the Left's cultural revolution to re-write
history, most notably embedded in The New York Times' anti-American "1619
Project". That project is now in thousands of U.S. public school
classrooms.
No one tell the professor that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were
entirely voted upon by white people and intended to thwart racial
oppression of newly freed men and women. Is that white supremacy too or
are amendments simply not part of the Constitution?
I was taught that the Constitution -- specifically the Senate -- was
designed to prevent abolitionists from abolishing slavery. The emphasis
is entirely different.
The vast majority of white farmers did not own slaves. It was just the
elite. They weren't supreme white people via slave owning.
Apparently my GGGrandfather had a couple slaves. The family wasn't
exactly elite either.
Did he fight in the Civil War to defend his right to do so?
His sons, my GGF and his brother did.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-09-04 18:43:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by suzeeq
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
According to Kara Zupkus of the Young America's Foundation (YAF), the
required quiz was part of a class on the 2020 U.S. elections taught by
university professors Josh Clinton, Eunji Kim, Dean John Geer, and Jon
Meacham, the same Jon Meacham who spoke on behalf of former Vice President
Joe Biden at Democrats' virtual convention just two weeks ago.
According to YAF, the class syllabus deems the course "the largest class
that Vanderbilt has ever taught".
Vanderbilt University did not immediately respond to The Federalist's
request for comment.
The idea that the U.S. Constitution was designed to perpetuate racial
oppression is a core message of the Left's cultural revolution to re-write
history, most notably embedded in The New York Times' anti-American "1619
Project". That project is now in thousands of U.S. public school
classrooms.
No one tell the professor that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were
entirely voted upon by white people and intended to thwart racial
oppression of newly freed men and women. Is that white supremacy too or
are amendments simply not part of the Constitution?
I was taught that the Constitution -- specifically the Senate -- was
designed to prevent abolitionists from abolishing slavery. The emphasis
is entirely different.
The vast majority of white farmers did not own slaves. It was just the
elite. They weren't supreme white people via slave owning.
Apparently my GGGrandfather had a couple slaves. The family wasn't
exactly elite either.
Did he fight in the Civil War to defend his right to do so?
His sons, my GGF and his brother did.
Interesting.
suzeeq
2020-09-04 18:48:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by suzeeq
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by suzeeq
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The vast majority of white farmers did not own slaves. It was just the
elite. They weren't supreme white people via slave owning.
Apparently my GGGrandfather had a couple slaves. The family wasn't
exactly elite either.
Did he fight in the Civil War to defend his right to do so?
His sons, my GGF and his brother did.
Interesting.
The family lived in the south until after the civil war. Starting with
an ancestor who settled in Jamestown 400 years ago, they stayed in VA
until 1798 and my branch moved to SC, then on to N AR. My GGF mustered
out of the confederate army in MO and stayed there, where my grandfather
was born.
David Johnston
2020-09-04 20:47:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
According to Kara Zupkus of the Young America's Foundation (YAF), the
required quiz was part of a class on the 2020 U.S. elections taught by
university professors Josh Clinton, Eunji Kim, Dean John Geer, and Jon
Meacham, the same Jon Meacham who spoke on behalf of former Vice President
Joe Biden at Democrats' virtual convention just two weeks ago.
According to YAF, the class syllabus deems the course "the largest class
that Vanderbilt has ever taught".
Vanderbilt University did not immediately respond to The Federalist's
request for comment.
The idea that the U.S. Constitution was designed to perpetuate racial
oppression is a core message of the Left's cultural revolution to re-write
history, most notably embedded in The New York Times' anti-American "1619
Project". That project is now in thousands of U.S. public school
classrooms.
No one tell the professor that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were
entirely voted upon by white people and intended to thwart racial
oppression of newly freed men and women. Is that white supremacy too or
are amendments simply not part of the Constitution?
The lecture would have been about the original version of the
Constitution. So first it was designed to perpetuate slavery and then it
was altered to outlaw it.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I was taught that the Constitution -- specifically the Senate -- was
designed to prevent abolitionists from abolishing slavery. The emphasis
is entirely different.
The vast majority of white farmers did not own slaves.
It was just the
Post by Adam H. Kerman
elite.
It wasn't just the elite. In the states that formed the Confederacy 30%
of the households had at least one slave. Although in the nation as a
whole it is true that a majority of white farmers did not own slaves.
For one thing half of them lived in states where slave ownership became
locally illegal.

Fun fact. The American Civil War is Canada's third deadliest war.


They weren't supreme white people via slave owning.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-09-04 22:15:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
According to Kara Zupkus of the Young America's Foundation (YAF), the
required quiz was part of a class on the 2020 U.S. elections taught by
university professors Josh Clinton, Eunji Kim, Dean John Geer, and Jon
Meacham, the same Jon Meacham who spoke on behalf of former Vice President
Joe Biden at Democrats' virtual convention just two weeks ago.
According to YAF, the class syllabus deems the course "the largest class
that Vanderbilt has ever taught".
Vanderbilt University did not immediately respond to The Federalist's
request for comment.
The idea that the U.S. Constitution was designed to perpetuate racial
oppression is a core message of the Left's cultural revolution to re-write
history, most notably embedded in The New York Times' anti-American "1619
Project". That project is now in thousands of U.S. public school
classrooms.
No one tell the professor that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were
entirely voted upon by white people and intended to thwart racial
oppression of newly freed men and women. Is that white supremacy too or
are amendments simply not part of the Constitution?
The lecture would have been about the original version of the Constitution.
No. The lecture was about perpetuating white slavery and protecting the
institution of slavery. You seem to have missed the critical bit. I'm
making the unsubtle and obvious point that not every white man who
contributed critical language to the Constitution was interested in
perpetuating white supremacy.
So first it was designed to perpetuate slavery and then it
was altered to outlaw it.
You may believe that if you like, if you get off on revisionism. Why
would you, of all people, defend the critical lack of academic freedom
that won't tolerate a reasonable conclusion reached by a student again
an unreasonable interpretation of a lecturer?
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I was taught that the Constitution -- specifically the Senate -- was
designed to prevent abolitionists from abolishing slavery. The emphasis
is entirely different.
The vast majority of white farmers did not own slaves. It was just
the elite.
It wasn't just the elite. In the states that formed the Confederacy 30%
of the households had at least one slave. Although in the nation as a
whole it is true that a majority of white farmers did not own slaves.
For one thing half of them lived in states where slave ownership became
locally illegal.
Who perpetuated the war: The elites of southern society, or the small
family farmers with one or a handful of slaves?

Can you explain how an 18th century society interested in nothing more
than white supremacy and perpetuating the institution of slavery allowed
slavery to be abolished in half the country? I'm so confused.
Fun fact. The American Civil War is Canada's third deadliest war.
They weren't supreme white people via slave owning.
I know nothing about this. That's interesting.
David Johnston
2020-09-05 05:02:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
According to Kara Zupkus of the Young America's Foundation (YAF), the
required quiz was part of a class on the 2020 U.S. elections taught by
university professors Josh Clinton, Eunji Kim, Dean John Geer, and Jon
Meacham, the same Jon Meacham who spoke on behalf of former Vice President
Joe Biden at Democrats' virtual convention just two weeks ago.
According to YAF, the class syllabus deems the course "the largest class
that Vanderbilt has ever taught".
Vanderbilt University did not immediately respond to The Federalist's
request for comment.
The idea that the U.S. Constitution was designed to perpetuate racial
oppression is a core message of the Left's cultural revolution to re-write
history, most notably embedded in The New York Times' anti-American "1619
Project". That project is now in thousands of U.S. public school
classrooms.
No one tell the professor that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were
entirely voted upon by white people and intended to thwart racial
oppression of newly freed men and women. Is that white supremacy too or
are amendments simply not part of the Constitution?
The lecture would have been about the original version of the Constitution.
No. The lecture was about perpetuating white slavery and protecting the
institution of slavery.
I strongly suspect the lecture was about things like the 3/5ths
compromise and the fugitive slave clause. Which is to say the
Constitution as it was originally written. These things did serve to
protect the institution of slavery. As for "white supremacy"...well
that was where the social conflict shifted to after the war.

You seem to have missed the critical bit. I'm
Post by Adam H. Kerman
making the unsubtle and obvious point that not every white man who
contributed critical language to the Constitution was interested in
perpetuating white supremacy.
Yes, you're using the people from more than 3 generations later than the
time frame the professor was talking about.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
So first it was designed to perpetuate slavery and then it
was altered to outlaw it.
You may believe that if you like, if you get off on revisionism.
The Fugitive Slave clause is not exactly made up of whole cloth.


Why
Post by Adam H. Kerman
would you, of all people, defend the critical lack of academic freedom
that won't tolerate a reasonable conclusion reached by a student again
an unreasonable interpretation of a lecturer?
I didn't. As I said, the proposition was only half-true and therefore a
poorly formed question.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I was taught that the Constitution -- specifically the Senate -- was
designed to prevent abolitionists from abolishing slavery. The emphasis
is entirely different.
The vast majority of white farmers did not own slaves. It was just
the elite.
It wasn't just the elite. In the states that formed the Confederacy 30%
of the households had at least one slave. Although in the nation as a
whole it is true that a majority of white farmers did not own slaves.
For one thing half of them lived in states where slave ownership became
locally illegal.
Who perpetuated the war: The elites of southern society, or the small
family farmers with one or a handful of slaves?
Well both of them of course assuming you meant perpetrated this time.
As well as people who didn't have any slaves at all.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Can you explain how an 18th century society interested in nothing more
than white supremacy and perpetuating the institution of slavery allowed
slavery to be abolished in half the country? I'm so confused.
I never characterized the United States of the 18th century has being
interested in nothing more than perpetuating the institution of slavery.
The protection of slavery in the United States Constitution was a
compromise between differing parties required to keep the new states
from each going their own way. Abolitionism was already up and running
as a movement in Pennsylvania and Benjamin Franklin joined up with the
first abolitionist society.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Fun fact. The American Civil War is Canada's third deadliest war.
I know nothing about this. That's interesting.
About 50,000 Canadians served and four attained the rank of general.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-09-05 06:07:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to
perpetuate white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery,"
according to screenshots of the quiz result.
According to Kara Zupkus of the Young America's Foundation (YAF), the
required quiz was part of a class on the 2020 U.S. elections taught by
university professors Josh Clinton, Eunji Kim, Dean John Geer, and Jon
Meacham, the same Jon Meacham who spoke on behalf of former Vice President
Joe Biden at Democrats' virtual convention just two weeks ago.
According to YAF, the class syllabus deems the course "the largest class
that Vanderbilt has ever taught".
Vanderbilt University did not immediately respond to The Federalist's
request for comment.
The idea that the U.S. Constitution was designed to perpetuate racial
oppression is a core message of the Left's cultural revolution to re-write
history, most notably embedded in The New York Times' anti-American "1619
Project". That project is now in thousands of U.S. public school
classrooms.
No one tell the professor that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were
entirely voted upon by white people and intended to thwart racial
oppression of newly freed men and women. Is that white supremacy too or
are amendments simply not part of the Constitution?
The lecture would have been about the original version of the Constitution.
No. The lecture was about perpetuating white slavery and protecting the
institution of slavery.
I strongly suspect the lecture was about things like the 3/5ths
compromise and the fugitive slave clause.
All I can go by is what's written in the article. Let's assume the
article didn't make up the emphasis on perpetuating white supremacy out
of whole cloth, shall we? It makes it easier to discuss the article.
Post by David Johnston
Which is to say the Constitution as it was originally written. These
things did serve to protect the institution of slavery. As for "white
supremacy"...well that was where the social conflict shifted to after
the war.
So the lecture entirely skipped Reconstruction and all those liberal
civil rights laws enacted by white men. How do we know that they even
left the 18th century?

Can we skip the bit where you insist that Southern whites generally were
the ones demanding supremacy through Jim Crow, and I have to respond
that scapegoating of blacks was done to keep the elites in power and to
distract the poor whites from their troubles through the expedience of
blaming it on blacks?
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
You seem to have missed the critical bit. I'm making the unsubtle and
obvious point that not every white man who contributed critical language
to the Constitution was interested in perpetuating white supremacy.
Yes, you're using the people from more than 3 generations later than the
time frame the professor was talking about.
I don't think so. A great many of the Founding Fathers, at least the
ones not from Virginia and the rest of the South, were liberals. These
were ideas from the Age of Enlightenment and didn't originate in
America.

We have no shortage of unelightened people in any era, including our
current time. Some of them hold great political power.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
So first it was designed to perpetuate slavery and then it
was altered to outlaw it.
You may believe that if you like, if you get off on revisionism.
The Fugitive Slave clause is not exactly made up of whole cloth.
That clause supports my position that I was taught history with a more
reasonable interpretation than what these kids are getting. The word
"slavery" isn't found in this clause or anywhere else. There wasn't to
be federal law authorizing slavery at the founding of the Republic.

The Constitution was written so that the South would join the republic.
It was written in such a way that the South sticking together to support
the continuation of slavery would be able to thwart political moves by
abolitionists to use federal law to sunset slavery.

The distinction between the two interpretations is rather important.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Why would you, of all people, defend the critical lack of academic freedom
that won't tolerate a reasonable conclusion reached by a student again
an unreasonable interpretation of a lecturer?
I didn't. As I said, the proposition was only half-true and therefore a
poorly formed question.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I was taught that the Constitution -- specifically the Senate -- was
designed to prevent abolitionists from abolishing slavery. The emphasis
is entirely different.
The vast majority of white farmers did not own slaves. It was just
the elite.
It wasn't just the elite. In the states that formed the Confederacy 30%
of the households had at least one slave. Although in the nation as a
whole it is true that a majority of white farmers did not own slaves.
For one thing half of them lived in states where slave ownership became
locally illegal.
Who perpetuated the war: The elites of southern society, or the small
family farmers with one or a handful of slaves?
Well both of them of course assuming you meant perpetrated this time.
As well as people who didn't have any slaves at all.
Sorry; wrong word.

Who is responsible for getting the United States into civil war: The
elites or the small family farmers, some of whom could afford to own a
few slaves?

The elite held all elective offices personally or through patronage. Any
opposition was kept out of public office.

It's impossible to blame the war on the poor, or the even the more
prosperous family farmers.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Can you explain how an 18th century society interested in nothing more
than white supremacy and perpetuating the institution of slavery allowed
slavery to be abolished in half the country? I'm so confused.
I never characterized the United States of the 18th century has being
interested in nothing more than perpetuating the institution of slavery.
So you're ducking the more imporant white supremacy bullshit. Got it.
Post by David Johnston
The protection of slavery in the United States Constitution was a
compromise between differing parties required to keep the new states
from each going their own way. Abolitionism was already up and running
as a movement in Pennsylvania and Benjamin Franklin joined up with the
first abolitionist society.
Ok.

Let's hear your thoughts on the lecturer's claims about white supremacy
in the 18th century.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Fun fact. The American Civil War is Canada's third deadliest war.
I know nothing about this. That's interesting.
About 50,000 Canadians served and four attained the rank of general.
I had no idea. Thanks. Any on the side of the Confederacy?
David Johnston
2020-09-05 07:08:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to
perpetuate white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery,"
according to screenshots of the quiz result.
According to Kara Zupkus of the Young America's Foundation (YAF), the
required quiz was part of a class on the 2020 U.S. elections taught by
university professors Josh Clinton, Eunji Kim, Dean John Geer, and Jon
Meacham, the same Jon Meacham who spoke on behalf of former Vice President
Joe Biden at Democrats' virtual convention just two weeks ago.
According to YAF, the class syllabus deems the course "the largest class
that Vanderbilt has ever taught".
Vanderbilt University did not immediately respond to The Federalist's
request for comment.
The idea that the U.S. Constitution was designed to perpetuate racial
oppression is a core message of the Left's cultural revolution to re-write
history, most notably embedded in The New York Times' anti-American "1619
Project". That project is now in thousands of U.S. public school
classrooms.
No one tell the professor that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were
entirely voted upon by white people and intended to thwart racial
oppression of newly freed men and women. Is that white supremacy too or
are amendments simply not part of the Constitution?
The lecture would have been about the original version of the Constitution.
No. The lecture was about perpetuating white slavery and protecting the
institution of slavery.
I strongly suspect the lecture was about things like the 3/5ths
compromise and the fugitive slave clause.
All I can go by is what's written in the article. Let's assume the
article didn't make up the emphasis on perpetuating white supremacy out
of whole cloth, shall we? It makes it easier to discuss the article.
Post by David Johnston
Which is to say the Constitution as it was originally written. These
things did serve to protect the institution of slavery. As for "white
supremacy"...well that was where the social conflict shifted to after
the war.
So the lecture entirely skipped Reconstruction and all those liberal
civil rights laws enacted by white men.
Skipped? How can one skip things from a time frame a century after the
one being discussed?

How do we know that they even
Post by Adam H. Kerman
left the 18th century?
Can we skip the bit where you insist that Southern whites generally were
the ones demanding supremacy through Jim Crow, and I have to respond
that scapegoating of blacks was done to keep the elites in power and to
distract the poor whites from their troubles through the expedience of
blaming it on blacks?
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
You seem to have missed the critical bit. I'm making the unsubtle and
obvious point that not every white man who contributed critical language
to the Constitution was interested in perpetuating white supremacy.
Yes, you're using the people from more than 3 generations later than the
time frame the professor was talking about.
I don't think so. A great many of the Founding Fathers, at least the
ones not from Virginia and the rest of the South, were liberals. These
were ideas from the Age of Enlightenment and didn't originate in
America.
We have no shortage of unelightened people in any era, including our
current time. Some of them hold great political power.
Yes. They did. That that power led to the creation the 3/5ths
compromise, the fugitive slave clause and the electoral college.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
So first it was designed to perpetuate slavery and then it
was altered to outlaw it.
You may believe that if you like, if you get off on revisionism.
The Fugitive Slave clause is not exactly made up of whole cloth.
That clause supports my position that I was taught history with a more
reasonable interpretation than what these kids are getting. The word
"slavery" isn't found in this clause or anywhere else.
It's still the Fugitive Slave clause even though they called them
"persons held to service or labor" and "other persons" in the
Enumeration Clause and "such persons as any of the states now existing
shall think proper to admit" in Article 1 Section 9. Those references,
however mealy-mouthed were sufficient to mean that it took an amendment
to undo them.

There wasn't to
Post by Adam H. Kerman
be federal law authorizing slavery at the founding of the Republic.
The Constitution was written so that the South would join the republic.
It was written in such a way that the South sticking together to support
the continuation of slavery would be able to thwart political moves by
abolitionists to use federal law to sunset slavery.
The distinction between the two interpretations is rather important.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Why would you, of all people, defend the critical lack of academic freedom
that won't tolerate a reasonable conclusion reached by a student again
an unreasonable interpretation of a lecturer?
I didn't. As I said, the proposition was only half-true and therefore a
poorly formed question.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I was taught that the Constitution -- specifically the Senate -- was
designed to prevent abolitionists from abolishing slavery. The emphasis
is entirely different.
The vast majority of white farmers did not own slaves. It was just
the elite.
It wasn't just the elite. In the states that formed the Confederacy 30%
of the households had at least one slave. Although in the nation as a
whole it is true that a majority of white farmers did not own slaves.
For one thing half of them lived in states where slave ownership became
locally illegal.
Who perpetuated the war: The elites of southern society, or the small
family farmers with one or a handful of slaves?
Well both of them of course assuming you meant perpetrated this time.
As well as people who didn't have any slaves at all.
Sorry; wrong word.
Who is responsible for getting the United States into civil war: The
elites or the small family farmers, some of whom could afford to own a
few slaves?
The elite held all elective offices personally or through patronage. Any
opposition was kept out of public office.
It's impossible to blame the war on the poor, or the even the more
prosperous family farmers.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Can you explain how an 18th century society interested in nothing more
than white supremacy and perpetuating the institution of slavery allowed
slavery to be abolished in half the country? I'm so confused.
I never characterized the United States of the 18th century has being
interested in nothing more than perpetuating the institution of slavery.
So you're ducking the more imporant white supremacy bullshit. Got it.
I think white supremacy was pretty much taken for granted until after
the war.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
The protection of slavery in the United States Constitution was a
compromise between differing parties required to keep the new states
from each going their own way. Abolitionism was already up and running
as a movement in Pennsylvania and Benjamin Franklin joined up with the
first abolitionist society.
Ok.
Let's hear your thoughts on the lecturer's claims about white supremacy
in the 18th century.
Well the slavery was racially based. And yeah the enumeration clause
was written with the baked assumption that black people would not be
voting and so counted for less.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Fun fact. The American Civil War is Canada's third deadliest war.
I know nothing about this. That's interesting.
About 50,000 Canadians served and four attained the rank of general.
I had no idea. Thanks. Any on the side of the Confederacy?
Some. Actually we're not sure how many because the Confederacy trashed
their records prior to surrender.
FPP
2020-09-05 07:26:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to
perpetuate white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery,"
according to screenshots of the quiz result.
According to Kara Zupkus of the Young America's Foundation (YAF), the
required quiz was part of a class on the 2020 U.S. elections taught by
university professors Josh Clinton, Eunji Kim, Dean John Geer, and Jon
Meacham, the same Jon Meacham who spoke on behalf of former Vice President
Joe Biden at Democrats' virtual convention just two weeks ago.
According to YAF, the class syllabus deems the course "the largest class
that Vanderbilt has ever taught".
Vanderbilt University did not immediately respond to The
Federalist's
request for comment.
The idea that the U.S. Constitution was designed to perpetuate racial
oppression is a core message of the Left's cultural revolution to re-write
history, most notably embedded in The New York Times'
anti-American "1619
Project". That project is now in thousands of U.S. public school
classrooms.
No one tell the professor that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were
entirely voted upon by white people and intended to thwart racial
oppression of newly freed men and women. Is that white supremacy too or
are amendments simply not part of the Constitution?
The lecture would have been about the original version of the Constitution.
No. The lecture was about perpetuating white slavery and protecting the
institution of slavery.
I strongly suspect the lecture was about things like the 3/5ths
compromise and the fugitive slave clause.
All I can go by is what's written in the article. Let's assume the
article didn't make up the emphasis on perpetuating white supremacy out
of whole cloth, shall we? It makes it easier to discuss the article.
Post by David Johnston
Which is to say the Constitution as it was originally written. These
things did serve to protect the institution of slavery.  As for "white
supremacy"...well that was where the social conflict shifted to after
the war.
So the lecture entirely skipped Reconstruction and all those liberal
civil rights laws enacted by white men.
Skipped?  How can one skip things from a time frame a century after the
one being discussed?
How do we know that they even
Post by Adam H. Kerman
left the 18th century?
Can we skip the bit where you insist that Southern whites generally were
the ones demanding supremacy through Jim Crow, and I have to respond
that scapegoating of blacks was done to keep the elites in power and to
distract the poor whites from their troubles through the expedience of
blaming it on blacks?
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
You seem to have missed the critical bit. I'm making the unsubtle and
obvious point that not every white man who contributed critical language
to the Constitution was interested in perpetuating white supremacy.
Yes, you're using the people from more than 3 generations later than the
time frame the professor was talking about.
I don't think so. A great many of the Founding Fathers, at least the
ones not from Virginia and the rest of the South, were liberals. These
were ideas from the Age of Enlightenment and didn't originate in
America.
We have no shortage of unelightened people in any era, including our
current time. Some of them hold great political power.
Yes.  They did.  That that power led to the creation the 3/5ths
compromise, the fugitive slave clause and the electoral college.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
So first it was designed to perpetuate slavery and then it
was altered to outlaw it.
You may believe that if you like, if you get off on revisionism.
The Fugitive Slave clause is not exactly made up of whole cloth.
That clause supports my position that I was taught history with a more
reasonable interpretation than what these kids are getting. The word
"slavery" isn't found in this clause or anywhere else.
It's still the Fugitive Slave clause even though they called them
"persons held to service or labor" and "other persons" in the
Enumeration Clause and "such persons as any of the states now existing
shall think proper to admit" in Article 1 Section 9.  Those references,
however mealy-mouthed were sufficient to mean that it took an amendment
to undo them.
There wasn't to
Post by Adam H. Kerman
be federal law authorizing slavery at the founding of the Republic.
The Constitution was written so that the South would join the republic.
It was written in such a way that the South sticking together to support
the continuation of slavery would be able to thwart political moves by
abolitionists to use federal law to sunset slavery.
The distinction between the two interpretations is rather important.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Why would you, of all people, defend the critical lack of academic freedom
that won't tolerate a reasonable conclusion reached by a student again
an unreasonable interpretation of a lecturer?
I didn't.  As I said, the proposition was only half-true and therefore a
poorly formed question.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I was taught that the Constitution --  specifically the Senate -- was
designed to prevent abolitionists from abolishing slavery. The emphasis
is entirely different.
The vast majority of white farmers did not own slaves.  It was just
the elite.
It wasn't just the elite.  In the states that formed the
Confederacy 30%
of the households had at least one slave.  Although in the nation as a
whole it is true that a majority of white farmers did not own slaves.
For one thing half of them lived in states where slave ownership became
locally illegal.
Who perpetuated the war: The elites of southern society, or the small
family farmers with one or a handful of slaves?
Well both of them of course assuming you meant perpetrated this time.
As well as people who didn't have any slaves at all.
Sorry; wrong word.
Who is responsible for getting the United States into civil war: The
elites or the small family farmers, some of whom could afford to own a
few slaves?
The elite held all elective offices personally or through patronage. Any
opposition was kept out of public office.
It's impossible to blame the war on the poor, or the even the more
prosperous family farmers.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Can you explain how an 18th century society interested in nothing more
than white supremacy and perpetuating the institution of slavery allowed
slavery to be abolished in half the country? I'm so confused.
I never characterized the United States of the 18th century has being
interested in nothing more than perpetuating the institution of slavery.
So you're ducking the more imporant white supremacy bullshit. Got it.
I think white supremacy was pretty much taken for granted until after
the war.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
  The protection of slavery in the United States Constitution was a
compromise between differing parties required to keep the new states
from each going their own way.  Abolitionism was already up and
running as a movement in Pennsylvania and Benjamin Franklin joined up
with the
first abolitionist society.
Ok.
Let's hear your thoughts on the lecturer's claims about white supremacy
in the 18th century.
Well the slavery was racially based.  And yeah the enumeration clause
was written with the baked assumption that black people would not be
voting and so counted for less.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Fun fact.  The American Civil War is Canada's third deadliest war.
I know nothing about this. That's interesting.
About 50,000 Canadians served and four attained the rank of general.
I had no idea. Thanks. Any on the side of the Confederacy?
Some.  Actually we're not sure how many because the Confederacy trashed
their records prior to surrender.
The Constitution refers to 'all other persons'. Those were the slaves.
John Adams called it 'a fig leaf' in his argument to SCOTUS in the
Amistad case.
"The words slave and slavery are studiously excluded from the Constitution. Circumlocutions are the fig-leaves under which the parts of the body politic are decently concealed."
They knew what they were doing. And they knew enough to disguise it
with a pretty coat of linguistic white paint.
--
"We can never have a situation where things are going on as they are
today..." - President Donald J Bumblefuck (Aug. 27, 2020 - RNC Convention)

