On 7/10/2015 3:24 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Muggles writes:

On 7/10/2015 10:50 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 9:59:18 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 7/10/2015 7:13 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/10/2015 12:11 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/9/2015 10:54 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
You said, "the constitution, with all of it's wonderful amendment still
made slavery legal". Could you clarify what you mean?

Think back, the constitution, then they realized something was
missing...

It's called the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments.


OK ... what about the Bill of Rights? What do they have to do with
making slavery legal?


The Bill of Rights provides limits on the power of
government. Which, sadly, are being ignored now days.


I agree with that. I just can't figure out which one made slavery legal.

--
Maggie


When The Constitution was drafted, it was ambiguous on the subject
of slavery even though many of the framers were abolitionists and
wanted The Constitution to prohibit slavery. If The Constitution had
prohibited slavery, none of the Southern colonies that had large
numbers of slaves would have ratified The Constitution and there
would have been no United States. The information is easy to find on
the Interweb but you'll need to go to several sites in order to
filter out the spin different sides will put on history. When a
large number of sources present the same information the same way,
it's usually much closer to the truth. I found a YouTube video that
will make Democrats howl because it presents the truth about their
party. ^_^

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wz_0utCrm0

[8~{} Uncle Truth Monster


I've read the Constitution more than once and have never seen it say
anything that would come close to legalizing slavery, which, is what Dan
Espen was inferring. I think he means to say that since the
Constitution didn't make slavery illegal that it was by default making
slavery legal, but it doesn't work that way.

Note that I did not make the original statement which was worded poorly.
But by referring to "free persons", it's very clear that "non-free
persons" are legal.

If you read any of the discussions of what was going on at the time,
there were lots of people that wanted to make slavery illegal. That
did not happen.


I understand the text you quoted. It's obvious that both free and those
bound in service existed, but that text still doesn't make slavery
legal. Slavery was already legal at the time the document was written.
How can the Constitution make something legal that was already legal at
the time? It does acknowledge both existed, which, isn't the same thing.

--
Maggie