"Trump inherited the longest economic expansion in history from Barack
Obama and Joe Biden...and then, like everything else he inherited, he
ran it straight into the ground." - Kamala Harris

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
Adam H. Kerman
2020-09-05 17:00:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to
perpetuate white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery,"
according to screenshots of the quiz result.
According to Kara Zupkus of the Young America's Foundation (YAF), the
required quiz was part of a class on the 2020 U.S. elections taught by
university professors Josh Clinton, Eunji Kim, Dean John Geer, and Jon
Meacham, the same Jon Meacham who spoke on behalf of former Vice
President
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Joe Biden at Democrats' virtual convention just two weeks ago.
According to YAF, the class syllabus deems the course "the largest class
that Vanderbilt has ever taught".
Vanderbilt University did not immediately respond to The Federalist's
request for comment.
The idea that the U.S. Constitution was designed to perpetuate racial
oppression is a core message of the Left's cultural revolution to
re-write
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
history, most notably embedded in The New York Times' anti-American "1619
Project". That project is now in thousands of U.S. public school
classrooms.
No one tell the professor that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were
entirely voted upon by white people and intended to thwart racial
oppression of newly freed men and women. Is that white supremacy too or
are amendments simply not part of the Constitution?
The lecture would have been about the original version of the Constitution.
No. The lecture was about perpetuating white slavery and protecting the
institution of slavery.
I strongly suspect the lecture was about things like the 3/5ths
compromise and the fugitive slave clause.
All I can go by is what's written in the article. Let's assume the
article didn't make up the emphasis on perpetuating white supremacy out
of whole cloth, shall we? It makes it easier to discuss the article.
Post by David Johnston
Which is to say the Constitution as it was originally written. These
things did serve to protect the institution of slavery. As for "white
supremacy"...well that was where the social conflict shifted to after
the war.
So the lecture entirely skipped Reconstruction and all those liberal
civil rights laws enacted by white men.
Skipped? How can one skip things from a time frame a century after the
one being discussed?
I'm addressing the bit that you completely made up that the "perpetuate
white supremacy" portion of the lecture wasn't about the Founding
Fathers and their era but those who passed Jim Crow laws
post-Reconstruction.
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
How do we know that they even left the 18th century?
Can we skip the bit where you insist that Southern whites generally were
the ones demanding supremacy through Jim Crow, and I have to respond
that scapegoating of blacks was done to keep the elites in power and to
distract the poor whites from their troubles through the expedience of
blaming it on blacks?
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
You seem to have missed the critical bit. I'm making the unsubtle and
obvious point that not every white man who contributed critical language
to the Constitution was interested in perpetuating white supremacy.
Yes, you're using the people from more than 3 generations later than the
time frame the professor was talking about.
I don't think so. A great many of the Founding Fathers, at least the
ones not from Virginia and the rest of the South, were liberals. These
were ideas from the Age of Enlightenment and didn't originate in
America.
We have no shortage of unelightened people in any era, including our
current time. Some of them hold great political power.
Yes. They did. That that power led to the creation the 3/5ths
compromise, the fugitive slave clause and the electoral college.
The Electoral College? You don't know what you're talking about. That
was an anti-Virginia thing to give a slight advantage to small states to
gain their support. Nothing to do with perpetuation of slavery at all.

It's the Senate, not the Electoral College. Furthermore, the president's
opinion isn't directly relevant on what laws Congress passes, is it.
It's influence, not power.

The three-fifths compromise was over-the-top appeasement of the South,
in my opinion. They got the Senate. They should not have been allowed to
count the slave population in apportionment at all. But my opinion
counts for shit.
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
So first it was designed to perpetuate slavery and then it
was altered to outlaw it.
You may believe that if you like, if you get off on revisionism.
The Fugitive Slave clause is not exactly made up of whole cloth.
That clause supports my position that I was taught history with a more
reasonable interpretation than what these kids are getting. The word
"slavery" isn't found in this clause or anywhere else.
It's still the Fugitive Slave clause even though they called them
"persons held to service or labor" and "other persons" in the
Enumeration Clause and "such persons as any of the states now existing
shall think proper to admit" in Article 1 Section 9. Those references,
however mealy-mouthed were sufficient to mean that it took an amendment
to undo them.
The purpose of the weasel language is to make it absolutely clear that
slavery hasn't been authorized in federal law.

How do you keep missing the obvious?
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
There wasn't to be federal law authorizing slavery at the founding of
the Republic.
I had just written that. You might have done me the courtesy of reading
it first before writing your followup.
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The Constitution was written so that the South would join the republic.
It was written in such a way that the South sticking together to support
the continuation of slavery would be able to thwart political moves by
abolitionists to use federal law to sunset slavery.
The distinction between the two interpretations is rather important.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Why would you, of all people, defend the critical lack of academic freedom
that won't tolerate a reasonable conclusion reached by a student again
an unreasonable interpretation of a lecturer?
I didn't. As I said, the proposition was only half-true and therefore a
poorly formed question.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I was taught that the Constitution -- specifically the Senate -- was
designed to prevent abolitionists from abolishing slavery. The emphasis
is entirely different.
The vast majority of white farmers did not own slaves. It was just
the elite.
It wasn't just the elite. In the states that formed the Confederacy 30%
of the households had at least one slave. Although in the nation as a
whole it is true that a majority of white farmers did not own slaves.
For one thing half of them lived in states where slave ownership became
locally illegal.
Who perpetuated the war: The elites of southern society, or the small
family farmers with one or a handful of slaves?
Well both of them of course assuming you meant perpetrated this time.
As well as people who didn't have any slaves at all.
Sorry; wrong word.
Who is responsible for getting the United States into civil war: The
elites or the small family farmers, some of whom could afford to own a
few slaves?
The elite held all elective offices personally or through patronage. Any
opposition was kept out of public office.
It's impossible to blame the war on the poor, or the even the more
prosperous family farmers.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Can you explain how an 18th century society interested in nothing more
than white supremacy and perpetuating the institution of slavery allowed
slavery to be abolished in half the country? I'm so confused.
I never characterized the United States of the 18th century has being
interested in nothing more than perpetuating the institution of slavery.
So you're ducking the more imporant white supremacy bullshit. Got it.
I think white supremacy was pretty much taken for granted until after
the war.
You just argued AGAINST the rhetoric used in the lecture. If it were
taken for granted, then it wasn't necessary to be put into the
Constitution in order to perpetuate it.
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
The protection of slavery in the United States Constitution was a
compromise between differing parties required to keep the new states
from each going their own way. Abolitionism was already up and running
as a movement in Pennsylvania and Benjamin Franklin joined up with the
first abolitionist society.
Ok.
Let's hear your thoughts on the lecturer's claims about white supremacy
in the 18th century.
Well the slavery was racially based.
Slavery didn't make white people supreme. Let's start by acknowledging
that trans-oceanic shippers benefitted from the slave trade without
owning slaves themselves. But let's also acknowledge that plenty of
white families DID NOT own slaves. The existence of slavery didn't make
them supreme in any way.

If you were being honest, you would acknowledge that a non-slave-owning
white family farm was hurt by elites who owned large plantations and
slaves.
Post by BTR1701
And yeah the enumeration clause was written with the baked assumption
that black people would not be voting and so counted for less.
It's a fully-baked assumption that slaves wouldn't vote.

You do know that voting was done by elites, yes? Most Americans weren't
enfranchised and it had nothing to do with slave status or free status.
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Fun fact. The American Civil War is Canada's third deadliest war.
I know nothing about this. That's interesting.
About 50,000 Canadians served and four attained the rank of general.
I had no idea. Thanks. Any on the side of the Confederacy?
Some. Actually we're not sure how many because the Confederacy trashed
their records prior to surrender.
Thanks
David Johnston
2020-09-05 22:57:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to
perpetuate white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery,"
according to screenshots of the quiz result.
According to Kara Zupkus of the Young America's Foundation (YAF), the
required quiz was part of a class on the 2020 U.S. elections taught by
university professors Josh Clinton, Eunji Kim, Dean John Geer, and Jon
Meacham, the same Jon Meacham who spoke on behalf of former Vice
President
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Joe Biden at Democrats' virtual convention just two weeks ago.
According to YAF, the class syllabus deems the course "the largest class
that Vanderbilt has ever taught".
Vanderbilt University did not immediately respond to The Federalist's
request for comment.
The idea that the U.S. Constitution was designed to perpetuate racial
oppression is a core message of the Left's cultural revolution to
re-write
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
history, most notably embedded in The New York Times' anti-American "1619
Project". That project is now in thousands of U.S. public school
classrooms.
No one tell the professor that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were
entirely voted upon by white people and intended to thwart racial
oppression of newly freed men and women. Is that white supremacy too or
are amendments simply not part of the Constitution?
The lecture would have been about the original version of the Constitution.
No. The lecture was about perpetuating white slavery and protecting the
institution of slavery.
I strongly suspect the lecture was about things like the 3/5ths
compromise and the fugitive slave clause.
All I can go by is what's written in the article. Let's assume the
article didn't make up the emphasis on perpetuating white supremacy out
of whole cloth, shall we? It makes it easier to discuss the article.
Post by David Johnston
Which is to say the Constitution as it was originally written. These
things did serve to protect the institution of slavery. As for "white
supremacy"...well that was where the social conflict shifted to after
the war.
So the lecture entirely skipped Reconstruction and all those liberal
civil rights laws enacted by white men.
Skipped? How can one skip things from a time frame a century after the
one being discussed?
I'm addressing the bit that you completely made up that the "perpetuate
white supremacy" portion of the lecture wasn't about the Founding
Fathers and their era but those who passed Jim Crow laws
post-Reconstruction.
No, I never made such a suggestion.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
How do we know that they even left the 18th century?
Can we skip the bit where you insist that Southern whites generally were
the ones demanding supremacy through Jim Crow, and I have to respond
that scapegoating of blacks was done to keep the elites in power and to
distract the poor whites from their troubles through the expedience of
blaming it on blacks?
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
You seem to have missed the critical bit. I'm making the unsubtle and
obvious point that not every white man who contributed critical language
to the Constitution was interested in perpetuating white supremacy.
Yes, you're using the people from more than 3 generations later than the
time frame the professor was talking about.
I don't think so. A great many of the Founding Fathers, at least the
ones not from Virginia and the rest of the South, were liberals. These
were ideas from the Age of Enlightenment and didn't originate in
America.
We have no shortage of unelightened people in any era, including our
current time. Some of them hold great political power.
Yes. They did. That that power led to the creation the 3/5ths
compromise, the fugitive slave clause and the electoral college.
The Electoral College? You don't know what you're talking about. That
was an anti-Virginia thing to give a slight advantage to small states to
gain their support. Nothing to do with perpetuation of slavery at all.
Had there been no electoral college at all, then Virginia's slaves would
not have counted for 3/5ths. They would have counted for nothing.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
It's the Senate, not the Electoral College.
Uh...what? The Senate is the one thing that that the 3/5ths compromise
was irrelevant to.

Furthermore, the president's
Post by Adam H. Kerman
opinion isn't directly relevant on what laws Congress passes, is it.
It's influence, not power.
The three-fifths compromise was over-the-top appeasement of the South,
in my opinion. They got the Senate. They should not have been allowed to
count the slave population in apportionment at all. But my opinion
counts for shit.
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
So first it was designed to perpetuate slavery and then it
was altered to outlaw it.
You may believe that if you like, if you get off on revisionism.
The Fugitive Slave clause is not exactly made up of whole cloth.
That clause supports my position that I was taught history with a more
reasonable interpretation than what these kids are getting. The word
"slavery" isn't found in this clause or anywhere else.
It's still the Fugitive Slave clause even though they called them
"persons held to service or labor" and "other persons" in the
Enumeration Clause and "such persons as any of the states now existing
shall think proper to admit" in Article 1 Section 9. Those references,
however mealy-mouthed were sufficient to mean that it took an amendment
to undo them.
The purpose of the weasel language is to make it absolutely clear that
slavery hasn't been authorized in federal law.
Even though it has.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
How do you keep missing the obvious?
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
There wasn't to be federal law authorizing slavery at the founding of
the Republic.
I had just written that. You might have done me the courtesy of reading
it first before writing your followup.
I read it. It was just bullshit.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The Constitution was written so that the South would join the republic.
It was written in such a way that the South sticking together to support
the continuation of slavery would be able to thwart political moves by
abolitionists to use federal law to sunset slavery.
The distinction between the two interpretations is rather important.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Why would you, of all people, defend the critical lack of academic freedom
that won't tolerate a reasonable conclusion reached by a student again
an unreasonable interpretation of a lecturer?
I didn't. As I said, the proposition was only half-true and therefore a
poorly formed question.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I was taught that the Constitution -- specifically the Senate -- was
designed to prevent abolitionists from abolishing slavery. The emphasis
is entirely different.
The vast majority of white farmers did not own slaves. It was just
the elite.
It wasn't just the elite. In the states that formed the Confederacy 30%
of the households had at least one slave. Although in the nation as a
whole it is true that a majority of white farmers did not own slaves.
For one thing half of them lived in states where slave ownership became
locally illegal.
Who perpetuated the war: The elites of southern society, or the small
family farmers with one or a handful of slaves?
Well both of them of course assuming you meant perpetrated this time.
As well as people who didn't have any slaves at all.
Sorry; wrong word.
Who is responsible for getting the United States into civil war: The
elites or the small family farmers, some of whom could afford to own a
few slaves?
The elite held all elective offices personally or through patronage. Any
opposition was kept out of public office.
It's impossible to blame the war on the poor, or the even the more
prosperous family farmers.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Can you explain how an 18th century society interested in nothing more
than white supremacy and perpetuating the institution of slavery allowed
slavery to be abolished in half the country? I'm so confused.
I never characterized the United States of the 18th century has being
interested in nothing more than perpetuating the institution of slavery.
So you're ducking the more imporant white supremacy bullshit. Got it.
I think white supremacy was pretty much taken for granted until after
the war.
You just argued AGAINST the rhetoric used in the lecture. If it were
taken for granted, then it wasn't necessary to be put into the
Constitution in order to perpetuate it.
<sigh> Once again, I considered the assumption in the question to be a
half-truth.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
The protection of slavery in the United States Constitution was a
compromise between differing parties required to keep the new states
from each going their own way. Abolitionism was already up and running
as a movement in Pennsylvania and Benjamin Franklin joined up with the
first abolitionist society.
Ok.
Let's hear your thoughts on the lecturer's claims about white supremacy
in the 18th century.
Well the slavery was racially based.
Slavery didn't make white people supreme. Let's start by acknowledging
that trans-oceanic shippers benefitted from the slave trade without
owning slaves themselves. But let's also acknowledge that plenty of
white families DID NOT own slaves. The existence of slavery didn't make
them supreme in any way.
Our new government is founded upon … the great truth that the negro is
not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior
race is his natural and normal condition,” said Confederate vice
president Alexander Stephens.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
If you were being honest, you would acknowledge that a non-slave-owning
white family farm was hurt by elites who owned large plantations and
slaves.
Sure I'll acknowledge that. But what is actually in their interest is
not necessarily what people think is in their interest. Regardless of
the economic disadvantages of living in a slave state, a poor white man
could at least know he wasn't on the same social level as a black slave
and hope to to climb the ladder.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
And yeah the enumeration clause was written with the baked assumption
that black people would not be voting and so counted for less.
It's a fully-baked assumption that slaves wouldn't vote.
You do know that voting was done by elites, yes? Most Americans weren't
enfranchised and it had nothing to do with slave status or free status.
I know that Jefferson led the charge for universal white male suffrage.
Hence the term "Jeffersonian democracy".
Adam H. Kerman
2020-09-05 23:49:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to
perpetuate white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery,"
according to screenshots of the quiz result.
According to Kara Zupkus of the Young America's Foundation (YAF),
the required quiz was part of a class on the 2020 U.S. elections
taught by university professors Josh Clinton, Eunji Kim, Dean
John Geer, and Jon Meacham, the same Jon Meacham who spoke on
behalf of former Vice President Joe Biden at Democrats' virtual
convention just two weeks ago.
According to YAF, the class syllabus deems the course "the
largest class that Vanderbilt has ever taught".
Vanderbilt University did not immediately respond to The Federalist's
request for comment.
The idea that the U.S. Constitution was designed to perpetuate
racial oppression is a core message of the Left's cultural
revolution to re-write history, most notably embedded in The
New York Times' anti-American "1619 Project". That project is
now in thousands of U.S. public school classrooms.
No one tell the professor that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were
entirely voted upon by white people and intended to thwart racial
oppression of newly freed men and women. Is that white supremacy too or
are amendments simply not part of the Constitution?
The lecture would have been about the original version of the Constitution.
No. The lecture was about perpetuating white slavery and protecting the
institution of slavery.
I strongly suspect the lecture was about things like the 3/5ths
compromise and the fugitive slave clause.
All I can go by is what's written in the article. Let's assume the
article didn't make up the emphasis on perpetuating white supremacy out
of whole cloth, shall we? It makes it easier to discuss the article.
Post by David Johnston
Which is to say the Constitution as it was originally written. These
things did serve to protect the institution of slavery. As for "white
supremacy"...well that was where the social conflict shifted to after
the war.
So the lecture entirely skipped Reconstruction and all those liberal
civil rights laws enacted by white men.
Skipped? How can one skip things from a time frame a century after the
one being discussed?
I'm addressing the bit that you completely made up that the "perpetuate
white supremacy" portion of the lecture wasn't about the Founding
Fathers and their era but those who passed Jim Crow laws
post-Reconstruction.
No, I never made such a suggestion.
As for "white supremacy"...well that was where the social conflict
shifted to after the war.

Quoted above
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
How do we know that they even left the 18th century?
Can we skip the bit where you insist that Southern whites generally were
the ones demanding supremacy through Jim Crow, and I have to respond
that scapegoating of blacks was done to keep the elites in power and to
distract the poor whites from their troubles through the expedience of
blaming it on blacks?
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
You seem to have missed the critical bit. I'm making the unsubtle and
obvious point that not every white man who contributed critical language
to the Constitution was interested in perpetuating white supremacy.
Yes, you're using the people from more than 3 generations later than the
time frame the professor was talking about.
I don't think so. A great many of the Founding Fathers, at least the
ones not from Virginia and the rest of the South, were liberals. These
were ideas from the Age of Enlightenment and didn't originate in
America.
We have no shortage of unelightened people in any era, including our
current time. Some of them hold great political power.
Yes. They did. That that power led to the creation the 3/5ths
compromise, the fugitive slave clause and the electoral college.
The Electoral College? You don't know what you're talking about. That
was an anti-Virginia thing to give a slight advantage to small states to
gain their support. Nothing to do with perpetuation of slavery at all.
Had there been no electoral college at all, then Virginia's slaves would
not have counted for 3/5ths. They would have counted for nothing.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
It's the Senate, not the Electoral College.
Uh...what? The Senate is the one thing that that the 3/5ths compromise
was irrelevant to.
The Senate was created so a united South could tie up abolitionist
legislation. The 3/5 compromise merely gave the South an extra boost of
representation in the House of Representatives.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Furthermore, the president's opinion isn't directly relevant on what
laws Congress passes, is it. It's influence, not power.
The three-fifths compromise was over-the-top appeasement of the South,
in my opinion. They got the Senate. They should not have been allowed to
count the slave population in apportionment at all. But my opinion
counts for shit.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
So first it was designed to perpetuate slavery and then it
was altered to outlaw it.
You may believe that if you like, if you get off on revisionism.
The Fugitive Slave clause is not exactly made up of whole cloth.
That clause supports my position that I was taught history with a more
reasonable interpretation than what these kids are getting. The word
"slavery" isn't found in this clause or anywhere else.
It's still the Fugitive Slave clause even though they called them
"persons held to service or labor" and "other persons" in the
Enumeration Clause and "such persons as any of the states now existing
shall think proper to admit" in Article 1 Section 9. Those references,
however mealy-mouthed were sufficient to mean that it took an amendment
to undo them.
The purpose of the weasel language is to make it absolutely clear that
slavery hasn't been authorized in federal law.
Even though it has.
Stop being a twit. If a subject of the law is authorized in legislation,
the language is drafted explicitly to authorize it. Obviously that's not
the case with slavery and the Constitution.

Compare the lack of weasel language in the 13th Amendment.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
How do you keep missing the obvious?
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
There wasn't to be federal law authorizing slavery at the founding of
the Republic.
I had just written that. You might have done me the courtesy of reading
it first before writing your followup.
I read it. It was just bullshit.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The Constitution was written so that the South would join the republic.
It was written in such a way that the South sticking together to support
the continuation of slavery would be able to thwart political moves by
abolitionists to use federal law to sunset slavery.
The distinction between the two interpretations is rather important.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Why would you, of all people, defend the critical lack of academic freedom
that won't tolerate a reasonable conclusion reached by a student again
an unreasonable interpretation of a lecturer?
I didn't. As I said, the proposition was only half-true and therefore a
poorly formed question.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I was taught that the Constitution -- specifically the Senate -- was
designed to prevent abolitionists from abolishing slavery. The emphasis
is entirely different.
The vast majority of white farmers did not own slaves. It was just
the elite.
It wasn't just the elite. In the states that formed the Confederacy 30%
of the households had at least one slave. Although in the nation as a
whole it is true that a majority of white farmers did not own slaves.
For one thing half of them lived in states where slave ownership became
locally illegal.
Who perpetuated the war: The elites of southern society, or the small
family farmers with one or a handful of slaves?
Well both of them of course assuming you meant perpetrated this time.
As well as people who didn't have any slaves at all.
Sorry; wrong word.
Who is responsible for getting the United States into civil war: The
elites or the small family farmers, some of whom could afford to own a
few slaves?
The elite held all elective offices personally or through patronage. Any
opposition was kept out of public office.
It's impossible to blame the war on the poor, or the even the more
prosperous family farmers.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Can you explain how an 18th century society interested in nothing more
than white supremacy and perpetuating the institution of slavery allowed
slavery to be abolished in half the country? I'm so confused.
I never characterized the United States of the 18th century has being
interested in nothing more than perpetuating the institution of slavery.
So you're ducking the more imporant white supremacy bullshit. Got it.
I think white supremacy was pretty much taken for granted until after
the war.
You just argued AGAINST the rhetoric used in the lecture. If it were
taken for granted, then it wasn't necessary to be put into the
Constitution in order to perpetuate it.
<sigh> Once again, I considered the assumption in the question to be a
half-truth.
No part of it is true! Since when do the elite share power if they can
keep it for themselves?
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
The protection of slavery in the United States Constitution was a
compromise between differing parties required to keep the new states
from each going their own way. Abolitionism was already up and running
as a movement in Pennsylvania and Benjamin Franklin joined up with the
first abolitionist society.
Ok.
Let's hear your thoughts on the lecturer's claims about white supremacy
in the 18th century.
Well the slavery was racially based.
Slavery didn't make white people supreme. Let's start by acknowledging
that trans-oceanic shippers benefitted from the slave trade without
owning slaves themselves. But let's also acknowledge that plenty of
white families DID NOT own slaves. The existence of slavery didn't make
them supreme in any way.
Our new government is founded upon . . . the great truth that the negro is
not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior
race is his natural and normal condition," said Confederate vice
president Alexander Stephens.
Why are you changing subjects?

If you believe they gave a damn about the welfare of poor white rural
farm families, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
If you were being honest, you would acknowledge that a non-slave-owning
white family farm was hurt by elites who owned large plantations and
slaves.
Sure I'll acknowledge that. But what is actually in their interest is
not necessarily what people think is in their interest. Regardless of
the economic disadvantages of living in a slave state, a poor white man
could at least know he wasn't on the same social level as a black slave
and hope to to climb the ladder.
Uh, great. Does that feed his hungry family? Does it even get them
invited to the fine parties at the home of the finest families?
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
And yeah the enumeration clause was written with the baked assumption
that black people would not be voting and so counted for less.
It's a fully-baked assumption that slaves wouldn't vote.
You do know that voting was done by elites, yes? Most Americans weren't
enfranchised and it had nothing to do with slave status or free status.
I know that Jefferson led the charge for universal white male suffrage.
Hence the term "Jeffersonian democracy".
You won't acknowledge that there wasn't universal white male suffrage in
the 18th century nor most of the 19th century?
David Johnston
2020-09-06 06:10:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to
perpetuate white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery,"
according to screenshots of the quiz result.
According to Kara Zupkus of the Young America's Foundation (YAF),
the required quiz was part of a class on the 2020 U.S. elections
taught by university professors Josh Clinton, Eunji Kim, Dean
John Geer, and Jon Meacham, the same Jon Meacham who spoke on
behalf of former Vice President Joe Biden at Democrats' virtual
convention just two weeks ago.
According to YAF, the class syllabus deems the course "the
largest class that Vanderbilt has ever taught".
Vanderbilt University did not immediately respond to The Federalist's
request for comment.
The idea that the U.S. Constitution was designed to perpetuate
racial oppression is a core message of the Left's cultural
revolution to re-write history, most notably embedded in The
New York Times' anti-American "1619 Project". That project is
now in thousands of U.S. public school classrooms.
No one tell the professor that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were
entirely voted upon by white people and intended to thwart racial
oppression of newly freed men and women. Is that white supremacy too or
are amendments simply not part of the Constitution?
The lecture would have been about the original version of the Constitution.
No. The lecture was about perpetuating white slavery and protecting the
institution of slavery.
I strongly suspect the lecture was about things like the 3/5ths
compromise and the fugitive slave clause.
All I can go by is what's written in the article. Let's assume the
article didn't make up the emphasis on perpetuating white supremacy out
of whole cloth, shall we? It makes it easier to discuss the article.
Post by David Johnston
Which is to say the Constitution as it was originally written. These
things did serve to protect the institution of slavery. As for "white
supremacy"...well that was where the social conflict shifted to after
the war.
So the lecture entirely skipped Reconstruction and all those liberal
civil rights laws enacted by white men.
Skipped? How can one skip things from a time frame a century after the
one being discussed?
I'm addressing the bit that you completely made up that the "perpetuate
white supremacy" portion of the lecture wasn't about the Founding
Fathers and their era but those who passed Jim Crow laws
post-Reconstruction.
No, I never made such a suggestion.
As for "white supremacy"...well that was where the social conflict
shifted to after the war.
Quoted above
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
How do we know that they even left the 18th century?
Can we skip the bit where you insist that Southern whites generally were
the ones demanding supremacy through Jim Crow, and I have to respond
that scapegoating of blacks was done to keep the elites in power and to
distract the poor whites from their troubles through the expedience of
blaming it on blacks?
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
You seem to have missed the critical bit. I'm making the unsubtle and
obvious point that not every white man who contributed critical language
to the Constitution was interested in perpetuating white supremacy.
Yes, you're using the people from more than 3 generations later than the
time frame the professor was talking about.
I don't think so. A great many of the Founding Fathers, at least the
ones not from Virginia and the rest of the South, were liberals. These
were ideas from the Age of Enlightenment and didn't originate in
America.
We have no shortage of unelightened people in any era, including our
current time. Some of them hold great political power.
Yes. They did. That that power led to the creation the 3/5ths
compromise, the fugitive slave clause and the electoral college.
The Electoral College? You don't know what you're talking about. That
was an anti-Virginia thing to give a slight advantage to small states to
gain their support. Nothing to do with perpetuation of slavery at all.
Had there been no electoral college at all, then Virginia's slaves would
not have counted for 3/5ths. They would have counted for nothing.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
It's the Senate, not the Electoral College.
Uh...what? The Senate is the one thing that that the 3/5ths compromise
was irrelevant to.
The Senate was created so a united South could tie up abolitionist
legislation. The 3/5 compromise merely gave the South an extra boost of
representation in the House of Representatives.
And the electoral college gave them the same boost in presidential
elections.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Furthermore, the president's opinion isn't directly relevant on what
laws Congress passes, is it. It's influence, not power.
The three-fifths compromise was over-the-top appeasement of the South,
in my opinion. They got the Senate. They should not have been allowed to
count the slave population in apportionment at all. But my opinion
counts for shit.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
So first it was designed to perpetuate slavery and then it
was altered to outlaw it.
You may believe that if you like, if you get off on revisionism.
The Fugitive Slave clause is not exactly made up of whole cloth.
That clause supports my position that I was taught history with a more
reasonable interpretation than what these kids are getting. The word
"slavery" isn't found in this clause or anywhere else.
It's still the Fugitive Slave clause even though they called them
"persons held to service or labor" and "other persons" in the
Enumeration Clause and "such persons as any of the states now existing
shall think proper to admit" in Article 1 Section 9. Those references,
however mealy-mouthed were sufficient to mean that it took an amendment
to undo them.
The purpose of the weasel language is to make it absolutely clear that
slavery hasn't been authorized in federal law.
Even though it has.
Stop being a twit. If a subject of the law is authorized in legislation,
the language is drafted explicitly to authorize it.
Which is was when they wrote "persons held to service". Who would those
persons have been by then?

Obviously that's not
Post by Adam H. Kerman
the case with slavery and the Constitution.
Compare the lack of weasel language in the 13th Amendment.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
How do you keep missing the obvious?
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
There wasn't to be federal law authorizing slavery at the founding of
the Republic.
I had just written that. You might have done me the courtesy of reading
it first before writing your followup.
I read it. It was just bullshit.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The Constitution was written so that the South would join the republic.
It was written in such a way that the South sticking together to support
the continuation of slavery would be able to thwart political moves by
abolitionists to use federal law to sunset slavery.
The distinction between the two interpretations is rather important.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Why would you, of all people, defend the critical lack of academic freedom
that won't tolerate a reasonable conclusion reached by a student again
an unreasonable interpretation of a lecturer?
I didn't. As I said, the proposition was only half-true and therefore a
poorly formed question.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I was taught that the Constitution -- specifically the Senate -- was
designed to prevent abolitionists from abolishing slavery. The emphasis
is entirely different.
The vast majority of white farmers did not own slaves. It was just
the elite.
It wasn't just the elite. In the states that formed the Confederacy 30%
of the households had at least one slave. Although in the nation as a
whole it is true that a majority of white farmers did not own slaves.
For one thing half of them lived in states where slave ownership became
locally illegal.
Who perpetuated the war: The elites of southern society, or the small
family farmers with one or a handful of slaves?
Well both of them of course assuming you meant perpetrated this time.
As well as people who didn't have any slaves at all.
Sorry; wrong word.
Who is responsible for getting the United States into civil war: The
elites or the small family farmers, some of whom could afford to own a
few slaves?
The elite held all elective offices personally or through patronage. Any
opposition was kept out of public office.
It's impossible to blame the war on the poor, or the even the more
prosperous family farmers.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Can you explain how an 18th century society interested in nothing more
than white supremacy and perpetuating the institution of slavery allowed
slavery to be abolished in half the country? I'm so confused.
I never characterized the United States of the 18th century has being
interested in nothing more than perpetuating the institution of slavery.
So you're ducking the more imporant white supremacy bullshit. Got it.
I think white supremacy was pretty much taken for granted until after
the war.
You just argued AGAINST the rhetoric used in the lecture. If it were
taken for granted, then it wasn't necessary to be put into the
Constitution in order to perpetuate it.
<sigh> Once again, I considered the assumption in the question to be a
half-truth.
No part of it is true! Since when do the elite share power if they can
keep it for themselves?
Your point?
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
The protection of slavery in the United States Constitution was a
compromise between differing parties required to keep the new states
from each going their own way. Abolitionism was already up and running
as a movement in Pennsylvania and Benjamin Franklin joined up with the
first abolitionist society.
Ok.
Let's hear your thoughts on the lecturer's claims about white supremacy
in the 18th century.
Well the slavery was racially based.
Slavery didn't make white people supreme. Let's start by acknowledging
that trans-oceanic shippers benefitted from the slave trade without
owning slaves themselves. But let's also acknowledge that plenty of
white families DID NOT own slaves. The existence of slavery didn't make
them supreme in any way.
Our new government is founded upon . . . the great truth that the negro is
not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior
race is his natural and normal condition," said Confederate vice
president Alexander Stephens.
Why are you changing subjects?
Let me quote you "Slavery didn't make white people supreme". Alexander
Stephens disagreed.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
If you believe they gave a damn about the welfare of poor white rural
farm families, I've got a bridge to sell you.
The welfare of poor white rural families is irrelevant.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
If you were being honest, you would acknowledge that a non-slave-owning
white family farm was hurt by elites who owned large plantations and
slaves.
Sure I'll acknowledge that. But what is actually in their interest is
not necessarily what people think is in their interest. Regardless of
the economic disadvantages of living in a slave state, a poor white man
could at least know he wasn't on the same social level as a black slave
and hope to to climb the ladder.
Uh, great. Does that feed his hungry family? Does it even get them
invited to the fine parties at the home of the finest families?
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
And yeah the enumeration clause was written with the baked assumption
that black people would not be voting and so counted for less.
It's a fully-baked assumption that slaves wouldn't vote.
You do know that voting was done by elites, yes? Most Americans weren't
enfranchised and it had nothing to do with slave status or free status.
I know that Jefferson led the charge for universal white male suffrage.
Hence the term "Jeffersonian democracy".
You won't acknowledge that there wasn't universal white male suffrage in
the 18th century nor most of the 19th century?
By 1820 two million votes were cast in the election out of a total free
population of 8 million. Allowing for the number of them who would have
been juveniles and women, they were already pretty close.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-09-06 06:37:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to
perpetuate white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery,"
according to screenshots of the quiz result.
According to Kara Zupkus of the Young America's Foundation (YAF),
the required quiz was part of a class on the 2020 U.S. elections
taught by university professors Josh Clinton, Eunji Kim, Dean
John Geer, and Jon Meacham, the same Jon Meacham who spoke on
behalf of former Vice President Joe Biden at Democrats' virtual
convention just two weeks ago.
According to YAF, the class syllabus deems the course "the
largest class that Vanderbilt has ever taught".
Vanderbilt University did not immediately respond to The Federalist's
request for comment.
The idea that the U.S. Constitution was designed to perpetuate
racial oppression is a core message of the Left's cultural
revolution to re-write history, most notably embedded in The
New York Times' anti-American "1619 Project". That project is
now in thousands of U.S. public school classrooms.
No one tell the professor that the 13th, 14th, and 15th
amendments were
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
entirely voted upon by white people and intended to thwart racial
oppression of newly freed men and women. Is that white
supremacy too or
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
are amendments simply not part of the Constitution?
The lecture would have been about the original version of the Constitution.
No. The lecture was about perpetuating white slavery and protecting the
institution of slavery.
I strongly suspect the lecture was about things like the 3/5ths
compromise and the fugitive slave clause.
All I can go by is what's written in the article. Let's assume the
article didn't make up the emphasis on perpetuating white supremacy out
of whole cloth, shall we? It makes it easier to discuss the article.
Post by David Johnston
Which is to say the Constitution as it was originally written. These
things did serve to protect the institution of slavery. As for "white
supremacy"...well that was where the social conflict shifted to after
the war.
So the lecture entirely skipped Reconstruction and all those liberal
civil rights laws enacted by white men.
Skipped? How can one skip things from a time frame a century after the
one being discussed?
I'm addressing the bit that you completely made up that the "perpetuate
white supremacy" portion of the lecture wasn't about the Founding
Fathers and their era but those who passed Jim Crow laws
post-Reconstruction.
No, I never made such a suggestion.
As for "white supremacy"...well that was where the social conflict
shifted to after the war.
Quoted above
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
How do we know that they even left the 18th century?
Can we skip the bit where you insist that Southern whites generally were
the ones demanding supremacy through Jim Crow, and I have to respond
that scapegoating of blacks was done to keep the elites in power and to
distract the poor whites from their troubles through the expedience of
blaming it on blacks?
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
You seem to have missed the critical bit. I'm making the unsubtle and
obvious point that not every white man who contributed critical language
to the Constitution was interested in perpetuating white supremacy.
Yes, you're using the people from more than 3 generations later than the
time frame the professor was talking about.
I don't think so. A great many of the Founding Fathers, at least the
ones not from Virginia and the rest of the South, were liberals. These
were ideas from the Age of Enlightenment and didn't originate in
America.
We have no shortage of unelightened people in any era, including our
current time. Some of them hold great political power.
Yes. They did. That that power led to the creation the 3/5ths
compromise, the fugitive slave clause and the electoral college.
The Electoral College? You don't know what you're talking about. That
was an anti-Virginia thing to give a slight advantage to small states to
gain their support. Nothing to do with perpetuation of slavery at all.
Had there been no electoral college at all, then Virginia's slaves would
not have counted for 3/5ths. They would have counted for nothing.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
It's the Senate, not the Electoral College.
Uh...what? The Senate is the one thing that that the 3/5ths compromise
was irrelevant to.
The Senate was created so a united South could tie up abolitionist
legislation. The 3/5 compromise merely gave the South an extra boost of
representation in the House of Representatives.
And the electoral college gave them the same boost in presidential
elections.
You better check your math on that one as it's diluted by the two
additional electors every state got. They hardly needed it as nearly all
the earliest presidents were Virginians.
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Furthermore, the president's opinion isn't directly relevant on what
laws Congress passes, is it. It's influence, not power.
The three-fifths compromise was over-the-top appeasement of the South,
in my opinion. They got the Senate. They should not have been allowed to
count the slave population in apportionment at all. But my opinion
counts for shit.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
So first it was designed to perpetuate slavery and then it
was altered to outlaw it.
You may believe that if you like, if you get off on revisionism.
The Fugitive Slave clause is not exactly made up of whole cloth.
That clause supports my position that I was taught history with a more
reasonable interpretation than what these kids are getting. The word
"slavery" isn't found in this clause or anywhere else.
It's still the Fugitive Slave clause even though they called them
"persons held to service or labor" and "other persons" in the
Enumeration Clause and "such persons as any of the states now existing
shall think proper to admit" in Article 1 Section 9. Those references,
however mealy-mouthed were sufficient to mean that it took an amendment
to undo them.
The purpose of the weasel language is to make it absolutely clear that
slavery hasn't been authorized in federal law.
Even though it has.
Stop being a twit. If a subject of the law is authorized in legislation,
the language is drafted explicitly to authorize it.
Which is was when they wrote "persons held to service". Who would those
persons have been by then?
For the 300th times, it's why they used weasel language and not the word
"slave" so there could be no argument that the constitution authorized
slavery. The constitution authorized the three branches of government,
as they are mentioned specifically. It did not authorize slavery.

You've got a reading comprehension problem, dude.
Post by BTR1701
Obviously that's not
Post by Adam H. Kerman
the case with slavery and the Constitution.
Compare the lack of weasel language in the 13th Amendment.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
How do you keep missing the obvious?
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
There wasn't to be federal law authorizing slavery at the founding of
the Republic.
I had just written that. You might have done me the courtesy of reading
it first before writing your followup.
I read it. It was just bullshit.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The Constitution was written so that the South would join the republic.
It was written in such a way that the South sticking together to support
the continuation of slavery would be able to thwart political moves by
abolitionists to use federal law to sunset slavery.
The distinction between the two interpretations is rather important.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Why would you, of all people, defend the critical lack of
academic freedom
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
that won't tolerate a reasonable conclusion reached by a student again
an unreasonable interpretation of a lecturer?
I didn't. As I said, the proposition was only half-true and therefore a
poorly formed question.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I was taught that the Constitution -- specifically the Senate -- was
designed to prevent abolitionists from abolishing slavery. The
emphasis
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
is entirely different.
The vast majority of white farmers did not own slaves. It was just
the elite.
It wasn't just the elite. In the states that formed the
Confederacy 30%
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
of the households had at least one slave. Although in the nation as a
whole it is true that a majority of white farmers did not own slaves.
For one thing half of them lived in states where slave ownership became
locally illegal.
Who perpetuated the war: The elites of southern society, or the small
family farmers with one or a handful of slaves?
Well both of them of course assuming you meant perpetrated this time.
As well as people who didn't have any slaves at all.
Sorry; wrong word.
Who is responsible for getting the United States into civil war: The
elites or the small family farmers, some of whom could afford to own a
few slaves?
The elite held all elective offices personally or through patronage. Any
opposition was kept out of public office.
It's impossible to blame the war on the poor, or the even the more
prosperous family farmers.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Can you explain how an 18th century society interested in nothing more
than white supremacy and perpetuating the institution of slavery allowed
slavery to be abolished in half the country? I'm so confused.
I never characterized the United States of the 18th century has being
interested in nothing more than perpetuating the institution of slavery.
So you're ducking the more imporant white supremacy bullshit. Got it.
I think white supremacy was pretty much taken for granted until after
the war.
You just argued AGAINST the rhetoric used in the lecture. If it were
taken for granted, then it wasn't necessary to be put into the
Constitution in order to perpetuate it.
<sigh> Once again, I considered the assumption in the question to be a
half-truth.
No part of it is true! Since when do the elite share power if they can
keep it for themselves?
Your point?
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
The protection of slavery in the United States Constitution was a
compromise between differing parties required to keep the new states
from each going their own way. Abolitionism was already up and running
as a movement in Pennsylvania and Benjamin Franklin joined up with the
first abolitionist society.
Ok.
Let's hear your thoughts on the lecturer's claims about white supremacy
in the 18th century.
Well the slavery was racially based.
Slavery didn't make white people supreme. Let's start by acknowledging
that trans-oceanic shippers benefitted from the slave trade without
owning slaves themselves. But let's also acknowledge that plenty of
white families DID NOT own slaves. The existence of slavery didn't make
them supreme in any way.
Our new government is founded upon . . . the great truth that the negro is
not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior
race is his natural and normal condition," said Confederate vice
president Alexander Stephens.
Why are you changing subjects?
Let me quote you "Slavery didn't make white people supreme". Alexander
Stephens disagreed.
It's not like the elites asked for permission from the poor white trash
to secede.
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
If you believe they gave a damn about the welfare of poor white rural
farm families, I've got a bridge to sell you.
The welfare of poor white rural families is irrelevant.
First thing you got right.
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
If you were being honest, you would acknowledge that a non-slave-owning
white family farm was hurt by elites who owned large plantations and
slaves.
Sure I'll acknowledge that. But what is actually in their interest is
not necessarily what people think is in their interest. Regardless of
the economic disadvantages of living in a slave state, a poor white man
could at least know he wasn't on the same social level as a black slave
and hope to to climb the ladder.
Uh, great. Does that feed his hungry family? Does it even get them
invited to the fine parties at the home of the finest families?
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
And yeah the enumeration clause was written with the baked assumption
that black people would not be voting and so counted for less.
It's a fully-baked assumption that slaves wouldn't vote.
You do know that voting was done by elites, yes? Most Americans weren't
enfranchised and it had nothing to do with slave status or free status.
I know that Jefferson led the charge for universal white male suffrage.
Hence the term "Jeffersonian democracy".
You won't acknowledge that there wasn't universal white male suffrage in
the 18th century nor most of the 19th century?
By 1820 two million votes were cast in the election out of a total free
population of 8 million. Allowing for the number of them who would have
been juveniles and women, they were already pretty close.
The franchise was expanded but that number sounds high. Still, dissent
was unlikely till there was secret balloting. With voting in a town hall
format, the elites still got their way.
kensi
2020-09-05 11:25:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
We have no shortage of unelightened people in any era, including our
current time. Some of them hold great political power.
And some of them are just yammering sphincters on Usenet.

*snicker*
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
The Fugitive Slave clause is not exactly made up of whole cloth.
That clause supports my position that I was taught history with a more
reasonable interpretation than what these kids are getting. The word
"slavery" isn't found in this clause or anywhere else.
Reread the clause's NAME.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The Constitution was written so that the South would join the republic.
It was written in such a way that the South sticking together to support
the continuation of slavery would be able to thwart political moves by
abolitionists to use federal law to sunset slavery.
So, you're admitting that the professor was right?

Good.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
kensi
2020-09-05 11:15:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
You may believe that if you like, if you get off on revisionism. Why
would you, of all people, defend the critical lack of academic freedom
that won't tolerate a reasonable conclusion reached by a student again
an unreasonable interpretation of a lecturer?
Academic freedom doesn't extend to a right to be factually wrong and not
get marked down for the error, you k00k.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Ed Stasiak
2020-09-04 09:20:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
BTR1701
The idea that the U.S. Constitution was designed to perpetuate racial
oppression is a core message of the Left's cultural revolution to re-write
history, most notably embedded in The New York Times' anti-American
"1619 Project". That project is now in thousands of U.S. public school
classrooms.
Just once more reason why America needs school vouchers.

(Yes FPP and Trotsky, I realized THIS particular story is about a college).
FPP
2020-09-04 10:52:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
BTR1701
The idea that the U.S. Constitution was designed to perpetuate racial
oppression is a core message of the Left's cultural revolution to re-write
history, most notably embedded in The New York Times' anti-American
"1619 Project". That project is now in thousands of U.S. public school
classrooms.
Just once more reason why America needs school vouchers.
(Yes FPP and Trotsky, I realized THIS particular story is about a college).
Obviously they wouldn't have done either of you much good.

Facts are really hard for you, aren't they? The fact is that you and
Thanny don't get to re-write history - and, while you and he are free to
ignore it - you don't get to say it isn't true.

Because, simple fact of the matter... it is. Slavery existed. The
Constitution codified it into law. Therefore, it perpetuated it.

SCOTUS quote on blacks as property:

"It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in
relation to that unfortunate race which prevailed in the civilized and
enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of
Independence and when the Constitution of the United States was framed
and adopted.

But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner
too plain to be mistaken. They had for more than a century before been
regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to
associate with the white race either in social or political relations,
and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was
bound to respect ..." - United States Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney,
1857
--
"We can never have a situation where things are going on as they are
today..." - President Donald J Bumblefuck (Aug. 27, 2020 - RNC Convention)

"Trump inherited the longest economic expansion in history from Barack
Obama and Joe Biden...and then, like everything else he inherited, he
ran it straight into the ground." - Kamala Harris

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
kensi
2020-09-04 09:26:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
The 3/5 compromise alone is sufficient to substantiate the claim at issue.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
number6
2020-09-05 12:24:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
The 3/5 compromise alone is sufficient to substantiate the claim at issue.
You do realize that the southern states wanted to count slaves 100 % and the
north not count them at all ...
FPP
2020-09-05 12:33:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by number6
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
The 3/5 compromise alone is sufficient to substantiate the claim at issue.
You do realize that the southern states wanted to count slaves 100 % and the
north not count them at all ...
Yeah. Meaning both sides acknowledge the existence of American slavery
- and were just haggling over how much they should count towards
representation.

That just proves the point that slavery WAS a part of the Constitution.
--
"We can never have a situation where things are going on as they are
today..." - President Donald J Bumblefuck (Aug. 27, 2020 - RNC Convention)

"Trump inherited the longest economic expansion in history from Barack
Obama and Joe Biden...and then, like everything else he inherited, he
ran it straight into the ground." - Kamala Harris

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
shawn
2020-09-05 13:32:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by number6
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
The 3/5 compromise alone is sufficient to substantiate the claim at issue.
You do realize that the southern states wanted to count slaves 100 % and the
north not count them at all ...
Yeah. Meaning both sides acknowledge the existence of American slavery
- and were just haggling over how much they should count towards
representation.
That just proves the point that slavery WAS a part of the Constitution.
I don't think anyone was arguing otherwise. The question is was the
Constitution made with the intent to support slavery (as a long term
part of the Union) or was it a short term (in consideration to the
duration of a country) compromise to get everyone to sign on to the
Constitution. One says slavery is here, now and forever. The other
says we have slavery now, but we do not intend to make it a permanent
part of this country.
FPP
2020-09-05 22:31:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by FPP
Post by number6
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
The 3/5 compromise alone is sufficient to substantiate the claim at issue.
You do realize that the southern states wanted to count slaves 100 % and the
north not count them at all ...
Yeah. Meaning both sides acknowledge the existence of American slavery
- and were just haggling over how much they should count towards
representation.
That just proves the point that slavery WAS a part of the Constitution.
I don't think anyone was arguing otherwise. The question is was the
Constitution made with the intent to support slavery (as a long term
part of the Union) or was it a short term (in consideration to the
duration of a country) compromise to get everyone to sign on to the
Constitution. One says slavery is here, now and forever. The other
says we have slavery now, but we do not intend to make it a permanent
part of this country.
So you think 20 years as a slave is 'short term', do you?
--
"We can never have a situation where things are going on as they are
today..." - President Donald J Bumblefuck (Aug. 27, 2020 - RNC Convention)

"Trump inherited the longest economic expansion in history from Barack
Obama and Joe Biden...and then, like everything else he inherited, he
ran it straight into the ground." - Kamala Harris

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
shawn
2020-09-09 04:06:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by shawn
Post by FPP
Post by number6
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
The 3/5 compromise alone is sufficient to substantiate the claim at issue.
You do realize that the southern states wanted to count slaves 100 % and the
north not count them at all ...
Yeah. Meaning both sides acknowledge the existence of American slavery
- and were just haggling over how much they should count towards
representation.
That just proves the point that slavery WAS a part of the Constitution.
I don't think anyone was arguing otherwise. The question is was the
Constitution made with the intent to support slavery (as a long term
part of the Union) or was it a short term (in consideration to the
duration of a country) compromise to get everyone to sign on to the
Constitution. One says slavery is here, now and forever. The other
says we have slavery now, but we do not intend to make it a permanent
part of this country.
So you think 20 years as a slave is 'short term', do you?
When talking about the root of a new country? Yes. In personal terms
no, but this wasn't some about some individual but the formation of
the US and what would be the basic foundations of the nation.
FPP
2020-09-09 04:59:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by FPP
Post by shawn
Post by FPP
Post by number6
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
The 3/5 compromise alone is sufficient to substantiate the claim at issue.
You do realize that the southern states wanted to count slaves 100 % and the
north not count them at all ...
Yeah. Meaning both sides acknowledge the existence of American slavery
- and were just haggling over how much they should count towards
representation.
That just proves the point that slavery WAS a part of the Constitution.
I don't think anyone was arguing otherwise. The question is was the
Constitution made with the intent to support slavery (as a long term
part of the Union) or was it a short term (in consideration to the
duration of a country) compromise to get everyone to sign on to the
Constitution. One says slavery is here, now and forever. The other
says we have slavery now, but we do not intend to make it a permanent
part of this country.
So you think 20 years as a slave is 'short term', do you?
When talking about the root of a new country? Yes. In personal terms
no, but this wasn't some about some individual but the formation of
the US and what would be the basic foundations of the nation.
No. Not in ANY way, when related to a human lifespan.
18th century, remember? In the 18th century life expectancy in England
ROSE to 41.
--
"We can never have a situation where things are going on as they are
today..." - President Donald J Bumblefuck (Aug. 27, 2020 - RNC Convention)

"Trump inherited the longest economic expansion in history from Barack
Obama and Joe Biden...and then, like everything else he inherited, he
ran it straight into the ground." - Kamala Harris

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
FPP
2020-09-04 09:44:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
According to Kara Zupkus of the Young America's Foundation (YAF), the
required quiz was part of a class on the 2020 U.S. elections taught by
university professors Josh Clinton, Eunji Kim, Dean John Geer, and Jon
Meacham, the same Jon Meacham who spoke on behalf of former Vice President
Joe Biden at Democrats' virtual convention just two weeks ago.
According to YAF, the class syllabus deems the course "the largest class
that Vanderbilt has ever taught".
Vanderbilt University did not immediately respond to The Federalist's
request for comment.
The idea that the U.S. Constitution was designed to perpetuate racial
oppression is a core message of the Left's cultural revolution to re-write
history, most notably embedded in The New York Times' anti-American "1619
Project". That project is now in thousands of U.S. public school
classrooms.
It also has the virtue of being historically accurate.

Slavery existed at the time the Constitution was drafted, and, while our
Declaration of Independence said "all men are created equal" - when it
came time to make that a reality, the Constitution ignored it.

Now, unless the founders somehow forgot about the institution, the
document they drafted didn't give two fucks about slavery.
Post by BTR1701
Perpetuate: transitive verb; : to make perpetual or cause to last indefinitely.
The Constitution DID leave slavery intact. Of the 11 clauses in the
Constitution that deal with or have policy implications for slavery, 10
protect slave property and the powers of masters.

"Was Madison outraged? Hardly. He went down to the Virginia ratifying
convention to assure delegates that Henry was dead wrong: The original
intent was indeed to protect slave property. Much of what we know of the
Constitutional Convention comes from his notes—which, recent scholarship
suggests, he carefully edited for a posthumous audience. He made sure,
for example, that posterity would know that he objected to the slave
trade being guaranteed for another 20 years—but this was a common
Virginia position at the time, since Virginians were already net sellers
of slavers rather than importers by 1787.

But there’s more. When it came time to deal with the matter of slave
representation in Federalist 54, Madison obliquely distanced himself
from the three-fifths clause by saying that one had to admit that slaves
were, irrefutably, both people and property. He actually argued that the
three-fifths clause was a good example of how the Constitution would
lead to good government—by protecting property. He looked forward to the
honest census that would result from slaves and other people being both
taxed and represented. He put the defense of the proslavery clauses in
the voice of a Virginian and then called them “a little strained,” but
just."

The Constitution did indeed perpetuate slavery. Tough shit, if you
don't like it... neither did the slaves. History FAIL again, counselor.
--
"We can never have a situation where things are going on as they are
today..." - President Donald J Bumblefuck (Aug. 27, 2020 - RNC Convention)

"Trump inherited the longest economic expansion in history from Barack
Obama and Joe Biden...and then, like everything else he inherited, he
ran it straight into the ground." - Kamala Harris

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
b***@gmail.com
2020-09-04 16:40:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Good for the student for standing up
to the "teacher" who is hell bent on
teaching 'newthink', woke, and "whitey bad".

Is there any way one can determine that
a university will give you a real education
vs. PC newthink?
Rhino
2020-09-04 19:02:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Good for the student for standing up
to the "teacher" who is hell bent on
teaching 'newthink', woke, and "whitey bad".
Is there any way one can determine that
a university will give you a real education
vs. PC newthink?
I've seen conservatives swear that Hillsdale College gives a real
education but I expect the average "progressive" would denounce them as
"fascist", "reactionary", and/or "white-supremacist" and probably
"Christian fundamentalist" as well. And that's just for starters.
--
Rhino
David Johnston
2020-09-04 20:39:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
Well it's always a problem when you have a "right/wrong" question that
is only half-true. It was designed to protect the institution of slavery.
BTR1701
2020-09-04 21:26:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-
not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
Well it's always a problem when you have a "right/wrong" question that
is only half-true. It was designed to protect the institution of slavery.
No, it wasn't. Slavery may have been an ancillary issue that it covered,
but to say the Constitution was "designed to protect slavery" is idiotic.

It was designed to establish the parameters of a federal government and
its relation to the confederation of states which made up the new
country, and to enumerate and circumscribe the powers of that government.

That was its purpose and that's what it was designed for.

It wasn't designed to protect slavery any more than it was designed to
protect letters of marque and reprisal.
moviePig
2020-09-04 22:04:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-
not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
Well it's always a problem when you have a "right/wrong" question that
is only half-true. It was designed to protect the institution of slavery.
No, it wasn't. Slavery may have been an ancillary issue that it covered,
but to say the Constitution was "designed to protect slavery" is idiotic.
It was designed to establish the parameters of a federal government and
its relation to the confederation of states which made up the new
country, and to enumerate and circumscribe the powers of that government.
That was its purpose and that's what it was designed for.
It wasn't designed to protect slavery any more than it was designed to
protect letters of marque and reprisal.
Are you elevating (what you believe were) the motives of certain of the
framers above those of the others?
suzeeq
2020-09-04 22:11:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-
not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
Well it's always a problem when you have a "right/wrong" question that
is only half-true. It was designed to protect the institution of slavery.
No, it wasn't. Slavery may have been an ancillary issue that it covered,
but to say the Constitution was "designed to protect slavery" is idiotic.
It was designed to establish the parameters of a federal government and
its relation to the confederation of states which made up the new
country, and to enumerate and circumscribe the powers of that government.
That was its purpose and that's what it was designed for.
It wasn't designed to protect slavery any more than it was designed to
protect letters of marque and reprisal.
Are you elevating (what you believe were) the motives of certain of the
framers above those of the others?
He doesn't need to. The only motive was simply to establish basic
'rules' for the new government. Addressing slavery wasn't a motive at
all, it simply existed at the time and the constitution wasn't designed
to protect it it.
moviePig
2020-09-05 02:34:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by suzeeq
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-
not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
Well it's always a problem when you have a "right/wrong" question that
is only half-true. It was designed to protect the institution of slavery.
No, it wasn't. Slavery may have been an ancillary issue that it covered,
but to say the Constitution was "designed to protect slavery" is idiotic.
It was designed to establish the parameters of a federal government and
its relation to the confederation of states which made up the new
country, and to enumerate and circumscribe the powers of that government.
That was its purpose and that's what it was designed for.
It wasn't designed to protect slavery any more than it was designed to
protect letters of marque and reprisal.
Are you elevating (what you believe were) the motives of certain of
the framers above those of the others?
He doesn't need to. The only motive was simply to establish basic
'rules' for the new government. Addressing slavery wasn't a motive at
all, it simply existed at the time and the constitution wasn't designed
to protect it it.
I'm just not sure how one separates out which portions of a relatively
brief, public, consensual document are more by "design" than others.
FPP
2020-09-05 05:51:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by suzeeq
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-
not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
Well it's always a problem when you have a "right/wrong" question that
is only half-true. It was designed to protect the institution of slavery.
No, it wasn't. Slavery may have been an ancillary issue that it covered,
but to say the Constitution was "designed to protect slavery" is idiotic.
It was designed to establish the parameters of a federal government and
its relation to the confederation of states which made up the new
country, and to enumerate and circumscribe the powers of that government.
That was its purpose and that's what it was designed for.
It wasn't designed to protect slavery any more than it was designed to
protect letters of marque and reprisal.
Are you elevating (what you believe were) the motives of certain of
the framers above those of the others?
He doesn't need to. The only motive was simply to establish basic
'rules' for the new government. Addressing slavery wasn't a motive at
all, it simply existed at the time and the constitution wasn't
designed to protect it it.
I'm just not sure how one separates out which portions of a relatively
brief, public, consensual document are more by "design" than others.
If it's written down and signed by a couple of dozen legislators, it's
by design.
They took great pains to draft the Constitution... none of it was by
accident.
--
"We can never have a situation where things are going on as they are
today..." - President Donald J Bumblefuck (Aug. 27, 2020 - RNC Convention)

"Trump inherited the longest economic expansion in history from Barack
Obama and Joe Biden...and then, like everything else he inherited, he
ran it straight into the ground." - Kamala Harris

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
Adam H. Kerman
2020-09-05 06:13:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by suzeeq
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to
perpetuate white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery,"
according to screenshots of the quiz result.
Well it's always a problem when you have a "right/wrong" question that
is only half-true. It was designed to protect the institution of slavery.
No, it wasn't. Slavery may have been an ancillary issue that it covered,
but to say the Constitution was "designed to protect slavery" is idiotic.
It was designed to establish the parameters of a federal government and
its relation to the confederation of states which made up the new
country, and to enumerate and circumscribe the powers of that government.
That was its purpose and that's what it was designed for.
It wasn't designed to protect slavery any more than it was designed to
protect letters of marque and reprisal.
Are you elevating (what you believe were) the motives of certain of
the framers above those of the others?
He doesn't need to. The only motive was simply to establish basic
'rules' for the new government. Addressing slavery wasn't a motive at
all, it simply existed at the time and the constitution wasn't designed
to protect it it.
I'm just not sure how one separates out which portions of a relatively
brief, public, consensual document are more by "design" than others.
That's pure moviePig.

It's ENTIRELY by design.

Can you please remind us which clause in the pre-13th Amendment
Constitution authorizes slavery?
moviePig
2020-09-05 14:07:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by suzeeq
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to
perpetuate white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery,"
according to screenshots of the quiz result.
Well it's always a problem when you have a "right/wrong" question that
is only half-true. It was designed to protect the institution of slavery.
No, it wasn't. Slavery may have been an ancillary issue that it covered,
but to say the Constitution was "designed to protect slavery" is idiotic.
It was designed to establish the parameters of a federal government and
its relation to the confederation of states which made up the new
country, and to enumerate and circumscribe the powers of that government.
That was its purpose and that's what it was designed for.
It wasn't designed to protect slavery any more than it was designed to
protect letters of marque and reprisal.
Are you elevating (what you believe were) the motives of certain of
the framers above those of the others?
He doesn't need to. The only motive was simply to establish basic
'rules' for the new government. Addressing slavery wasn't a motive at
all, it simply existed at the time and the constitution wasn't designed
to protect it it.
I'm just not sure how one separates out which portions of a relatively
brief, public, consensual document are more by "design" than others.
That's pure moviePig.
It's ENTIRELY by design.
Can you please remind us which clause in the pre-13th Amendment
Constitution authorizes slavery?
Oh, drat, the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by name. So, Pure
Adam, what conclusion do you wrest from that?
Adam H. Kerman
2020-09-05 17:08:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by suzeeq
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to
perpetuate white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery,"
according to screenshots of the quiz result.
Well it's always a problem when you have a "right/wrong" question that
is only half-true. It was designed to protect the institution of slavery.
No, it wasn't. Slavery may have been an ancillary issue that it covered,
but to say the Constitution was "designed to protect slavery" is idiotic.
It was designed to establish the parameters of a federal government and
its relation to the confederation of states which made up the new
country, and to enumerate and circumscribe the powers of that government.
That was its purpose and that's what it was designed for.
It wasn't designed to protect slavery any more than it was designed to
protect letters of marque and reprisal.
Are you elevating (what you believe were) the motives of certain of
the framers above those of the others?
He doesn't need to. The only motive was simply to establish basic
'rules' for the new government. Addressing slavery wasn't a motive at
all, it simply existed at the time and the constitution wasn't designed
to protect it it.
I'm just not sure how one separates out which portions of a relatively
brief, public, consensual document are more by "design" than others.
That's pure moviePig.
It's ENTIRELY by design.
Can you please remind us which clause in the pre-13th Amendment
Constitution authorizes slavery?
Oh, drat, the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by name. So, Pure
Adam, what conclusion do you wrest from that?
The Founding Fathers intended me to conclude that slavery wasn't being
authorized in federal law, duh. That's why the Constitution was written
in such a way to make sure that every knows, including moviePig, that
slavery isn't being authorized in federal law.

By design.

Are you willing to accept the obvious now, or still claim to be unsure?
moviePig
2020-09-05 18:00:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by suzeeq
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to
perpetuate white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery,"
according to screenshots of the quiz result.
Well it's always a problem when you have a "right/wrong" question that
is only half-true. It was designed to protect the institution of slavery.
No, it wasn't. Slavery may have been an ancillary issue that it covered,
but to say the Constitution was "designed to protect slavery" is idiotic.
It was designed to establish the parameters of a federal government and
its relation to the confederation of states which made up the new
country, and to enumerate and circumscribe the powers of that government.
That was its purpose and that's what it was designed for.
It wasn't designed to protect slavery any more than it was designed to
protect letters of marque and reprisal.
Are you elevating (what you believe were) the motives of certain of
the framers above those of the others?
He doesn't need to. The only motive was simply to establish basic
'rules' for the new government. Addressing slavery wasn't a motive at
all, it simply existed at the time and the constitution wasn't designed
to protect it it.
I'm just not sure how one separates out which portions of a relatively
brief, public, consensual document are more by "design" than others.
That's pure moviePig.
It's ENTIRELY by design.
Can you please remind us which clause in the pre-13th Amendment
Constitution authorizes slavery?
Oh, drat, the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by name. So, Pure
Adam, what conclusion do you wrest from that?
The Founding Fathers intended me to conclude that slavery wasn't being
authorized in federal law, duh. That's why the Constitution was written
in such a way to make sure that every knows, including moviePig, that
slavery isn't being authorized in federal law.
By design.
Are you willing to accept the obvious now, or still claim to be unsure?
Does the Constitution authorize, oh, I don't know... sunbathing?

Meanwhile, afaik, the Constitution was written in such a way as to make
sure that everyone, including the Adams of the world, knew that slavery
was not forbidden by federal law.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-09-05 19:34:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
. . .
I'm just not sure how one separates out which portions of a relatively
brief, public, consensual document are more by "design" than others.
That's pure moviePig.
It's ENTIRELY by design.
Can you please remind us which clause in the pre-13th Amendment
Constitution authorizes slavery?
Oh, drat, the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by name. So, Pure
Adam, what conclusion do you wrest from that?
The Founding Fathers intended me to conclude that slavery wasn't being
authorized in federal law, duh. That's why the Constitution was written
in such a way to make sure that every knows, including moviePig, that
slavery isn't being authorized in federal law.
By design.
Are you willing to accept the obvious now, or still claim to be unsure?
Does the Constitution authorize, oh, I don't know... sunbathing?
That's the answer to the question no one would ever ask, if moviePig has
the ability to demonstrate understanding or to offer a rational
arguement.

The law does not cover every possible subject matter. With respect to
some subjects, they are not addressed directly in law in any way. With
respect to other subjects, they are addressed indirectly without being
authorized; the slavery provisions of the Constitution are examples of
indirect references without authorization. With respect to other
subjects, they are authorized specifically in law. An example of that
would be the federal income tax.
Post by moviePig
Meanwhile, afaik, the Constitution was written in such a way as to make
sure that everyone, including the Adams of the world, knew that slavery
was not forbidden by federal law.
That's moviePig deliberately getting it wrong, for sometimes the law
does address a particular subject to clearly state that it's not
forbidden. That is NOT the case with respect to the slavery provisions
in the Constitution.
moviePig
2020-09-05 20:18:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
. . .
I'm just not sure how one separates out which portions of a relatively
brief, public, consensual document are more by "design" than others.
That's pure moviePig.
It's ENTIRELY by design.
Can you please remind us which clause in the pre-13th Amendment
Constitution authorizes slavery?
Oh, drat, the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by name. So, Pure
Adam, what conclusion do you wrest from that?
The Founding Fathers intended me to conclude that slavery wasn't being
authorized in federal law, duh. That's why the Constitution was written
in such a way to make sure that every knows, including moviePig, that
slavery isn't being authorized in federal law.
By design.
Are you willing to accept the obvious now, or still claim to be unsure?
Does the Constitution authorize, oh, I don't know... sunbathing?
That's the answer to the question no one would ever ask, if moviePig has
the ability to demonstrate understanding or to offer a rational
[argument].
The law does not cover every possible subject matter. With respect to
some subjects, they are not addressed directly in law in any way. With
respect to other subjects, they are addressed indirectly without being
authorized; the slavery provisions of the Constitution are examples of
indirect references without authorization. With respect to other
subjects, they are authorized specifically in law. An example of that
would be the federal income tax.
So, you acknowledge that little significance attaches to your question
of whether slavery is authorized by a Constitution which makes no
mention of it?
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Meanwhile, afaik, the Constitution was written in such a way as to make
sure that everyone, including the Adams of the world, knew that slavery
was not forbidden by federal law.
That's moviePig deliberately getting it wrong, for sometimes the law
does address a particular subject to clearly state that it's not
forbidden. That is NOT the case with respect to the slavery provisions
in the Constitution.
Beg pardon? Didn't the original Constitution include, *by design*, a
provision that specifically abetted slavery?

If so, WTF is your point here?
Adam H. Kerman
2020-09-05 20:43:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
. . .
I'm just not sure how one separates out which portions of a relatively
brief, public, consensual document are more by "design" than others.
That's pure moviePig.
It's ENTIRELY by design.
Can you please remind us which clause in the pre-13th Amendment
Constitution authorizes slavery?
Oh, drat, the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by name. So, Pure
Adam, what conclusion do you wrest from that?
The Founding Fathers intended me to conclude that slavery wasn't being
authorized in federal law, duh. That's why the Constitution was written
in such a way to make sure that every knows, including moviePig, that
slavery isn't being authorized in federal law.
By design.
Are you willing to accept the obvious now, or still claim to be unsure?
Does the Constitution authorize, oh, I don't know... sunbathing?
That's the answer to the question no one would ever ask, if moviePig has
the ability to demonstrate understanding or to offer a rational
[argument].
The law does not cover every possible subject matter. With respect to
some subjects, they are not addressed directly in law in any way. With
respect to other subjects, they are addressed indirectly without being
authorized; the slavery provisions of the Constitution are examples of
indirect references without authorization. With respect to other
subjects, they are authorized specifically in law. An example of that
would be the federal income tax.
So, you acknowledge that little significance attaches to your question
of whether slavery is authorized by a Constitution which makes no
mention of it?
I would never ask you a question of any kind hoping to learn something,
nor would anyone else. Would you please acknowledge that?

I made a true statement on the nature of the law because you continue to
pull moviePig nonsense by rephrasing and reinterpreting it so that it's
no longer a true statement.
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Meanwhile, afaik, the Constitution was written in such a way as to make
sure that everyone, including the Adams of the world, knew that slavery
was not forbidden by federal law.
That's moviePig deliberately getting it wrong, for sometimes the law
does address a particular subject to clearly state that it's not
forbidden. That is NOT the case with respect to the slavery provisions
in the Constitution.
Beg pardon? Didn't the original Constitution include, *by design*, a
provision that specifically abetted slavery?
Nice backpedal, moviePig. Quoted above is the single true statement you
made in this thread, that the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by
name. You got everything else wrong.
Post by moviePig
If so, WTF is your point here?
My point here is to make a valiant effort to pound the clue through
against your excessive SRF and your wont of trolling.

The Constitution did not authorize slavery. Period. End of statement.

The various provisions of the Constitution that were about slavery were
drafted as carefully as possible to make sure that they did not
authorize slavery. By design, the Constitution does not abet slavery. It
doesn't authorize slavery. It doesn't make slavery legal. Instead, it
set up a temporary mechanism, the United States Senate, to make it
extremely difficult to pass federal legislation abolishing slavery. The
mechanism was temporary as the Founding Fathers intended that new states
be added to the Union and each time a new state would be added, it would
change the makeup of Congress.

Abetting might be a legitimate word to use with respect to the
importation of slaves clause and the fugitive slave clause, but it's
absolutely wrong with respect to slavery generally.
moviePig
2020-09-05 22:34:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
. . .
I'm just not sure how one separates out which portions of a relatively
brief, public, consensual document are more by "design" than others.
That's pure moviePig.
It's ENTIRELY by design.
Can you please remind us which clause in the pre-13th Amendment
Constitution authorizes slavery?
Oh, drat, the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by name. So, Pure
Adam, what conclusion do you wrest from that?
The Founding Fathers intended me to conclude that slavery wasn't being
authorized in federal law, duh. That's why the Constitution was written
in such a way to make sure that every knows, including moviePig, that
slavery isn't being authorized in federal law.
By design.
Are you willing to accept the obvious now, or still claim to be unsure?
Does the Constitution authorize, oh, I don't know... sunbathing?
That's the answer to the question no one would ever ask, if moviePig has
the ability to demonstrate understanding or to offer a rational
[argument].
The law does not cover every possible subject matter. With respect to
some subjects, they are not addressed directly in law in any way. With
respect to other subjects, they are addressed indirectly without being
authorized; the slavery provisions of the Constitution are examples of
indirect references without authorization. With respect to other
subjects, they are authorized specifically in law. An example of that
would be the federal income tax.
So, you acknowledge that little significance attaches to your question
of whether slavery is authorized by a Constitution which makes no
mention of it?
I would never ask you a question of any kind hoping to learn something,
nor would anyone else. Would you please acknowledge that?
I made a true statement on the nature of the law because you continue to
pull moviePig nonsense by rephrasing and reinterpreting it so that it's
no longer a true statement.
Christ on a corncob...
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Meanwhile, afaik, the Constitution was written in such a way as to make
sure that everyone, including the Adams of the world, knew that slavery
was not forbidden by federal law.
That's moviePig deliberately getting it wrong, for sometimes the law
does address a particular subject to clearly state that it's not
forbidden. That is NOT the case with respect to the slavery provisions
in the Constitution.
Beg pardon? Didn't the original Constitution include, *by design*, a
provision that specifically abetted slavery?
Nice backpedal, moviePig. Quoted above is the single true statement you
made in this thread, that the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by
name. You got everything else wrong.
Post by moviePig
If so, WTF is your point here?
My point here is to make a valiant effort to pound the clue through
against your excessive SRF and your wont of trolling.
The Constitution did not authorize slavery. Period. End of statement.
The various provisions of the Constitution that were about slavery were
drafted as carefully as possible to make sure that they did not
authorize slavery. By design, the Constitution does not abet slavery. It
doesn't authorize slavery. It doesn't make slavery legal. Instead, it
set up a temporary mechanism, the United States Senate, to make it
extremely difficult to pass federal legislation abolishing slavery. The
mechanism was temporary as the Founding Fathers intended that new states
be added to the Union and each time a new state would be added, it would
change the makeup of Congress.
Abetting might be a legitimate word to use with respect to the
importation of slaves clause and the fugitive slave clause, but it's
absolutely wrong with respect to slavery generally.
Okay, Prince Valiant, if you want to trouble yourself to find my entry
into this topic, you'll see that it was when BTR questioned David
Johnson's contention that the Constitution protected slavery, by design.
Which it did ...whether it did so unanimously, or reluctantly, or with
imminent repeal aforethought. Period. End of statement.

(And, if you really want to trot out your usual "backpedal" agenda, be
sure you do it by quoting *me*...)
FPP
2020-09-05 23:01:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
. . .
I'm just not sure how one separates out which portions of a relatively
brief, public, consensual document are more by "design" than others.
That's pure moviePig.
It's ENTIRELY by design.
Can you please remind us which clause in the pre-13th Amendment
Constitution authorizes slavery?
Oh, drat, the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by name.  So,
Pure
Adam, what conclusion do you wrest from that?
The Founding Fathers intended me to conclude that slavery wasn't being
authorized in federal law, duh. That's why the Constitution was written
in such a way to make sure that every knows, including moviePig, that
slavery isn't being authorized in federal law.
By design.
Are you willing to accept the obvious now, or still claim to be unsure?
Does the Constitution authorize, oh, I don't know... sunbathing?
That's the answer to the question no one would ever ask, if moviePig has
the ability to demonstrate understanding or to offer a rational
[argument].
The law does not cover every possible subject matter. With respect to
some subjects, they are not addressed directly in law in any way. With
respect to other subjects, they are addressed indirectly without being
authorized; the slavery provisions of the Constitution are examples of
indirect references without authorization. With respect to other
subjects, they are authorized specifically in law. An example of that
would be the federal income tax.
So, you acknowledge that little significance attaches to your question
of whether slavery is authorized by a Constitution which makes no
mention of it?
I would never ask you a question of any kind hoping to learn something,
nor would anyone else. Would you please acknowledge that?
I made a true statement on the nature of the law because you continue to
pull moviePig nonsense by rephrasing and reinterpreting it so that it's
no longer a true statement.
Christ on a corncob...
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Meanwhile, afaik, the Constitution was written in such a way as to make
sure that everyone, including the Adams of the world, knew that slavery
was not forbidden by federal law.
That's moviePig deliberately getting it wrong, for sometimes the law
does address a particular subject to clearly state that it's not
forbidden. That is NOT the case with respect to the slavery provisions
in the Constitution.
Beg pardon?  Didn't the original Constitution include, *by design*, a
provision that specifically abetted slavery?
Nice backpedal, moviePig. Quoted above is the single true statement you
made in this thread, that the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by
name. You got everything else wrong.
Post by moviePig
If so, WTF is your point here?
My point here is to make a valiant effort to pound the clue through
against your excessive SRF and your wont of trolling.
The Constitution did not authorize slavery. Period. End of statement.
The various provisions of the Constitution that were about slavery were
drafted as carefully as possible to make sure that they did not
authorize slavery. By design, the Constitution does not abet slavery. It
doesn't authorize slavery. It doesn't make slavery legal. Instead, it
set up a temporary mechanism, the United States Senate, to make it
extremely difficult to pass federal legislation abolishing slavery. The
mechanism was temporary as the Founding Fathers intended that new states
be added to the Union and each time a new state would be added, it would
change the makeup of Congress.
Abetting might be a legitimate word to use with respect to the
importation of slaves clause and the fugitive slave clause, but it's
absolutely wrong with respect to slavery generally.
Okay, Prince Valiant, if you want to trouble yourself to find my entry
into this topic, you'll see that it was when BTR questioned David
Johnson's contention that the Constitution protected slavery, by design.
 Which it did ...whether it did so unanimously, or reluctantly, or with
imminent repeal aforethought.  Period.  End of statement.
(And, if you really want to trot out your usual "backpedal" agenda, be
sure you do it by quoting *me*...)
Everything in the Constitution was there by design. Jesus Christ! It's
a written document, and it's pretty damned clear that it codifies
slavery - even going as far as prohibiting it's abolition for TWO DECADES.

Side note: That's what the word 'perpetuates' MEANS! The framers
didn't put an end date on it, thus leaving slavery intact indefinitely.
It would take a CHANGE in the Constitution to abolish it.
--
"We can never have a situation where things are going on as they are
today..." - President Donald J Bumblefuck (Aug. 27, 2020 - RNC Convention)

"Trump inherited the longest economic expansion in history from Barack
Obama and Joe Biden...and then, like everything else he inherited, he
ran it straight into the ground." - Kamala Harris

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
moviePig
2020-09-06 03:01:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
. . .
I'm just not sure how one separates out which portions of a relatively
brief, public, consensual document are more by "design" than others.
That's pure moviePig.
It's ENTIRELY by design.
Can you please remind us which clause in the pre-13th Amendment
Constitution authorizes slavery?
Oh, drat, the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by name.  So,
Pure
Adam, what conclusion do you wrest from that?
The Founding Fathers intended me to conclude that slavery wasn't being
authorized in federal law, duh. That's why the Constitution was written
in such a way to make sure that every knows, including moviePig, that
slavery isn't being authorized in federal law.
By design.
Are you willing to accept the obvious now, or still claim to be unsure?
Does the Constitution authorize, oh, I don't know... sunbathing?
That's the answer to the question no one would ever ask, if moviePig has
the ability to demonstrate understanding or to offer a rational
[argument].
The law does not cover every possible subject matter. With respect to
some subjects, they are not addressed directly in law in any way. With
respect to other subjects, they are addressed indirectly without being
authorized; the slavery provisions of the Constitution are examples of
indirect references without authorization. With respect to other
subjects, they are authorized specifically in law. An example of that
would be the federal income tax.
So, you acknowledge that little significance attaches to your question
of whether slavery is authorized by a Constitution which makes no
mention of it?
I would never ask you a question of any kind hoping to learn something,
nor would anyone else. Would you please acknowledge that?
I made a true statement on the nature of the law because you continue to
pull moviePig nonsense by rephrasing and reinterpreting it so that it's
no longer a true statement.
Christ on a corncob...
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Meanwhile, afaik, the Constitution was written in such a way as to make
sure that everyone, including the Adams of the world, knew that slavery
was not forbidden by federal law.
That's moviePig deliberately getting it wrong, for sometimes the law
does address a particular subject to clearly state that it's not
forbidden. That is NOT the case with respect to the slavery provisions
in the Constitution.
Beg pardon?  Didn't the original Constitution include, *by design*, a
provision that specifically abetted slavery?
Nice backpedal, moviePig. Quoted above is the single true statement you
made in this thread, that the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by
name. You got everything else wrong.
Post by moviePig
If so, WTF is your point here?
My point here is to make a valiant effort to pound the clue through
against your excessive SRF and your wont of trolling.
The Constitution did not authorize slavery. Period. End of statement.
The various provisions of the Constitution that were about slavery were
drafted as carefully as possible to make sure that they did not
authorize slavery. By design, the Constitution does not abet slavery. It
doesn't authorize slavery. It doesn't make slavery legal. Instead, it
set up a temporary mechanism, the United States Senate, to make it
extremely difficult to pass federal legislation abolishing slavery. The
mechanism was temporary as the Founding Fathers intended that new states
be added to the Union and each time a new state would be added, it would
change the makeup of Congress.
Abetting might be a legitimate word to use with respect to the
importation of slaves clause and the fugitive slave clause, but it's
absolutely wrong with respect to slavery generally.
Okay, Prince Valiant, if you want to trouble yourself to find my entry
into this topic, you'll see that it was when BTR questioned David
Johnson's contention that the Constitution protected slavery, by
design.   Which it did ...whether it did so unanimously, or
reluctantly, or with imminent repeal aforethought.  Period.  End of
statement.
(And, if you really want to trot out your usual "backpedal" agenda, be
sure you do it by quoting *me*...)
Everything in the Constitution was there by design.  Jesus Christ!  It's
a written document, and it's pretty damned clear that it codifies
slavery - even going as far as prohibiting it's abolition for TWO DECADES.
Side note:  That's what the word 'perpetuates' MEANS!  The framers
didn't put an end date on it, thus leaving slavery intact indefinitely.
It would take a CHANGE in the Constitution to abolish it.
I did not know that. Fascinating. Reminds me of sucker offers...
Adam H. Kerman
2020-09-06 03:38:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
. . .
I'm just not sure how one separates out which portions of a relatively
brief, public, consensual document are more by "design" than others.
That's pure moviePig.
It's ENTIRELY by design.
Can you please remind us which clause in the pre-13th Amendment
Constitution authorizes slavery?
Oh, drat, the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by name.  So,
Pure
Adam, what conclusion do you wrest from that?
The Founding Fathers intended me to conclude that slavery wasn't being
authorized in federal law, duh. That's why the Constitution was written
in such a way to make sure that every knows, including moviePig, that
slavery isn't being authorized in federal law.
By design.
Are you willing to accept the obvious now, or still claim to be unsure?
Does the Constitution authorize, oh, I don't know... sunbathing?
That's the answer to the question no one would ever ask, if moviePig has
the ability to demonstrate understanding or to offer a rational
[argument].
The law does not cover every possible subject matter. With respect to
some subjects, they are not addressed directly in law in any way. With
respect to other subjects, they are addressed indirectly without being
authorized; the slavery provisions of the Constitution are examples of
indirect references without authorization. With respect to other
subjects, they are authorized specifically in law. An example of that
would be the federal income tax.
So, you acknowledge that little significance attaches to your question
of whether slavery is authorized by a Constitution which makes no
mention of it?
I would never ask you a question of any kind hoping to learn something,
nor would anyone else. Would you please acknowledge that?
I made a true statement on the nature of the law because you continue to
pull moviePig nonsense by rephrasing and reinterpreting it so that it's
no longer a true statement.
Christ on a corncob...
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Meanwhile, afaik, the Constitution was written in such a way as to make
sure that everyone, including the Adams of the world, knew that slavery
was not forbidden by federal law.
That's moviePig deliberately getting it wrong, for sometimes the law
does address a particular subject to clearly state that it's not
forbidden. That is NOT the case with respect to the slavery provisions
in the Constitution.
Beg pardon?  Didn't the original Constitution include, *by design*, a
provision that specifically abetted slavery?
Nice backpedal, moviePig. Quoted above is the single true statement you
made in this thread, that the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by
name. You got everything else wrong.
Post by moviePig
If so, WTF is your point here?
My point here is to make a valiant effort to pound the clue through
against your excessive SRF and your wont of trolling.
The Constitution did not authorize slavery. Period. End of statement.
The various provisions of the Constitution that were about slavery were
drafted as carefully as possible to make sure that they did not
authorize slavery. By design, the Constitution does not abet slavery. It
doesn't authorize slavery. It doesn't make slavery legal. Instead, it
set up a temporary mechanism, the United States Senate, to make it
extremely difficult to pass federal legislation abolishing slavery. The
mechanism was temporary as the Founding Fathers intended that new states
be added to the Union and each time a new state would be added, it would
change the makeup of Congress.
Abetting might be a legitimate word to use with respect to the
importation of slaves clause and the fugitive slave clause, but it's
absolutely wrong with respect to slavery generally.
Okay, Prince Valiant, if you want to trouble yourself to find my entry
into this topic, you'll see that it was when BTR questioned David
Johnson's contention that the Constitution protected slavery, by
design.   Which it did ...whether it did so unanimously, or
reluctantly, or with imminent repeal aforethought.  Period.  End of
statement.
(And, if you really want to trot out your usual "backpedal" agenda, be
sure you do it by quoting *me*...)
Everything in the Constitution was there by design.  Jesus Christ!  It's
a written document, and it's pretty damned clear that it codifies
slavery - even going as far as prohibiting it's abolition for TWO DECADES.
Side note:  That's what the word 'perpetuates' MEANS!  The framers
didn't put an end date on it, thus leaving slavery intact indefinitely.
It would take a CHANGE in the Constitution to abolish it.
I did not know that. Fascinating. Reminds me of sucker offers...
Could you read it for yourself, moviePig? The Slave Importation clause
prohibits Congress from passing a law prohibiting the slave trade prior
to 1808. Congress, then, passed such a law. The cluse did not codify
slavery; FPP lied.
moviePig
2020-09-06 14:29:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
. . .
I'm just not sure how one separates out which portions of a
relatively
brief, public, consensual document are more by "design" than others.
That's pure moviePig.
It's ENTIRELY by design.
Can you please remind us which clause in the pre-13th Amendment
Constitution authorizes slavery?
Oh, drat, the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by name.  So,
Pure
Adam, what conclusion do you wrest from that?
The Founding Fathers intended me to conclude that slavery wasn't being
authorized in federal law, duh. That's why the Constitution was written
in such a way to make sure that every knows, including moviePig, that
slavery isn't being authorized in federal law.
By design.
Are you willing to accept the obvious now, or still claim to be unsure?
Does the Constitution authorize, oh, I don't know... sunbathing?
That's the answer to the question no one would ever ask, if moviePig has
the ability to demonstrate understanding or to offer a rational
[argument].
The law does not cover every possible subject matter. With respect to
some subjects, they are not addressed directly in law in any way. With
respect to other subjects, they are addressed indirectly without being
authorized; the slavery provisions of the Constitution are examples of
indirect references without authorization. With respect to other
subjects, they are authorized specifically in law. An example of that
would be the federal income tax.
So, you acknowledge that little significance attaches to your question
of whether slavery is authorized by a Constitution which makes no
mention of it?
I would never ask you a question of any kind hoping to learn something,
nor would anyone else. Would you please acknowledge that?
I made a true statement on the nature of the law because you continue to
pull moviePig nonsense by rephrasing and reinterpreting it so that it's
no longer a true statement.
Christ on a corncob...
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Meanwhile, afaik, the Constitution was written in such a way as to make
sure that everyone, including the Adams of the world, knew that slavery
was not forbidden by federal law.
That's moviePig deliberately getting it wrong, for sometimes the law
does address a particular subject to clearly state that it's not
forbidden. That is NOT the case with respect to the slavery provisions
in the Constitution.
Beg pardon?  Didn't the original Constitution include, *by design*, a
provision that specifically abetted slavery?
Nice backpedal, moviePig. Quoted above is the single true statement you
made in this thread, that the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by
name. You got everything else wrong.
Post by moviePig
If so, WTF is your point here?
My point here is to make a valiant effort to pound the clue through
against your excessive SRF and your wont of trolling.
The Constitution did not authorize slavery. Period. End of statement.
The various provisions of the Constitution that were about slavery were
drafted as carefully as possible to make sure that they did not
authorize slavery. By design, the Constitution does not abet slavery. It
doesn't authorize slavery. It doesn't make slavery legal. Instead, it
set up a temporary mechanism, the United States Senate, to make it
extremely difficult to pass federal legislation abolishing slavery. The
mechanism was temporary as the Founding Fathers intended that new states
be added to the Union and each time a new state would be added, it would
change the makeup of Congress.
Abetting might be a legitimate word to use with respect to the
importation of slaves clause and the fugitive slave clause, but it's
absolutely wrong with respect to slavery generally.
Okay, Prince Valiant, if you want to trouble yourself to find my entry
into this topic, you'll see that it was when BTR questioned David
Johnson's contention that the Constitution protected slavery, by
design.   Which it did ...whether it did so unanimously, or
reluctantly, or with imminent repeal aforethought.  Period.  End of
statement.
(And, if you really want to trot out your usual "backpedal" agenda, be
sure you do it by quoting *me*...)
Everything in the Constitution was there by design.  Jesus Christ!  It's
a written document, and it's pretty damned clear that it codifies
slavery - even going as far as prohibiting it's abolition for TWO DECADES.
Side note:  That's what the word 'perpetuates' MEANS!  The framers
didn't put an end date on it, thus leaving slavery intact indefinitely.
It would take a CHANGE in the Constitution to abolish it.
I did not know that. Fascinating. Reminds me of sucker offers...
Could you read it for yourself, moviePig? The Slave Importation clause
prohibits Congress from passing a law prohibiting the slave trade prior
to 1808. Congress, then, passed such a law. The cluse did not codify
slavery; FPP lied.
I did read it for myself.

And now I've also looked up the meaning of "codify", as I did earlier of
"authorize". Imo, none offers any basis for stupid Usenet quibbling.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-09-06 17:46:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
. . .
I'm just not sure how one separates out which portions of a
relatively
brief, public, consensual document are more by "design" than
others.
That's pure moviePig.
It's ENTIRELY by design.
Can you please remind us which clause in the pre-13th Amendment
Constitution authorizes slavery?
Oh, drat, the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by name.  So,
Pure
Adam, what conclusion do you wrest from that?
The Founding Fathers intended me to conclude that slavery wasn't being
authorized in federal law, duh. That's why the Constitution was written
in such a way to make sure that every knows, including moviePig, that
slavery isn't being authorized in federal law.
By design.
Are you willing to accept the obvious now, or still claim to be unsure?
Does the Constitution authorize, oh, I don't know... sunbathing?
That's the answer to the question no one would ever ask, if moviePig has
the ability to demonstrate understanding or to offer a rational
[argument].
The law does not cover every possible subject matter. With respect to
some subjects, they are not addressed directly in law in any way. With
respect to other subjects, they are addressed indirectly without being
authorized; the slavery provisions of the Constitution are examples of
indirect references without authorization. With respect to other
subjects, they are authorized specifically in law. An example of that
would be the federal income tax.
So, you acknowledge that little significance attaches to your question
of whether slavery is authorized by a Constitution which makes no
mention of it?
I would never ask you a question of any kind hoping to learn something,
nor would anyone else. Would you please acknowledge that?
I made a true statement on the nature of the law because you continue to
pull moviePig nonsense by rephrasing and reinterpreting it so that it's
no longer a true statement.
Christ on a corncob...
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Meanwhile, afaik, the Constitution was written in such a way as to make
sure that everyone, including the Adams of the world, knew that slavery
was not forbidden by federal law.
That's moviePig deliberately getting it wrong, for sometimes the law
does address a particular subject to clearly state that it's not
forbidden. That is NOT the case with respect to the slavery provisions
in the Constitution.
Beg pardon?  Didn't the original Constitution include, *by design*, a
provision that specifically abetted slavery?
Nice backpedal, moviePig. Quoted above is the single true statement you
made in this thread, that the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by
name. You got everything else wrong.
Post by moviePig
If so, WTF is your point here?
My point here is to make a valiant effort to pound the clue through
against your excessive SRF and your wont of trolling.
The Constitution did not authorize slavery. Period. End of statement.
The various provisions of the Constitution that were about slavery were
drafted as carefully as possible to make sure that they did not
authorize slavery. By design, the Constitution does not abet slavery. It
doesn't authorize slavery. It doesn't make slavery legal. Instead, it
set up a temporary mechanism, the United States Senate, to make it
extremely difficult to pass federal legislation abolishing slavery. The
mechanism was temporary as the Founding Fathers intended that new states
be added to the Union and each time a new state would be added, it would
change the makeup of Congress.
Abetting might be a legitimate word to use with respect to the
importation of slaves clause and the fugitive slave clause, but it's
absolutely wrong with respect to slavery generally.
Okay, Prince Valiant, if you want to trouble yourself to find my entry
into this topic, you'll see that it was when BTR questioned David
Johnson's contention that the Constitution protected slavery, by
design.   Which it did ...whether it did so unanimously, or
reluctantly, or with imminent repeal aforethought.  Period.  End of
statement.
(And, if you really want to trot out your usual "backpedal" agenda, be
sure you do it by quoting *me*...)
Everything in the Constitution was there by design.  Jesus Christ!  It's
a written document, and it's pretty damned clear that it codifies
slavery - even going as far as prohibiting it's abolition for TWO DECADES.
Side note:  That's what the word 'perpetuates' MEANS!  The framers
didn't put an end date on it, thus leaving slavery intact indefinitely.
It would take a CHANGE in the Constitution to abolish it.
I did not know that. Fascinating. Reminds me of sucker offers...
Could you read it for yourself, moviePig? The Slave Importation clause
prohibits Congress from passing a law prohibiting the slave trade prior
to 1808. Congress, then, passed such a law. The cluse did not codify
slavery; FPP lied.
I did read it for myself.
And now I've also looked up the meaning of "codify", as I did earlier of
"authorize". Imo, none offers any basis for stupid Usenet quibbling.
I think it's wonderful that you'll be shutting the fuck up now.
moviePig
2020-09-06 19:03:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
. . .
I'm just not sure how one separates out which portions of a
relatively
brief, public, consensual document are more by "design" than
others.
That's pure moviePig.
It's ENTIRELY by design.
Can you please remind us which clause in the pre-13th Amendment
Constitution authorizes slavery?
Oh, drat, the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by name.  So,
Pure
Adam, what conclusion do you wrest from that?
The Founding Fathers intended me to conclude that slavery wasn't being
authorized in federal law, duh. That's why the Constitution was written
in such a way to make sure that every knows, including moviePig, that
slavery isn't being authorized in federal law.
By design.
Are you willing to accept the obvious now, or still claim to be unsure?
Does the Constitution authorize, oh, I don't know... sunbathing?
That's the answer to the question no one would ever ask, if moviePig has
the ability to demonstrate understanding or to offer a rational
[argument].
The law does not cover every possible subject matter. With respect to
some subjects, they are not addressed directly in law in any way. With
respect to other subjects, they are addressed indirectly without being
authorized; the slavery provisions of the Constitution are examples of
indirect references without authorization. With respect to other
subjects, they are authorized specifically in law. An example of that
would be the federal income tax.
So, you acknowledge that little significance attaches to your question
of whether slavery is authorized by a Constitution which makes no
mention of it?
I would never ask you a question of any kind hoping to learn something,
nor would anyone else. Would you please acknowledge that?
I made a true statement on the nature of the law because you continue to
pull moviePig nonsense by rephrasing and reinterpreting it so that it's
no longer a true statement.
Christ on a corncob...
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Meanwhile, afaik, the Constitution was written in such a way as to make
sure that everyone, including the Adams of the world, knew that slavery
was not forbidden by federal law.
That's moviePig deliberately getting it wrong, for sometimes the law
does address a particular subject to clearly state that it's not
forbidden. That is NOT the case with respect to the slavery provisions
in the Constitution.
Beg pardon?  Didn't the original Constitution include, *by design*, a
provision that specifically abetted slavery?
Nice backpedal, moviePig. Quoted above is the single true statement you
made in this thread, that the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by
name. You got everything else wrong.
Post by moviePig
If so, WTF is your point here?
My point here is to make a valiant effort to pound the clue through
against your excessive SRF and your wont of trolling.
The Constitution did not authorize slavery. Period. End of statement.
The various provisions of the Constitution that were about slavery were
drafted as carefully as possible to make sure that they did not
authorize slavery. By design, the Constitution does not abet slavery. It
doesn't authorize slavery. It doesn't make slavery legal. Instead, it
set up a temporary mechanism, the United States Senate, to make it
extremely difficult to pass federal legislation abolishing slavery. The
mechanism was temporary as the Founding Fathers intended that new states
be added to the Union and each time a new state would be added, it would
change the makeup of Congress.
Abetting might be a legitimate word to use with respect to the
importation of slaves clause and the fugitive slave clause, but it's
absolutely wrong with respect to slavery generally.
Okay, Prince Valiant, if you want to trouble yourself to find my entry
into this topic, you'll see that it was when BTR questioned David
Johnson's contention that the Constitution protected slavery, by
design.   Which it did ...whether it did so unanimously, or
reluctantly, or with imminent repeal aforethought.  Period.  End of
statement.
(And, if you really want to trot out your usual "backpedal" agenda, be
sure you do it by quoting *me*...)
Everything in the Constitution was there by design.  Jesus Christ!  It's
a written document, and it's pretty damned clear that it codifies
slavery - even going as far as prohibiting it's abolition for TWO DECADES.
Side note:  That's what the word 'perpetuates' MEANS!  The framers
didn't put an end date on it, thus leaving slavery intact indefinitely.
It would take a CHANGE in the Constitution to abolish it.
I did not know that. Fascinating. Reminds me of sucker offers...
Could you read it for yourself, moviePig? The Slave Importation clause
prohibits Congress from passing a law prohibiting the slave trade prior
to 1808. Congress, then, passed such a law. The cluse did not codify
slavery; FPP lied.
I did read it for myself.
And now I've also looked up the meaning of "codify", as I did earlier of
"authorize". Imo, none offers any basis for stupid Usenet quibbling.
I think it's wonderful that you'll be shutting the fuck up now.
I think it's doubtful that you think.
FPP
2020-09-06 21:38:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
. . .
I'm just not sure how one separates out which portions of a
relatively
brief, public, consensual document are more by "design" than
others.
That's pure moviePig.
It's ENTIRELY by design.
Can you please remind us which clause in the pre-13th Amendment
Constitution authorizes slavery?
Oh, drat, the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by name.  So,
Pure
Adam, what conclusion do you wrest from that?
The Founding Fathers intended me to conclude that slavery
wasn't
being
authorized in federal law, duh. That's why the Constitution was
written
in such a way to make sure that every knows, including
moviePig,
that
slavery isn't being authorized in federal law.
By design.
Are you willing to accept the obvious now, or still claim to be
unsure?
Does the Constitution authorize, oh, I don't know... sunbathing?
That's the answer to the question no one would ever ask, if moviePig has
the ability to demonstrate understanding or to offer a rational
[argument].
The law does not cover every possible subject matter. With respect to
some subjects, they are not addressed directly in law in any way. With
respect to other subjects, they are addressed indirectly without being
authorized; the slavery provisions of the Constitution are examples of
indirect references without authorization. With respect to other
subjects, they are authorized specifically in law. An example of that
would be the federal income tax.
So, you acknowledge that little significance attaches to your question
of whether slavery is authorized by a Constitution which makes no
mention of it?
I would never ask you a question of any kind hoping to learn something,
nor would anyone else. Would you please acknowledge that?
I made a true statement on the nature of the law because you continue to
pull moviePig nonsense by rephrasing and reinterpreting it so that it's
no longer a true statement.
Christ on a corncob...
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Meanwhile, afaik, the Constitution was written in such a way
as to
make
sure that everyone, including the Adams of the world, knew that slavery
was not forbidden by federal law.
That's moviePig deliberately getting it wrong, for sometimes the law
does address a particular subject to clearly state that it's not
forbidden. That is NOT the case with respect to the slavery provisions
in the Constitution.
Beg pardon?  Didn't the original Constitution include, *by design*, a
provision that specifically abetted slavery?
Nice backpedal, moviePig. Quoted above is the single true statement you
made in this thread, that the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by
name. You got everything else wrong.
Post by moviePig
If so, WTF is your point here?
My point here is to make a valiant effort to pound the clue through
against your excessive SRF and your wont of trolling.
The Constitution did not authorize slavery. Period. End of statement.
The various provisions of the Constitution that were about slavery were
drafted as carefully as possible to make sure that they did not
authorize slavery. By design, the Constitution does not abet slavery. It
doesn't authorize slavery. It doesn't make slavery legal. Instead, it
set up a temporary mechanism, the United States Senate, to make it
extremely difficult to pass federal legislation abolishing slavery. The
mechanism was temporary as the Founding Fathers intended that new states
be added to the Union and each time a new state would be added, it would
change the makeup of Congress.
Abetting might be a legitimate word to use with respect to the
importation of slaves clause and the fugitive slave clause, but it's
absolutely wrong with respect to slavery generally.
Okay, Prince Valiant, if you want to trouble yourself to find my entry
into this topic, you'll see that it was when BTR questioned David
Johnson's contention that the Constitution protected slavery, by
design.   Which it did ...whether it did so unanimously, or
reluctantly, or with imminent repeal aforethought.  Period.Â
End of
statement.
(And, if you really want to trot out your usual "backpedal" agenda, be
sure you do it by quoting *me*...)
Everything in the Constitution was there by design.  Jesus Christ!  It's
a written document, and it's pretty damned clear that it codifies
slavery - even going as far as prohibiting it's abolition for TWO DECADES.
Side note:  That's what the word 'perpetuates' MEANS!  The framers
didn't put an end date on it, thus leaving slavery intact
indefinitely.
It would take a CHANGE in the Constitution to abolish it.
I did not know that.  Fascinating.  Reminds me of sucker offers...
Could you read it for yourself, moviePig? The Slave Importation clause
prohibits Congress from passing a law prohibiting the slave trade prior
to 1808. Congress, then, passed such a law. The cluse did not codify
slavery; FPP lied.
I did read it for myself.
And now I've also looked up the meaning of "codify", as I did earlier of
"authorize".  Imo, none offers any basis for stupid Usenet quibbling.
I think it's wonderful that you'll be shutting the fuck up now.
I think it's doubtful that you think.
This is the ultimate end to EVERY Adam argument. He always devolves to
"Shut the fuck up!" by the end.

It's why I killfiled him in the first place. Every argument he makes
ends this way.
--
"We can never have a situation where things are going on as they are
today..." - President Donald J Bumblefuck (Aug. 27, 2020 - RNC Convention)

"Trump inherited the longest economic expansion in history from Barack
Obama and Joe Biden...and then, like everything else he inherited, he
ran it straight into the ground." - Kamala Harris

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
moviePig
2020-09-06 22:07:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
. . .
I'm just not sure how one separates out which portions of a
relatively
brief, public, consensual document are more by "design" than
others.
That's pure moviePig.
It's ENTIRELY by design.
Can you please remind us which clause in the pre-13th Amendment
Constitution authorizes slavery?
Oh, drat, the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by
name.  So,
Pure
Adam, what conclusion do you wrest from that?
The Founding Fathers intended me to conclude that slavery
wasn't
being
authorized in federal law, duh. That's why the Constitution was
written
in such a way to make sure that every knows, including
moviePig,
that
slavery isn't being authorized in federal law.
By design.
Are you willing to accept the obvious now, or still claim to be
unsure?
Does the Constitution authorize, oh, I don't know... sunbathing?
That's the answer to the question no one would ever ask, if
moviePig has
the ability to demonstrate understanding or to offer a rational
[argument].
The law does not cover every possible subject matter. With respect to
some subjects, they are not addressed directly in law in any way. With
respect to other subjects, they are addressed indirectly without being
authorized; the slavery provisions of the Constitution are examples of
indirect references without authorization. With respect to other
subjects, they are authorized specifically in law. An example of that
would be the federal income tax.
So, you acknowledge that little significance attaches to your question
of whether slavery is authorized by a Constitution which makes no
mention of it?
I would never ask you a question of any kind hoping to learn something,
nor would anyone else. Would you please acknowledge that?
I made a true statement on the nature of the law because you continue to
pull moviePig nonsense by rephrasing and reinterpreting it so that it's
no longer a true statement.
Christ on a corncob...
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Meanwhile, afaik, the Constitution was written in such a way
as to
make
sure that everyone, including the Adams of the world, knew that
slavery
was not forbidden by federal law.
That's moviePig deliberately getting it wrong, for sometimes the law
does address a particular subject to clearly state that it's not
forbidden. That is NOT the case with respect to the slavery provisions
in the Constitution.
Beg pardon?  Didn't the original Constitution include, *by design*, a
provision that specifically abetted slavery?
Nice backpedal, moviePig. Quoted above is the single true statement you
made in this thread, that the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by
name. You got everything else wrong.
Post by moviePig
If so, WTF is your point here?
My point here is to make a valiant effort to pound the clue through
against your excessive SRF and your wont of trolling.
The Constitution did not authorize slavery. Period. End of statement.
The various provisions of the Constitution that were about slavery were
drafted as carefully as possible to make sure that they did not
authorize slavery. By design, the Constitution does not abet slavery. It
doesn't authorize slavery. It doesn't make slavery legal. Instead, it
set up a temporary mechanism, the United States Senate, to make it
extremely difficult to pass federal legislation abolishing slavery. The
mechanism was temporary as the Founding Fathers intended that new states
be added to the Union and each time a new state would be added, it would
change the makeup of Congress.
Abetting might be a legitimate word to use with respect to the
importation of slaves clause and the fugitive slave clause, but it's
absolutely wrong with respect to slavery generally.
Okay, Prince Valiant, if you want to trouble yourself to find my entry
into this topic, you'll see that it was when BTR questioned David
Johnson's contention that the Constitution protected slavery, by
design.   Which it did ...whether it did so unanimously, or
reluctantly, or with imminent repeal aforethought.  Period.Â
End of
statement.
(And, if you really want to trot out your usual "backpedal" agenda, be
sure you do it by quoting *me*...)
Everything in the Constitution was there by design.  Jesus Christ!  It's
a written document, and it's pretty damned clear that it codifies
slavery - even going as far as prohibiting it's abolition for TWO DECADES.
Side note:  That's what the word 'perpetuates' MEANS!  The framers
didn't put an end date on it, thus leaving slavery intact indefinitely.
It would take a CHANGE in the Constitution to abolish it.
I did not know that.  Fascinating.  Reminds me of sucker offers...
Could you read it for yourself, moviePig? The Slave Importation clause
prohibits Congress from passing a law prohibiting the slave trade prior
to 1808. Congress, then, passed such a law. The cluse did not codify
slavery; FPP lied.
I did read it for myself.
And now I've also looked up the meaning of "codify", as I did earlier of
"authorize".  Imo, none offers any basis for stupid Usenet quibbling.
I think it's wonderful that you'll be shutting the fuck up now.
I think it's doubtful that you think.
This is the ultimate end to EVERY Adam argument.  He always devolves to
"Shut the fuck up!" by the end.
It's why I killfiled him in the first place.  Every argument he makes
ends this way.
I think I know what he gets out of it. I wonder what he thinks he does.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-09-06 22:52:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
. . .
And now I've also looked up the meaning of "codify", as I did
earlier of "authorize". Imo, none offers any basis for stupid Usenet
quibbling.
I think it's wonderful that you'll be shutting the fuck up now.
I think it's doubtful that you think.
This is the ultimate end to EVERY Adam argument. He always devolves to
"Shut the fuck up!" by the end.
It's why I killfiled him in the first place. Every argument he makes
ends this way.
I think I know what he gets out of it. I wonder what he thinks he does.
"None ofers any basis for stupid Usenet quibbling."

There's the exit line. You wrote that. You then continued the "stupid
Usenet quibbling", which I expected you to do. You're being the drama
queen, here, until the point you truly stop the "stupid Usenet quibbling"
and shut the fuck up. Or, you can be like FPP who never stops talking
about his Usenet enemies, reads everything they write, and never shuts
the fuck up. He regularly posts up to half a dozen followups to BTR1701.

There's no third option for you. You've painted yourself into a corner.
Try to avoid going further down the FPP path because he, you know, is
completely nuts and you still have a choice.
moviePig
2020-09-06 23:04:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
. . .
And now I've also looked up the meaning of "codify", as I did
earlier of "authorize". Imo, none offers any basis for stupid Usenet
quibbling.
I think it's wonderful that you'll be shutting the fuck up now.
I think it's doubtful that you think.
This is the ultimate end to EVERY Adam argument. He always devolves to
"Shut the fuck up!" by the end.
It's why I killfiled him in the first place. Every argument he makes
ends this way.
I think I know what he gets out of it. I wonder what he thinks he does.
"None ofers any basis for stupid Usenet quibbling."
There's the exit line. You wrote that. You then continued the "stupid
Usenet quibbling", which I expected you to do. You're being the drama
queen, here, until the point you truly stop the "stupid Usenet quibbling"
and shut the fuck up. Or, you can be like FPP who never stops talking
about his Usenet enemies, reads everything they write, and never shuts
the fuck up. He regularly posts up to half a dozen followups to BTR1701.
There's no third option for you. You've painted yourself into a corner.
...
Oh, Inspector Javert, won't you relent?...
Adam H. Kerman
2020-09-06 23:54:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
. . .
And now I've also looked up the meaning of "codify", as I did
earlier of "authorize". Imo, none offers any basis for stupid Usenet
quibbling.
I think it's wonderful that you'll be shutting the fuck up now.
I think it's doubtful that you think.
This is the ultimate end to EVERY Adam argument. He always devolves to
"Shut the fuck up!" by the end.
It's why I killfiled him in the first place. Every argument he makes
ends this way.
I think I know what he gets out of it. I wonder what he thinks he does.
"None ofers any basis for stupid Usenet quibbling."
There's the exit line. You wrote that. You then continued the "stupid
Usenet quibbling", which I expected you to do. You're being the drama
queen, here, until the point you truly stop the "stupid Usenet quibbling"
and shut the fuck up. Or, you can be like FPP who never stops talking
about his Usenet enemies, reads everything they write, and never shuts
the fuck up. He regularly posts up to half a dozen followups to BTR1701.
There's no third option for you. You've painted yourself into a corner.
...
Oh, Inspector Javert, won't you relent?...
Let's restore the rest of the quote, shall we?
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Try to avoid going further down the FPP path because he, you know, is
completely nuts and you still have a choice.
FPP
2020-09-06 21:31:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
. . .
I'm just not sure how one separates out which portions of a
relatively
brief, public, consensual document are more by "design" than
others.
That's pure moviePig.
It's ENTIRELY by design.
Can you please remind us which clause in the pre-13th Amendment
Constitution authorizes slavery?
Oh, drat, the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by name.  So,
Pure
Adam, what conclusion do you wrest from that?
The Founding Fathers intended me to conclude that slavery wasn't being
authorized in federal law, duh. That's why the Constitution was written
in such a way to make sure that every knows, including moviePig, that
slavery isn't being authorized in federal law.
By design.
Are you willing to accept the obvious now, or still claim to be unsure?
Does the Constitution authorize, oh, I don't know... sunbathing?
That's the answer to the question no one would ever ask, if moviePig has
the ability to demonstrate understanding or to offer a rational
[argument].
The law does not cover every possible subject matter. With respect to
some subjects, they are not addressed directly in law in any way. With
respect to other subjects, they are addressed indirectly without being
authorized; the slavery provisions of the Constitution are examples of
indirect references without authorization. With respect to other
subjects, they are authorized specifically in law. An example of that
would be the federal income tax.
So, you acknowledge that little significance attaches to your question
of whether slavery is authorized by a Constitution which makes no
mention of it?
I would never ask you a question of any kind hoping to learn something,
nor would anyone else. Would you please acknowledge that?
I made a true statement on the nature of the law because you continue to
pull moviePig nonsense by rephrasing and reinterpreting it so that it's
no longer a true statement.
Christ on a corncob...
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Meanwhile, afaik, the Constitution was written in such a way as to make
sure that everyone, including the Adams of the world, knew that slavery
was not forbidden by federal law.
That's moviePig deliberately getting it wrong, for sometimes the law
does address a particular subject to clearly state that it's not
forbidden. That is NOT the case with respect to the slavery provisions
in the Constitution.
Beg pardon?  Didn't the original Constitution include, *by design*, a
provision that specifically abetted slavery?
Nice backpedal, moviePig. Quoted above is the single true
statement you
made in this thread, that the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by
name. You got everything else wrong.
Post by moviePig
If so, WTF is your point here?
My point here is to make a valiant effort to pound the clue through
against your excessive SRF and your wont of trolling.
The Constitution did not authorize slavery. Period. End of statement.
The various provisions of the Constitution that were about slavery were
drafted as carefully as possible to make sure that they did not
authorize slavery. By design, the Constitution does not abet slavery. It
doesn't authorize slavery. It doesn't make slavery legal. Instead, it
set up a temporary mechanism, the United States Senate, to make it
extremely difficult to pass federal legislation abolishing slavery. The
mechanism was temporary as the Founding Fathers intended that new states
be added to the Union and each time a new state would be added, it would
change the makeup of Congress.
Abetting might be a legitimate word to use with respect to the
importation of slaves clause and the fugitive slave clause, but it's
absolutely wrong with respect to slavery generally.
Okay, Prince Valiant, if you want to trouble yourself to find my entry
into this topic, you'll see that it was when BTR questioned David
Johnson's contention that the Constitution protected slavery, by
design.   Which it did ...whether it did so unanimously, or
reluctantly, or with imminent repeal aforethought.  Period.  End of
statement.
(And, if you really want to trot out your usual "backpedal" agenda, be
sure you do it by quoting *me*...)
Everything in the Constitution was there by design.  Jesus Christ!
It's
a written document, and it's pretty damned clear that it codifies
slavery - even going as far as prohibiting it's abolition for TWO DECADES.
Side note:  That's what the word 'perpetuates' MEANS!  The framers
didn't put an end date on it, thus leaving slavery intact indefinitely.
It would take a CHANGE in the Constitution to abolish it.
I did not know that.  Fascinating.  Reminds me of sucker offers...
Could you read it for yourself, moviePig? The Slave Importation clause
prohibits Congress from passing a law prohibiting the slave trade prior
to 1808. Congress, then, passed such a law. The cluse did not codify
slavery; FPP lied.
I did read it for myself.
And now I've also looked up the meaning of "codify", as I did earlier of
"authorize".  Imo, none offers any basis for stupid Usenet quibbling.
cod·i·fy verb arrange (laws or rules) into a systematic code.

First Lesson of Usenet: Adam doesn't know shit about anything BUT shit.

"The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United
States of America. It is regarded as the oldest written and codified
national constitution in force."

"The first implication of the codified/uncodified Constitution — and
arguably the US Constitution’s greatest strength — is in relation to
individual rights. Because the USA has a codified Constitution it has a
codified and embedded set of rights that all US citizens possess. These
can be found in the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the
Constitution) and contain guaranteed rights such as freedom of speech,
freedom from unreasonable search or seizure and freedom from torture."

What does he think the Constitution was for? And why would you listen
to a shithead, anyway?
--
"We can never have a situation where things are going on as they are
today..." - President Donald J Bumblefuck (Aug. 27, 2020 - RNC Convention)

"Trump inherited the longest economic expansion in history from Barack
Obama and Joe Biden...and then, like everything else he inherited, he
ran it straight into the ground." - Kamala Harris

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
moviePig
2020-09-06 22:10:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
. . .
I'm just not sure how one separates out which portions of a
relatively
brief, public, consensual document are more by "design" than
others.
That's pure moviePig.
It's ENTIRELY by design.
Can you please remind us which clause in the pre-13th Amendment
Constitution authorizes slavery?
Oh, drat, the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by name.
So,
Pure
Adam, what conclusion do you wrest from that?
The Founding Fathers intended me to conclude that slavery wasn't being
authorized in federal law, duh. That's why the Constitution was written
in such a way to make sure that every knows, including moviePig, that
slavery isn't being authorized in federal law.
By design.
Are you willing to accept the obvious now, or still claim to be unsure?
Does the Constitution authorize, oh, I don't know... sunbathing?
That's the answer to the question no one would ever ask, if moviePig has
the ability to demonstrate understanding or to offer a rational
[argument].
The law does not cover every possible subject matter. With respect to
some subjects, they are not addressed directly in law in any way. With
respect to other subjects, they are addressed indirectly without being
authorized; the slavery provisions of the Constitution are examples of
indirect references without authorization. With respect to other
subjects, they are authorized specifically in law. An example of that
would be the federal income tax.
So, you acknowledge that little significance attaches to your question
of whether slavery is authorized by a Constitution which makes no
mention of it?
I would never ask you a question of any kind hoping to learn something,
nor would anyone else. Would you please acknowledge that?
I made a true statement on the nature of the law because you continue to
pull moviePig nonsense by rephrasing and reinterpreting it so that it's
no longer a true statement.
Christ on a corncob...
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Meanwhile, afaik, the Constitution was written in such a way
as to
make
sure that everyone, including the Adams of the world, knew that slavery
was not forbidden by federal law.
That's moviePig deliberately getting it wrong, for sometimes the law
does address a particular subject to clearly state that it's not
forbidden. That is NOT the case with respect to the slavery provisions
in the Constitution.
Beg pardon?  Didn't the original Constitution include, *by design*, a
provision that specifically abetted slavery?
Nice backpedal, moviePig. Quoted above is the single true statement you
made in this thread, that the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by
name. You got everything else wrong.
Post by moviePig
If so, WTF is your point here?
My point here is to make a valiant effort to pound the clue through
against your excessive SRF and your wont of trolling.
The Constitution did not authorize slavery. Period. End of statement.
The various provisions of the Constitution that were about slavery were
drafted as carefully as possible to make sure that they did not
authorize slavery. By design, the Constitution does not abet slavery. It
doesn't authorize slavery. It doesn't make slavery legal. Instead, it
set up a temporary mechanism, the United States Senate, to make it
extremely difficult to pass federal legislation abolishing slavery. The
mechanism was temporary as the Founding Fathers intended that new states
be added to the Union and each time a new state would be added, it would
change the makeup of Congress.
Abetting might be a legitimate word to use with respect to the
importation of slaves clause and the fugitive slave clause, but it's
absolutely wrong with respect to slavery generally.
Okay, Prince Valiant, if you want to trouble yourself to find my entry
into this topic, you'll see that it was when BTR questioned David
Johnson's contention that the Constitution protected slavery, by
design.   Which it did ...whether it did so unanimously, or
reluctantly, or with imminent repeal aforethought.  Period.  End of
statement.
(And, if you really want to trot out your usual "backpedal" agenda, be
sure you do it by quoting *me*...)
Everything in the Constitution was there by design.  Jesus Christ!
It's
a written document, and it's pretty damned clear that it codifies
slavery - even going as far as prohibiting it's abolition for TWO DECADES.
Side note:  That's what the word 'perpetuates' MEANS!  The framers
didn't put an end date on it, thus leaving slavery intact
indefinitely.
It would take a CHANGE in the Constitution to abolish it.
I did not know that.  Fascinating.  Reminds me of sucker offers...
Could you read it for yourself, moviePig? The Slave Importation clause
prohibits Congress from passing a law prohibiting the slave trade prior
to 1808. Congress, then, passed such a law. The cluse did not codify
slavery; FPP lied.
I did read it for myself.
And now I've also looked up the meaning of "codify", as I did earlier
of "authorize".  Imo, none offers any basis for stupid Usenet quibbling.
cod·i·fy  verb  arrange (laws or rules) into a systematic code.
First Lesson of Usenet:  Adam doesn't know shit about anything BUT shit.
"The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United
States of America. It is regarded as the oldest written and codified
national constitution in force."
"The first implication of the codified/uncodified Constitution — and
arguably the US Constitution’s greatest strength — is in relation to
individual rights. Because the USA has a codified Constitution it has a
codified and embedded set of rights that all US citizens possess. These
can be found in the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the
Constitution) and contain guaranteed rights such as freedom of speech,
freedom from unreasonable search or seizure and freedom from torture."
What does he think the Constitution was for?  And why would you listen
to a shithead, anyway?
You have to listen to a turnip, if it shouts in your ear...
kensi
2020-09-08 03:04:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
And now I've also looked up the meaning of "codify", as I did earlier of
"authorize".  Imo, none offers any basis for stupid Usenet quibbling.
Since when does stupid Usenet quibbling need a *basis*?

*snicker*
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Adam H. Kerman
2020-09-05 23:53:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
. . .
I'm just not sure how one separates out which portions of a relatively
brief, public, consensual document are more by "design" than others.
That's pure moviePig.
It's ENTIRELY by design.
Can you please remind us which clause in the pre-13th Amendment
Constitution authorizes slavery?
Oh, drat, the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by name. So, Pure
Adam, what conclusion do you wrest from that?
The Founding Fathers intended me to conclude that slavery wasn't being
authorized in federal law, duh. That's why the Constitution was written
in such a way to make sure that every knows, including moviePig, that
slavery isn't being authorized in federal law.
By design.
Are you willing to accept the obvious now, or still claim to be unsure?
Does the Constitution authorize, oh, I don't know... sunbathing?
That's the answer to the question no one would ever ask, if moviePig has
the ability to demonstrate understanding or to offer a rational
[argument].
The law does not cover every possible subject matter. With respect to
some subjects, they are not addressed directly in law in any way. With
respect to other subjects, they are addressed indirectly without being
authorized; the slavery provisions of the Constitution are examples of
indirect references without authorization. With respect to other
subjects, they are authorized specifically in law. An example of that
would be the federal income tax.
So, you acknowledge that little significance attaches to your question
of whether slavery is authorized by a Constitution which makes no
mention of it?
I would never ask you a question of any kind hoping to learn something,
nor would anyone else. Would you please acknowledge that?
I made a true statement on the nature of the law because you continue to
pull moviePig nonsense by rephrasing and reinterpreting it so that it's
no longer a true statement.
Christ on a corncob...
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Meanwhile, afaik, the Constitution was written in such a way as to make
sure that everyone, including the Adams of the world, knew that slavery
was not forbidden by federal law.
That's moviePig deliberately getting it wrong, for sometimes the law
does address a particular subject to clearly state that it's not
forbidden. That is NOT the case with respect to the slavery provisions
in the Constitution.
Beg pardon? Didn't the original Constitution include, *by design*, a
provision that specifically abetted slavery?
Nice backpedal, moviePig. Quoted above is the single true statement you
made in this thread, that the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by
name. You got everything else wrong.
Post by moviePig
If so, WTF is your point here?
My point here is to make a valiant effort to pound the clue through
against your excessive SRF and your wont of trolling.
The Constitution did not authorize slavery. Period. End of statement.
The various provisions of the Constitution that were about slavery were
drafted as carefully as possible to make sure that they did not
authorize slavery. By design, the Constitution does not abet slavery. It
doesn't authorize slavery. It doesn't make slavery legal. Instead, it
set up a temporary mechanism, the United States Senate, to make it
extremely difficult to pass federal legislation abolishing slavery. The
mechanism was temporary as the Founding Fathers intended that new states
be added to the Union and each time a new state would be added, it would
change the makeup of Congress.
Abetting might be a legitimate word to use with respect to the
importation of slaves clause and the fugitive slave clause, but it's
absolutely wrong with respect to slavery generally.
Okay, Prince Valiant, if you want to trouble yourself to find my entry
into this topic, you'll see that it was when BTR questioned David
Johnson's contention that the Constitution protected slavery, by design.
Did you notice that I agreed with Johnston here? That doesn't mean I
think the Constitution authorized slavery, which it did not.
Post by moviePig
Which it did ...whether it did so unanimously, or reluctantly, or with
imminent repeal aforethought. Period. End of statement.
I know, moviePig. At the point of a gun, you would never make an
unequivacoble acurate statement.
Post by moviePig
(And, if you really want to trot out your usual "backpedal" agenda, be
sure you do it by quoting *me*...)
moviePig
2020-09-06 02:50:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
. . .
I'm just not sure how one separates out which portions of a relatively
brief, public, consensual document are more by "design" than others.
That's pure moviePig.
It's ENTIRELY by design.
Can you please remind us which clause in the pre-13th Amendment
Constitution authorizes slavery?
Oh, drat, the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by name. So, Pure
Adam, what conclusion do you wrest from that?
The Founding Fathers intended me to conclude that slavery wasn't being
authorized in federal law, duh. That's why the Constitution was written
in such a way to make sure that every knows, including moviePig, that
slavery isn't being authorized in federal law.
By design.
Are you willing to accept the obvious now, or still claim to be unsure?
Does the Constitution authorize, oh, I don't know... sunbathing?
That's the answer to the question no one would ever ask, if moviePig has
the ability to demonstrate understanding or to offer a rational
[argument].
The law does not cover every possible subject matter. With respect to
some subjects, they are not addressed directly in law in any way. With
respect to other subjects, they are addressed indirectly without being
authorized; the slavery provisions of the Constitution are examples of
indirect references without authorization. With respect to other
subjects, they are authorized specifically in law. An example of that
would be the federal income tax.
So, you acknowledge that little significance attaches to your question
of whether slavery is authorized by a Constitution which makes no
mention of it?
I would never ask you a question of any kind hoping to learn something,
nor would anyone else. Would you please acknowledge that?
I made a true statement on the nature of the law because you continue to
pull moviePig nonsense by rephrasing and reinterpreting it so that it's
no longer a true statement.
Christ on a corncob...
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Meanwhile, afaik, the Constitution was written in such a way as to make
sure that everyone, including the Adams of the world, knew that slavery
was not forbidden by federal law.
That's moviePig deliberately getting it wrong, for sometimes the law
does address a particular subject to clearly state that it's not
forbidden. That is NOT the case with respect to the slavery provisions
in the Constitution.
Beg pardon? Didn't the original Constitution include, *by design*, a
provision that specifically abetted slavery?
Nice backpedal, moviePig. Quoted above is the single true statement you
made in this thread, that the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by
name. You got everything else wrong.
Post by moviePig
If so, WTF is your point here?
My point here is to make a valiant effort to pound the clue through
against your excessive SRF and your wont of trolling.
The Constitution did not authorize slavery. Period. End of statement.
The various provisions of the Constitution that were about slavery were
drafted as carefully as possible to make sure that they did not
authorize slavery. By design, the Constitution does not abet slavery. It
doesn't authorize slavery. It doesn't make slavery legal. Instead, it
set up a temporary mechanism, the United States Senate, to make it
extremely difficult to pass federal legislation abolishing slavery. The
mechanism was temporary as the Founding Fathers intended that new states
be added to the Union and each time a new state would be added, it would
change the makeup of Congress.
Abetting might be a legitimate word to use with respect to the
importation of slaves clause and the fugitive slave clause, but it's
absolutely wrong with respect to slavery generally.
Okay, Prince Valiant, if you want to trouble yourself to find my entry
into this topic, you'll see that it was when BTR questioned David
Johnson's contention that the Constitution protected slavery, by design.
Did you notice that I agreed with Johnston here? That doesn't mean I
think the Constitution authorized slavery, which it did not.
Just for everyone's edification (especially yours) why not sketch an
informal wording of what you think an "authorization" of slavery
would've looked like, consonant with the original Constitution?
FPP
2020-09-06 07:22:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
. . .
I'm just not sure how one separates out which portions of a relatively
brief, public, consensual document are more by "design" than others.
That's pure moviePig.
It's ENTIRELY by design.
Can you please remind us which clause in the pre-13th Amendment
Constitution authorizes slavery?
Oh, drat, the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by name.
So, Pure
Adam, what conclusion do you wrest from that?
The Founding Fathers intended me to conclude that slavery wasn't being
authorized in federal law, duh. That's why the Constitution was written
in such a way to make sure that every knows, including moviePig, that
slavery isn't being authorized in federal law.
By design.
Are you willing to accept the obvious now, or still claim to be unsure?
Does the Constitution authorize, oh, I don't know... sunbathing?
That's the answer to the question no one would ever ask, if moviePig has
the ability to demonstrate understanding or to offer a rational
[argument].
The law does not cover every possible subject matter. With respect to
some subjects, they are not addressed directly in law in any way. With
respect to other subjects, they are addressed indirectly without being
authorized; the slavery provisions of the Constitution are examples of
indirect references without authorization. With respect to other
subjects, they are authorized specifically in law. An example of that
would be the federal income tax.
So, you acknowledge that little significance attaches to your question
of whether slavery is authorized by a Constitution which makes no
mention of it?
I would never ask you a question of any kind hoping to learn something,
nor would anyone else. Would you please acknowledge that?
I made a true statement on the nature of the law because you continue to
pull moviePig nonsense by rephrasing and reinterpreting it so that it's
no longer a true statement.
Christ on a corncob...
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Meanwhile, afaik, the Constitution was written in such a way as to make
sure that everyone, including the Adams of the world, knew that slavery
was not forbidden by federal law.
That's moviePig deliberately getting it wrong, for sometimes the law
does address a particular subject to clearly state that it's not
forbidden. That is NOT the case with respect to the slavery provisions
in the Constitution.
Beg pardon?  Didn't the original Constitution include, *by design*, a
provision that specifically abetted slavery?
Nice backpedal, moviePig. Quoted above is the single true statement you
made in this thread, that the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by
name. You got everything else wrong.
Post by moviePig
If so, WTF is your point here?
My point here is to make a valiant effort to pound the clue through
against your excessive SRF and your wont of trolling.
The Constitution did not authorize slavery. Period. End of statement.
The various provisions of the Constitution that were about slavery were
drafted as carefully as possible to make sure that they did not
authorize slavery. By design, the Constitution does not abet slavery. It
doesn't authorize slavery. It doesn't make slavery legal. Instead, it
set up a temporary mechanism, the United States Senate, to make it
extremely difficult to pass federal legislation abolishing slavery. The
mechanism was temporary as the Founding Fathers intended that new states
be added to the Union and each time a new state would be added, it would
change the makeup of Congress.
Abetting might be a legitimate word to use with respect to the
importation of slaves clause and the fugitive slave clause, but it's
absolutely wrong with respect to slavery generally.
Okay, Prince Valiant, if you want to trouble yourself to find my entry
into this topic, you'll see that it was when BTR questioned David
Johnson's contention that the Constitution protected slavery, by design.
Did you notice that I agreed with Johnston here? That doesn't mean I
think the Constitution authorized slavery, which it did not.
Just for everyone's edification (especially yours) why not sketch an
informal wording of what you think an "authorization" of slavery
would've looked like, consonant with the original Constitution?
It codified it. That's way worse than just 'authorizing' it. We needed
an amendment to fix it.

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
--
"We can never have a situation where things are going on as they are
today..." - President Donald J Bumblefuck (Aug. 27, 2020 - RNC Convention)

"Trump inherited the longest economic expansion in history from Barack
Obama and Joe Biden...and then, like everything else he inherited, he
ran it straight into the ground." - Kamala Harris

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
moviePig
2020-09-06 14:33:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
. . .
I'm just not sure how one separates out which portions of a
relatively
brief, public, consensual document are more by "design" than others.
That's pure moviePig.
It's ENTIRELY by design.
Can you please remind us which clause in the pre-13th Amendment
Constitution authorizes slavery?
Oh, drat, the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by name.
So, Pure
Adam, what conclusion do you wrest from that?
The Founding Fathers intended me to conclude that slavery wasn't being
authorized in federal law, duh. That's why the Constitution was written
in such a way to make sure that every knows, including
moviePig, that
slavery isn't being authorized in federal law.
By design.
Are you willing to accept the obvious now, or still claim to be unsure?
Does the Constitution authorize, oh, I don't know... sunbathing?
That's the answer to the question no one would ever ask, if moviePig has
the ability to demonstrate understanding or to offer a rational
[argument].
The law does not cover every possible subject matter. With respect to
some subjects, they are not addressed directly in law in any way. With
respect to other subjects, they are addressed indirectly without being
authorized; the slavery provisions of the Constitution are examples of
indirect references without authorization. With respect to other
subjects, they are authorized specifically in law. An example of that
would be the federal income tax.
So, you acknowledge that little significance attaches to your question
of whether slavery is authorized by a Constitution which makes no
mention of it?
I would never ask you a question of any kind hoping to learn something,
nor would anyone else. Would you please acknowledge that?
I made a true statement on the nature of the law because you continue to
pull moviePig nonsense by rephrasing and reinterpreting it so that it's
no longer a true statement.
Christ on a corncob...
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Meanwhile, afaik, the Constitution was written in such a way as to make
sure that everyone, including the Adams of the world, knew that slavery
was not forbidden by federal law.
That's moviePig deliberately getting it wrong, for sometimes the law
does address a particular subject to clearly state that it's not
forbidden. That is NOT the case with respect to the slavery provisions
in the Constitution.
Beg pardon?  Didn't the original Constitution include, *by design*, a
provision that specifically abetted slavery?
Nice backpedal, moviePig. Quoted above is the single true statement you
made in this thread, that the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by
name. You got everything else wrong.
Post by moviePig
If so, WTF is your point here?
My point here is to make a valiant effort to pound the clue through
against your excessive SRF and your wont of trolling.
The Constitution did not authorize slavery. Period. End of statement.
The various provisions of the Constitution that were about slavery were
drafted as carefully as possible to make sure that they did not
authorize slavery. By design, the Constitution does not abet slavery. It
doesn't authorize slavery. It doesn't make slavery legal. Instead, it
set up a temporary mechanism, the United States Senate, to make it
extremely difficult to pass federal legislation abolishing slavery. The
mechanism was temporary as the Founding Fathers intended that new states
be added to the Union and each time a new state would be added, it would
change the makeup of Congress.
Abetting might be a legitimate word to use with respect to the
importation of slaves clause and the fugitive slave clause, but it's
absolutely wrong with respect to slavery generally.
Okay, Prince Valiant, if you want to trouble yourself to find my entry
into this topic, you'll see that it was when BTR questioned David
Johnson's contention that the Constitution protected slavery, by design.
Did you notice that I agreed with Johnston here? That doesn't mean I
think the Constitution authorized slavery, which it did not.
Just for everyone's edification (especially yours) why not sketch an
informal wording of what you think an "authorization" of slavery
would've looked like, consonant with the original Constitution?
It codified it.  That's way worse than just 'authorizing' it.  We needed
an amendment to fix it.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
I think it might be fair to call the original clause "détente"...
FPP
2020-09-06 21:39:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
. . .
I'm just not sure how one separates out which portions of a
relatively
brief, public, consensual document are more by "design"
than others.
That's pure moviePig.
It's ENTIRELY by design.
Can you please remind us which clause in the pre-13th Amendment
Constitution authorizes slavery?
Oh, drat, the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by name.
So, Pure
Adam, what conclusion do you wrest from that?
The Founding Fathers intended me to conclude that slavery wasn't being
authorized in federal law, duh. That's why the Constitution was written
in such a way to make sure that every knows, including moviePig, that
slavery isn't being authorized in federal law.
By design.
Are you willing to accept the obvious now, or still claim to be unsure?
Does the Constitution authorize, oh, I don't know... sunbathing?
That's the answer to the question no one would ever ask, if moviePig has
the ability to demonstrate understanding or to offer a rational
[argument].
The law does not cover every possible subject matter. With respect to
some subjects, they are not addressed directly in law in any way. With
respect to other subjects, they are addressed indirectly without being
authorized; the slavery provisions of the Constitution are examples of
indirect references without authorization. With respect to other
subjects, they are authorized specifically in law. An example of that
would be the federal income tax.
So, you acknowledge that little significance attaches to your question
of whether slavery is authorized by a Constitution which makes no
mention of it?
I would never ask you a question of any kind hoping to learn something,
nor would anyone else. Would you please acknowledge that?
I made a true statement on the nature of the law because you continue to
pull moviePig nonsense by rephrasing and reinterpreting it so that it's
no longer a true statement.
Christ on a corncob...
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Meanwhile, afaik, the Constitution was written in such a way as to make
sure that everyone, including the Adams of the world, knew that slavery
was not forbidden by federal law.
That's moviePig deliberately getting it wrong, for sometimes the law
does address a particular subject to clearly state that it's not
forbidden. That is NOT the case with respect to the slavery provisions
in the Constitution.
Beg pardon?  Didn't the original Constitution include, *by design*, a
provision that specifically abetted slavery?
Nice backpedal, moviePig. Quoted above is the single true
statement you
made in this thread, that the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by
name. You got everything else wrong.
Post by moviePig
If so, WTF is your point here?
My point here is to make a valiant effort to pound the clue through
against your excessive SRF and your wont of trolling.
The Constitution did not authorize slavery. Period. End of statement.
The various provisions of the Constitution that were about slavery were
drafted as carefully as possible to make sure that they did not
authorize slavery. By design, the Constitution does not abet slavery. It
doesn't authorize slavery. It doesn't make slavery legal. Instead, it
set up a temporary mechanism, the United States Senate, to make it
extremely difficult to pass federal legislation abolishing slavery. The
mechanism was temporary as the Founding Fathers intended that new states
be added to the Union and each time a new state would be added, it would
change the makeup of Congress.
Abetting might be a legitimate word to use with respect to the
importation of slaves clause and the fugitive slave clause, but it's
absolutely wrong with respect to slavery generally.
Okay, Prince Valiant, if you want to trouble yourself to find my entry
into this topic, you'll see that it was when BTR questioned David
Johnson's contention that the Constitution protected slavery, by design.
Did you notice that I agreed with Johnston here? That doesn't mean I
think the Constitution authorized slavery, which it did not.
Just for everyone's edification (especially yours) why not sketch an
informal wording of what you think an "authorization" of slavery
would've looked like, consonant with the original Constitution?
It codified it.  That's way worse than just 'authorizing' it.  We
needed an amendment to fix it.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
I think it might be fair to call the original clause "détente"...
John Adams called it what it was: "A fig leaf..."
--
"We can never have a situation where things are going on as they are
today..." - President Donald J Bumblefuck (Aug. 27, 2020 - RNC Convention)

"Trump inherited the longest economic expansion in history from Barack
Obama and Joe Biden...and then, like everything else he inherited, he
ran it straight into the ground." - Kamala Harris

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
FPP
2020-09-05 22:32:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
. . .
I'm just not sure how one separates out which portions of a relatively
brief, public, consensual document are more by "design" than others.
That's pure moviePig.
It's ENTIRELY by design.
Can you please remind us which clause in the pre-13th Amendment
Constitution authorizes slavery?
Oh, drat, the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by name.  So, Pure
Adam, what conclusion do you wrest from that?
The Founding Fathers intended me to conclude that slavery wasn't being
authorized in federal law, duh. That's why the Constitution was written
in such a way to make sure that every knows, including moviePig, that
slavery isn't being authorized in federal law.
By design.
Are you willing to accept the obvious now, or still claim to be unsure?
Does the Constitution authorize, oh, I don't know... sunbathing?
That's the answer to the question no one would ever ask, if moviePig has
the ability to demonstrate understanding or to offer a rational
[argument].
The law does not cover every possible subject matter. With respect to
some subjects, they are not addressed directly in law in any way. With
respect to other subjects, they are addressed indirectly without being
authorized; the slavery provisions of the Constitution are examples of
indirect references without authorization. With respect to other
subjects, they are authorized specifically in law. An example of that
would be the federal income tax.
So, you acknowledge that little significance attaches to your question
of whether slavery is authorized by a Constitution which makes no
mention of it?
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Meanwhile, afaik, the Constitution was written in such a way as to make
sure that everyone, including the Adams of the world, knew that slavery
was not forbidden by federal law.
That's moviePig deliberately getting it wrong, for sometimes the law
does address a particular subject to clearly state that it's not
forbidden. That is NOT the case with respect to the slavery provisions
in the Constitution.
Beg pardon?  Didn't the original Constitution include, *by design*, a
provision that specifically abetted slavery?
If so, WTF is your point here?
Whitewashing... obviously.
--
"We can never have a situation where things are going on as they are
today..." - President Donald J Bumblefuck (Aug. 27, 2020 - RNC Convention)

"Trump inherited the longest economic expansion in history from Barack
Obama and Joe Biden...and then, like everything else he inherited, he
ran it straight into the ground." - Kamala Harris

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
FPP
2020-09-05 22:32:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by suzeeq
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to
perpetuate white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery,"
according to screenshots of the quiz result.
Well it's always a problem when you have a "right/wrong" question that
is only half-true. It was designed to protect the institution of slavery.
No, it wasn't. Slavery may have been an ancillary issue that it covered,
but to say the Constitution was "designed to protect slavery" is idiotic.
It was designed to establish the parameters of a federal
government and
its relation to the confederation of states which made up the new
country, and to enumerate and circumscribe the powers of that government.
That was its purpose and that's what it was designed for.
It wasn't designed to protect slavery any more than it was designed to
protect letters of marque and reprisal.
Are you elevating (what you believe were) the motives of certain of
the framers above those of the others?
He doesn't need to. The only motive was simply to establish basic
'rules' for the new government. Addressing slavery wasn't a motive at
all, it simply existed at the time and the constitution wasn't designed
to protect it it.
I'm just not sure how one separates out which portions of a relatively
brief, public, consensual document are more by "design" than others.
That's pure moviePig.
It's ENTIRELY by design.
Can you please remind us which clause in the pre-13th Amendment
Constitution authorizes slavery?
Oh, drat, the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by name.  So, Pure
Adam, what conclusion do you wrest from that?
And that, too WAS BY DESIGN!
--
"We can never have a situation where things are going on as they are
today..." - President Donald J Bumblefuck (Aug. 27, 2020 - RNC Convention)

"Trump inherited the longest economic expansion in history from Barack
Obama and Joe Biden...and then, like everything else he inherited, he
ran it straight into the ground." - Kamala Harris

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
moviePig
2020-09-05 23:02:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by moviePig
Post by suzeeq
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to
perpetuate white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery,"
according to screenshots of the quiz result.
Well it's always a problem when you have a "right/wrong" question that
is only half-true. It was designed to protect the institution of slavery.
No, it wasn't. Slavery may have been an ancillary issue that it covered,
but to say the Constitution was "designed to protect slavery" is idiotic.
It was designed to establish the parameters of a federal
government and
its relation to the confederation of states which made up the new
country, and to enumerate and circumscribe the powers of that government.
That was its purpose and that's what it was designed for.
It wasn't designed to protect slavery any more than it was designed to
protect letters of marque and reprisal.
Are you elevating (what you believe were) the motives of certain of
the framers above those of the others?
He doesn't need to. The only motive was simply to establish basic
'rules' for the new government. Addressing slavery wasn't a motive at
all, it simply existed at the time and the constitution wasn't designed
to protect it it.
I'm just not sure how one separates out which portions of a relatively
brief, public, consensual document are more by "design" than others.
That's pure moviePig.
It's ENTIRELY by design.
Can you please remind us which clause in the pre-13th Amendment
Constitution authorizes slavery?
Oh, drat, the Constitution doesn't mention slavery by name.  So, Pure
Adam, what conclusion do you wrest from that?
And that, too WAS BY DESIGN!
By *intelligent* design, if we want to be Creative...
FPP
2020-09-04 23:22:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-
not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
Well it's always a problem when you have a "right/wrong" question that
is only half-true. It was designed to protect the institution of slavery.
No, it wasn't. Slavery may have been an ancillary issue that it covered,
but to say the Constitution was "designed to protect slavery" is idiotic.
It was designed to establish the parameters of a federal government and
its relation to the confederation of states which made up the new
country, and to enumerate and circumscribe the powers of that government.
That was its purpose and that's what it was designed for.
It wasn't designed to protect slavery any more than it was designed to
protect letters of marque and reprisal.
Are you elevating (what you believe were) the motives of certain of the
framers above those of the others?
No, pig... he's just lying. Here is exactly where the Constitution AS
DESIGNED, perpetuates slavery.
Post by moviePig
Prohibition on Banning Enslavement
Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the original Constitution prohibited Congress from passing laws that banned enslavement until the year 1808, 21 years after the signing of the original Constitution. This was another compromise between constitutional Congress delegates who supported and opposed the trade of enslaved people. Article V of the Constitution also ensured that there could be no Amendments that would repeal or nullify Article I before 1808. In 1807, Thomas Jefferson signed a bill abolishing the trade of enslaved people, made effective Jan. 1, 1808.
No Protection in Free States
Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution prohibited free states from protecting enslaved people under state law. In other words, if a freedom seeker escaped to a Northern state, that state was not allowed to "discharge" them from their owner or to otherwise protect them by law. In this case, the indirect wording used to identify a formerly enslaved individual was "Person held to Service or Labour."
It's IN BLACK AND WHITE:

"Article I, Section 9, Clause 1:
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now
existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the
Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a
Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten
dollars for each Person.

This sanction for the importation of slaves by the states for twenty
years after the adoption of the Constitution, when considered with the
section requiring escaped slaves to be returned to their masters, Art.
IV, § 1, cl. 3, was held by Chief Justice Taney in Scott v. Sandford,1
to show conclusively that such persons and their descendants were not
embraced within the term citizen as used in the Constitution."

This isn't hard, pig. It's right there in front of you, despite what
smoke Thanny is blowing up your ass.
--
"We can never have a situation where things are going on as they are
today..." - President Donald J Bumblefuck (Aug. 27, 2020 - RNC Convention)

"Trump inherited the longest economic expansion in history from Barack
Obama and Joe Biden...and then, like everything else he inherited, he
ran it straight into the ground." - Kamala Harris

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
FPP
2020-09-04 23:12:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-
not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
Well it's always a problem when you have a "right/wrong" question that
is only half-true. It was designed to protect the institution of slavery.
No, it wasn't. Slavery may have been an ancillary issue that it covered,
but to say the Constitution was "designed to protect slavery" is idiotic.
It was designed to establish the parameters of a federal government and
its relation to the confederation of states which made up the new
country, and to enumerate and circumscribe the powers of that government.
That was its purpose and that's what it was designed for.
It wasn't designed to protect slavery any more than it was designed to
protect letters of marque and reprisal.
It was, and you haven't made the case that it wasn't. I've already made
the case that it codified slavery into law.

Now you. I mean, more than the semantic bullshit we just heard.
--
"We can never have a situation where things are going on as they are
today..." - President Donald J Bumblefuck (Aug. 27, 2020 - RNC Convention)

"Trump inherited the longest economic expansion in history from Barack
Obama and Joe Biden...and then, like everything else he inherited, he
ran it straight into the ground." - Kamala Harris

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
BTR1701
2020-09-04 23:37:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-fo
r-
not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
Well it's always a problem when you have a "right/wrong" question that
is only half-true. It was designed to protect the institution of slavery.
No, it wasn't. Slavery may have been an ancillary issue that it covered,
but to say the Constitution was "designed to protect slavery" is idiotic.
It was designed to establish the parameters of a federal government and
its relation to the confederation of states which made up the new
country, and to enumerate and circumscribe the powers of that government.
That was its purpose and that's what it was designed for.
It wasn't designed to protect slavery any more than it was designed to
protect letters of marque and reprisal.
It was, and you haven't made the case that it wasn't. I've already made
the case that it codified slavery into law.
It also codified letters of marque and reprisal into law, but that
doesn't mean that's what the Constitution was designed to do.
shawn
2020-09-05 01:42:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-fo
r-
not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
Well it's always a problem when you have a "right/wrong" question that
is only half-true. It was designed to protect the institution of slavery.
No, it wasn't. Slavery may have been an ancillary issue that it covered,
but to say the Constitution was "designed to protect slavery" is idiotic.
It was designed to establish the parameters of a federal government and
its relation to the confederation of states which made up the new
country, and to enumerate and circumscribe the powers of that government.
That was its purpose and that's what it was designed for.
It wasn't designed to protect slavery any more than it was designed to
protect letters of marque and reprisal.
It was, and you haven't made the case that it wasn't. I've already made
the case that it codified slavery into law.
It also codified letters of marque and reprisal into law, but that
doesn't mean that's what the Constitution was designed to do.
This is the kind of technical argument that could go on forever. The
Constitution did protect slavery for a period of time is given. Yet it
wasn't the point of having a Constitution or else there wouldn't have
been a limit on the protection of slavery. If someone is approaching
the issue from a BLM perspective I can see them emphasizing that the
Constitution did protect slavery (if only for a period of time.) So it
was part of it. I don't think it's the main point of the Constitution
and it's hard to see how anyone could argue that it was the main point
when authors put in a end date for the protection of slavery. Instead
it was a concession made just to get everyone to sign on the dotted
line.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-09-05 02:09:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to
perpetuate white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery,"
according to screenshots of the quiz result.
Well it's always a problem when you have a "right/wrong" question that
is only half-true. It was designed to protect the institution of slavery.
No, it wasn't. Slavery may have been an ancillary issue that it covered,
but to say the Constitution was "designed to protect slavery" is idiotic.
It was designed to establish the parameters of a federal government and
its relation to the confederation of states which made up the new
country, and to enumerate and circumscribe the powers of that government.
That was its purpose and that's what it was designed for.
It wasn't designed to protect slavery any more than it was designed to
protect letters of marque and reprisal.
It was, and you haven't made the case that it wasn't. I've already made
the case that it codified slavery into law.
It also codified letters of marque and reprisal into law, but that
doesn't mean that's what the Constitution was designed to do.
This is the kind of technical argument that could go on forever. The
Constitution did protect slavery for a period of time is given.
The period of time being... long enough to get the Constitution
ratified. As soon as new states were added to the Union, the
Constitution no longer offered protection. They had to starting adding
two states at a time, allowing slavery to expand into territories.
Post by shawn
Yet it wasn't the point of having a Constitution or else there wouldn't
have been a limit on the protection of slavery.
I'm not sure what this means. It was merely the compromise of the United
States Senate. Nothing else in the Constitution has anything at all to
do with slavery.
Post by shawn
If someone is approaching the issue from a BLM perspective I can see
them emphasizing that the Constitution did protect slavery (if only for
a period of time.) So it was part of it.
Or, it illustrates what's wrong with public schools if they came out
believing that. There's still nuance: The point was to thwart
abolitionists from being able to get civil rights legislation through
Congress. It's not difficult to understand that the protection of
slavery is indirect. It's not a power in the Constitution.
Post by shawn
I don't think it's the main point of the Constitution and it's hard to
see how anyone could argue that it was the main point when authors put
in a end date for the protection of slavery. Instead it was a concession
made just to get everyone to sign on the dotted line.
The main point of the lecture was that the Constitution was written to
perpetuate white supremacy. Do you believe that?
shawn
2020-09-05 06:32:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 02:09:59 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to
perpetuate white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery,"
according to screenshots of the quiz result.
Well it's always a problem when you have a "right/wrong" question that
is only half-true. It was designed to protect the institution of slavery.
No, it wasn't. Slavery may have been an ancillary issue that it covered,
but to say the Constitution was "designed to protect slavery" is idiotic.
It was designed to establish the parameters of a federal government and
its relation to the confederation of states which made up the new
country, and to enumerate and circumscribe the powers of that government.
That was its purpose and that's what it was designed for.
It wasn't designed to protect slavery any more than it was designed to
protect letters of marque and reprisal.
It was, and you haven't made the case that it wasn't. I've already made
the case that it codified slavery into law.
It also codified letters of marque and reprisal into law, but that
doesn't mean that's what the Constitution was designed to do.
This is the kind of technical argument that could go on forever. The
Constitution did protect slavery for a period of time is given.
The period of time being... long enough to get the Constitution
ratified. As soon as new states were added to the Union, the
Constitution no longer offered protection. They had to starting adding
two states at a time, allowing slavery to expand into territories.
Post by shawn
Yet it wasn't the point of having a Constitution or else there wouldn't
have been a limit on the protection of slavery.
I'm not sure what this means. It was merely the compromise of the United
States Senate. Nothing else in the Constitution has anything at all to
do with slavery.
Yes, I did say that it was a compromise to move ahead.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by shawn
If someone is approaching the issue from a BLM perspective I can see
them emphasizing that the Constitution did protect slavery (if only for
a period of time.) So it was part of it.
Or, it illustrates what's wrong with public schools if they came out
believing that. There's still nuance: The point was to thwart
abolitionists from being able to get civil rights legislation through
Congress. It's not difficult to understand that the protection of
slavery is indirect. It's not a power in the Constitution.
Post by shawn
I don't think it's the main point of the Constitution and it's hard to
see how anyone could argue that it was the main point when authors put
in a end date for the protection of slavery. Instead it was a concession
made just to get everyone to sign on the dotted line.
The main point of the lecture was that the Constitution was written to
perpetuate white supremacy. Do you believe that?
No but if someone is coming from the approach that any support of
slavery is evil I can see why someone might believe that even though
that ignores the historical context. That tells me that it's unlikely
Jon Meacham was behind this as he always comes off as being not only
quite knowledgeable about the history of the US but always trying to
take actions of the past in their historical context and not getting
lost in the politically correct world.

That said lets remember that the argument was "he Constitution [was]
designed to perpetuate white supremacy and protect the institution of
slavery". If someone wants to get really technical they could argue
that having any protection of slavery in the Constitution shows that
it was part of the design. I don't agree with that idea but I can see
how someone might make the argument and presumable one of the teachers
did make that argument.
FPP
2020-09-05 07:04:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 02:09:59 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to
perpetuate white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery,"
according to screenshots of the quiz result.
Well it's always a problem when you have a "right/wrong" question that
is only half-true. It was designed to protect the institution of slavery.
No, it wasn't. Slavery may have been an ancillary issue that it covered,
but to say the Constitution was "designed to protect slavery" is idiotic.
It was designed to establish the parameters of a federal government and
its relation to the confederation of states which made up the new
country, and to enumerate and circumscribe the powers of that government.
That was its purpose and that's what it was designed for.
It wasn't designed to protect slavery any more than it was designed to
protect letters of marque and reprisal.
It was, and you haven't made the case that it wasn't. I've already made
the case that it codified slavery into law.
It also codified letters of marque and reprisal into law, but that
doesn't mean that's what the Constitution was designed to do.
This is the kind of technical argument that could go on forever. The
Constitution did protect slavery for a period of time is given.
The period of time being... long enough to get the Constitution
ratified. As soon as new states were added to the Union, the
Constitution no longer offered protection. They had to starting adding
two states at a time, allowing slavery to expand into territories.
Post by shawn
Yet it wasn't the point of having a Constitution or else there wouldn't
have been a limit on the protection of slavery.
I'm not sure what this means. It was merely the compromise of the United
States Senate. Nothing else in the Constitution has anything at all to
do with slavery.
Yes, I did say that it was a compromise to move ahead.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by shawn
If someone is approaching the issue from a BLM perspective I can see
them emphasizing that the Constitution did protect slavery (if only for
a period of time.) So it was part of it.
Or, it illustrates what's wrong with public schools if they came out
believing that. There's still nuance: The point was to thwart
abolitionists from being able to get civil rights legislation through
Congress. It's not difficult to understand that the protection of
slavery is indirect. It's not a power in the Constitution.
Post by shawn
I don't think it's the main point of the Constitution and it's hard to
see how anyone could argue that it was the main point when authors put
in a end date for the protection of slavery. Instead it was a concession
made just to get everyone to sign on the dotted line.
The main point of the lecture was that the Constitution was written to
perpetuate white supremacy. Do you believe that?
No but if someone is coming from the approach that any support of
slavery is evil I can see why someone might believe that even though
that ignores the historical context. That tells me that it's unlikely
Jon Meacham was behind this as he always comes off as being not only
quite knowledgeable about the history of the US but always trying to
take actions of the past in their historical context and not getting
lost in the politically correct world.
That said lets remember that the argument was "The Constitution [was]
designed to perpetuate white supremacy and protect the institution of
slavery". If someone wants to get really technical they could argue
that having any protection of slavery in the Constitution shows that
it was part of the design. I don't agree with that idea but I can see
how someone might make the argument and presumable one of the teachers
did make that argument.
Here is what the Constitution says (and means) about slavery:

-----
Article I, Sec. II, Paragraph III: The Three-Fifths Clause (1787)

"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."

What it says: When a state’s population is counted for purposes of
representation in government.

What it means: Slaveholding states get to count their slaves to boost
their population numbers.

-----
Article I, Section IX, Clause I: The Importation Clause (1787)

"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now
existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the
Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a
Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten
dollars for each Person."

What it says: If states want to import slaves internationally, the
federal government won’t interfere for at least another 20 years.

What it means: The states received 20 years of autonomy to import slaves
as they saw fit before Congress could abolish the international trade.

-----
Article IV, Sec. II, Clause III: The Fugitive Slave Clause (1787)

"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws
thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or
Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall
be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may
be due."

What it says: If an enslaved person crosses state lines into a state
where slavery has been abolished, citizens of that state are obligated
to return the slave to their owner.

What it means: States who abolish slavery have to respect the fact that
other states have not. This puts legal slavery as the default scenario,
and abolition as the outlier.

-----

All of these things PERPETUATES Slavery as an institution, and it IS BY
DESIGN. You can tell, because THEY WROTE IT DOWN. And signed it.

Jeeze... this ain't hard.
--
"We can never have a situation where things are going on as they are
today..." - President Donald J Bumblefuck (Aug. 27, 2020 - RNC Convention)

"Trump inherited the longest economic expansion in history from Barack
Obama and Joe Biden...and then, like everything else he inherited, he
ran it straight into the ground." - Kamala Harris

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
Adam H. Kerman
2020-09-05 16:15:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to
perpetuate white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery,"
according to screenshots of the quiz result.
Well it's always a problem when you have a "right/wrong" question
that is only half-true. It was designed to protect the institution
of slavery.
No, it wasn't. Slavery may have been an ancillary issue that it covered,
but to say the Constitution was "designed to protect slavery" is idiotic.
It was designed to establish the parameters of a federal government and
its relation to the confederation of states which made up the new
country, and to enumerate and circumscribe the powers of that government.
That was its purpose and that's what it was designed for.
It wasn't designed to protect slavery any more than it was designed to
protect letters of marque and reprisal.
It was, and you haven't made the case that it wasn't. I've already made
the case that it codified slavery into law.
It also codified letters of marque and reprisal into law, but that
doesn't mean that's what the Constitution was designed to do.
This is the kind of technical argument that could go on forever. The
Constitution did protect slavery for a period of time is given.
The period of time being... long enough to get the Constitution
ratified. As soon as new states were added to the Union, the
Constitution no longer offered protection. They had to starting adding
two states at a time, allowing slavery to expand into territories.
Post by shawn
Yet it wasn't the point of having a Constitution or else there wouldn't
have been a limit on the protection of slavery.
I'm not sure what this means. It was merely the compromise of the United
States Senate. Nothing else in the Constitution has anything at all to
do with slavery.
Correction: Johnston reminded me that I forgot the Fugitive Slave
Clause, although it doesn't literally say "slavery" either.
Post by shawn
Yes, I did say that it was a compromise to move ahead.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by shawn
If someone is approaching the issue from a BLM perspective I can see
them emphasizing that the Constitution did protect slavery (if only for
a period of time.) So it was part of it.
Or, it illustrates what's wrong with public schools if they came out
believing that. There's still nuance: The point was to thwart
abolitionists from being able to get civil rights legislation through
Congress. It's not difficult to understand that the protection of
slavery is indirect. It's not a power in the Constitution.
Post by shawn
I don't think it's the main point of the Constitution and it's hard to
see how anyone could argue that it was the main point when authors put
in a end date for the protection of slavery. Instead it was a concession
made just to get everyone to sign on the dotted line.
The main point of the lecture was that the Constitution was written to
perpetuate white supremacy. Do you believe that?
No but if someone is coming from the approach that any support of
slavery is evil I can see why someone might believe that even though
that ignores the historical context.
The context was slavery existed but not under federal law. Failing to
explain this in lecture is a huge flaw as the lecture was about
condemning the Founding Fathers and the Constitution itself.
Post by shawn
That tells me that it's unlikely
Jon Meacham was behind this as he always comes off as being not only
quite knowledgeable about the history of the US but always trying to
take actions of the past in their historical context and not getting
lost in the politically correct world.
That said lets remember that the argument was "he Constitution [was]
designed to perpetuate white supremacy and protect the institution of
slavery". If someone wants to get really technical they could argue
that having any protection of slavery in the Constitution shows that
it was part of the design. I don't agree with that idea but I can see
how someone might make the argument and presumable one of the teachers
did make that argument.
I'm not disputing "by design", as it happens. I think the Constitution
was designed to make it very difficult for abolitionists to abolish
slavery at the federal level. I'm disputing the semantics, which are
quite important to get right in this case as protection of slavery wssn't
in the Constitution. They got the semantics wrong that the lecture was
deliberately misleading, intending to lead students to draw the wrong
conclusion.

It's particularly egregious that one student who didn't draw the wrong
conclusion, despite the lecture, was punished for it.
kensi
2020-09-06 11:06:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I think the Constitution was designed to make it very difficult for
abolitionists to abolish slavery at the federal level.
You have conceded the original point of contention*. Thank you.

* "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery"
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
FPP
2020-09-05 05:49:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-fo
r-
not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
Well it's always a problem when you have a "right/wrong" question that
is only half-true. It was designed to protect the institution of slavery.
No, it wasn't. Slavery may have been an ancillary issue that it covered,
but to say the Constitution was "designed to protect slavery" is idiotic.
It was designed to establish the parameters of a federal government and
its relation to the confederation of states which made up the new
country, and to enumerate and circumscribe the powers of that government.
That was its purpose and that's what it was designed for.
It wasn't designed to protect slavery any more than it was designed to
protect letters of marque and reprisal.
It was, and you haven't made the case that it wasn't. I've already made
the case that it codified slavery into law.
It also codified letters of marque and reprisal into law, but that
doesn't mean that's what the Constitution was designed to do.
This is the kind of technical argument that could go on forever. The
Constitution did protect slavery for a period of time is given. Yet it
wasn't the point of having a Constitution or else there wouldn't have
been a limit on the protection of slavery. If someone is approaching
the issue from a BLM perspective I can see them emphasizing that the
Constitution did protect slavery (if only for a period of time.) So it
was part of it. I don't think it's the main point of the Constitution
and it's hard to see how anyone could argue that it was the main point
when authors put in a end date for the protection of slavery. Instead
it was a concession made just to get everyone to sign on the dotted
line.
It's not a 'technical' argument... it's a bullshit argument.
Thanny is resorting to a semantic trick to negate what's right in front
of our faces.

The Constitution, as written, codified the system of slavery into law.
Madison said as much. SCOTUS even clarified that blacks were property.

It doesn't get much clearer. Thanny wants to argue over the meaning of
what "is" is.
--
"We can never have a situation where things are going on as they are
today..." - President Donald J Bumblefuck (Aug. 27, 2020 - RNC Convention)

"Trump inherited the longest economic expansion in history from Barack
Obama and Joe Biden...and then, like everything else he inherited, he
ran it straight into the ground." - Kamala Harris

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
shawn
2020-09-05 06:38:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-fo
r-
not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
Well it's always a problem when you have a "right/wrong" question that
is only half-true. It was designed to protect the institution of slavery.
No, it wasn't. Slavery may have been an ancillary issue that it covered,
but to say the Constitution was "designed to protect slavery" is idiotic.
It was designed to establish the parameters of a federal government and
its relation to the confederation of states which made up the new
country, and to enumerate and circumscribe the powers of that government.
That was its purpose and that's what it was designed for.
It wasn't designed to protect slavery any more than it was designed to
protect letters of marque and reprisal.
It was, and you haven't made the case that it wasn't. I've already made
the case that it codified slavery into law.
It also codified letters of marque and reprisal into law, but that
doesn't mean that's what the Constitution was designed to do.
This is the kind of technical argument that could go on forever. The
Constitution did protect slavery for a period of time is given. Yet it
wasn't the point of having a Constitution or else there wouldn't have
been a limit on the protection of slavery. If someone is approaching
the issue from a BLM perspective I can see them emphasizing that the
Constitution did protect slavery (if only for a period of time.) So it
was part of it. I don't think it's the main point of the Constitution
and it's hard to see how anyone could argue that it was the main point
when authors put in a end date for the protection of slavery. Instead
it was a concession made just to get everyone to sign on the dotted
line.
It's not a 'technical' argument... it's a bullshit argument.
Thanny is resorting to a semantic trick to negate what's right in front
of our faces.
The Constitution, as written, codified the system of slavery into law.
Madison said as much. SCOTUS even clarified that blacks were property.
It doesn't get much clearer. Thanny wants to argue over the meaning of
what "is" is.
The argument is over whether a short term protection to move the
process along makes it a part of the design of the Constitution or
something needed to bring everyone to the table with the full
knowledge that this 'protection' wasn't going to last more than a few
years. You can make the argument that any protection of slavery in the
Constitution makes it a part of the design and supports the idea that
the Constitution was designed to support the supremacy of the white
man, but it's equally valid to argue that the short term allowed for
such protection shows that it was never intended to support such an
idea as the idea that the black man was not really a human being
deserving of any rights under the Constitution.
FPP
2020-09-05 07:16:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by FPP
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-fo
r-
not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
Well it's always a problem when you have a "right/wrong" question that
is only half-true. It was designed to protect the institution of slavery.
No, it wasn't. Slavery may have been an ancillary issue that it covered,
but to say the Constitution was "designed to protect slavery" is idiotic.
It was designed to establish the parameters of a federal government and
its relation to the confederation of states which made up the new
country, and to enumerate and circumscribe the powers of that government.
That was its purpose and that's what it was designed for.
It wasn't designed to protect slavery any more than it was designed to
protect letters of marque and reprisal.
It was, and you haven't made the case that it wasn't. I've already made
the case that it codified slavery into law.
It also codified letters of marque and reprisal into law, but that
doesn't mean that's what the Constitution was designed to do.
This is the kind of technical argument that could go on forever. The
Constitution did protect slavery for a period of time is given. Yet it
wasn't the point of having a Constitution or else there wouldn't have
been a limit on the protection of slavery. If someone is approaching
the issue from a BLM perspective I can see them emphasizing that the
Constitution did protect slavery (if only for a period of time.) So it
was part of it. I don't think it's the main point of the Constitution
and it's hard to see how anyone could argue that it was the main point
when authors put in a end date for the protection of slavery. Instead
it was a concession made just to get everyone to sign on the dotted
line.
It's not a 'technical' argument... it's a bullshit argument.
Thanny is resorting to a semantic trick to negate what's right in front
of our faces.
The Constitution, as written, codified the system of slavery into law.
Madison said as much. SCOTUS even clarified that blacks were property.
It doesn't get much clearer. Thanny wants to argue over the meaning of
what "is" is.
The argument is over whether a short term protection to move the
process along makes it a part of the design of the Constitution or
something needed to bring everyone to the table with the full
knowledge that this 'protection' wasn't going to last more than a few
years. You can make the argument that any protection of slavery in the
Constitution makes it a part of the design and supports the idea that
the Constitution was designed to support the supremacy of the white
man, but it's equally valid to argue that the short term allowed for
such protection shows that it was never intended to support such an
idea as the idea that the black man was not really a human being
deserving of any rights under the Constitution.
They specifically set a time limit of 20 years (not exactly a 'short'
period of time) - and they were pretty specific about the time period.
Post by shawn
Article I, Section IX, Clause I: The Importation Clause (1787)
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
Doesn't that mean it was BY DESIGN? Of does anyone think those words
creating a 20 year time frame just happened by accident?

And it didn't MANDATE the abolition of slavery after 20 years... it just
set a time period within they COULDN'T ban it. Of course it perpetuated
slavery - because it made it IMPOSSIBLE to ban it for 20 years.
--
"We can never have a situation where things are going on as they are
today..." - President Donald J Bumblefuck (Aug. 27, 2020 - RNC Convention)

"Trump inherited the longest economic expansion in history from Barack
Obama and Joe Biden...and then, like everything else he inherited, he
ran it straight into the ground." - Kamala Harris

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
FPP
2020-09-05 05:46:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-fo
r-
not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
Well it's always a problem when you have a "right/wrong" question that
is only half-true. It was designed to protect the institution of slavery.
No, it wasn't. Slavery may have been an ancillary issue that it covered,
but to say the Constitution was "designed to protect slavery" is idiotic.
It was designed to establish the parameters of a federal government and
its relation to the confederation of states which made up the new
country, and to enumerate and circumscribe the powers of that government.
That was its purpose and that's what it was designed for.
It wasn't designed to protect slavery any more than it was designed to
protect letters of marque and reprisal.
It was, and you haven't made the case that it wasn't. I've already made
the case that it codified slavery into law.
It also codified letters of marque and reprisal into law, but that
doesn't mean that's what the Constitution was designed to do.
Sure it does. It was designed very deliberately to do exactly what it did.
Nothing in it happened by accident. It was ALL by design.
--
"We can never have a situation where things are going on as they are
today..." - President Donald J Bumblefuck (Aug. 27, 2020 - RNC Convention)

"Trump inherited the longest economic expansion in history from Barack
Obama and Joe Biden...and then, like everything else he inherited, he
ran it straight into the ground." - Kamala Harris

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
David Johnston
2020-09-05 04:29:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-
not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
Well it's always a problem when you have a "right/wrong" question that
is only half-true. It was designed to protect the institution of slavery.
No, it wasn't. Slavery may have been an ancillary issue that it covered,
but to say the Constitution was "designed to protect slavery" is idiotic.
It was designed to establish the parameters of a federal government and
its relation to the confederation of states which made up the new
country, and to enumerate and circumscribe the powers of that government.
That was its purpose and that's what it was designed for.
It wasn't designed to protect slavery any more than it was designed to
protect letters of marque and reprisal.
Letters of marque and reprisal weren't issues over which a bunch of
colonies threatened to refuse to join. Slavery was. Accomodations were
made.
FPP
2020-09-05 05:52:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-
not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
Well it's always a problem when you have a "right/wrong" question that
is only half-true. It was designed to protect the institution of slavery.
No, it wasn't. Slavery may have been an ancillary issue that it covered,
but to say the Constitution was "designed to protect slavery" is idiotic.
It was designed to establish the parameters of a federal government and
its relation to the confederation of states which made up the new
country, and to enumerate and circumscribe the powers of that government.
That was its purpose and that's what it was designed for.
It wasn't designed to protect slavery any more than it was designed to
protect letters of marque and reprisal.
Letters of marque and reprisal weren't issues over which a bunch of
colonies threatened to refuse to join.  Slavery was.  Accomodations were
made.
Yup. It was the only way it would be adopted, and everybody knew they
were kicking the can down the road.

The alternative was unacceptable... so they made compromises, and they
KNEW it.
--
"We can never have a situation where things are going on as they are
today..." - President Donald J Bumblefuck (Aug. 27, 2020 - RNC Convention)

"Trump inherited the longest economic expansion in history from Barack
Obama and Joe Biden...and then, like everything else he inherited, he
ran it straight into the ground." - Kamala Harris

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
The Horny Goat
2020-10-18 00:06:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by David Johnston
Letters of marque and reprisal weren't issues over which a bunch of
colonies threatened to refuse to join.  Slavery was.  Accomodations were
made.
Yup. It was the only way it would be adopted, and everybody knew they
were kicking the can down the road.
The alternative was unacceptable... so they made compromises, and they
KNEW it.
Yup I'm sure most of us have heard the phrase that 'we must all hang
together or separately" and once rebellion against Britain was
launched that WAS the choice.

Adam H. Kerman
2020-09-05 06:15:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
Well it's always a problem when you have a "right/wrong" question that
is only half-true. It was designed to protect the institution of slavery.
No, it wasn't. Slavery may have been an ancillary issue that it covered,
but to say the Constitution was "designed to protect slavery" is idiotic.
It was designed to establish the parameters of a federal government and
its relation to the confederation of states which made up the new
country, and to enumerate and circumscribe the powers of that government.
That was its purpose and that's what it was designed for.
It wasn't designed to protect slavery any more than it was designed to
protect letters of marque and reprisal.
Letters of marque and reprisal weren't issues over which a bunch of
colonies threatened to refuse to join. Slavery was. Accomodations were
made.
An accomodation that wasn't made was authorizing slavery in the
Constitution. That's not what the kids at Vanderbilt were told.
trotsky
2020-09-05 14:35:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/03/vanderbilt-professor-docks-student-for-
not-agreeing-that-the-constitution-is-white-supremacist/
A student at Vanderbilt University was docked points on a quiz for
rejecting the statement that "the Constitution [was] designed to perpetuate
white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery," according to
screenshots of the quiz result.
Well it's always a problem when you have a "right/wrong" question that
is only half-true. It was designed to protect the institution of slavery.
No, it wasn't. Slavery may have been an ancillary issue that it covered,
but to say the Constitution was "designed to protect slavery" is idiotic.
Well, as Confucius said, "Those with half a cock aren't afraid to go off
half cocked." The Constitution's relationship to slavery is a
complicated issue, so it's only natural you'd be dismissive about it
because of your poor education at Trump U.
Post by BTR1701
It was designed to establish the parameters of a federal government and
its relation to the confederation of states which made up the new
country, and to enumerate and circumscribe the powers of that government.
That was its purpose and that's what it was designed for.
It wasn't designed to protect slavery any more than it was designed to
protect letters of marque and reprisal.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01440390701685514?journalCode=fsla20


The Constitution and Slavery: A Special Relationship
Helen J. Knowles
Pages 309-328 | Published online: 05 Jun 2008


Abstract

In their efforts to understand how antebellum American abolitionists
interpreted the relationship between slavery and the United States
Constitution, scholars have underestimated abolitionists' concern with
the question ‘Is the Constitution a pro-slavery document?’ Drawing on
abolitionist newspapers, periodicals and correspondence, this article
shows that the anti-slavery constitutional theories of the 1830s did not
presume slavery to be unconstitutional, nor did they assume that the
Constitution was pro-slavery, and therefore irrelevant to the
abolitionist cause. These constitutional interpretive subtleties laid
the foundations for the more prominent and radical theories that came in
the following decade from the pens of Wendell Phillips and Lysander Spooner.
Loading...