Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 (2 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Facts Do Matter.
10:57 AM on 01/10/2011
"When, as President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson urged Congress to act before January 1, 1808 to ban the Slave Trade, he denounced it in the strongest language ever used by any president prior to Lincoln. He called it a violation of the "human rights of unoffending Africans." This is the same Thomas Jefferson who owned, bought and sold hundreds of slaves and had illegitimate children with Sally Hemings who was actually the half sister of his wife. Linclon said they tried to hide slavery as an afflicted man would a wen or a tumor, but as long as the word "slave" is not mentioned I guess that's okay... I wonder how many white men would like to be counted as 3/5th of a man and be okay with it?
10:57 AM on 01/10/2011
If we were moving towards respect for all Americans and learning to extend the same respect to others then we could say with some pride that the Constitution was a turning point in human development.
However, with the government increasingly regarding the general population as a threat while the country fractures into bitterly opposed factions with virulent rhetoric everywhere, when our primary value is selfish greed with violence against each other commonplace and as our resources are in daily use all over the globe to kill and destroy we have to face the reality that the Constitution must be counted with the other perhaps well-meaning tenets of former nations, realms, empires and organizations – especially religions – that vainly attempted to harness the better side of human nature and ended up turning on us and making things worse.
I read a book once.
10:30 AM on 01/10/2011
So a suggestion that the Constitution condoned slavery is a falsity based on an intentional simplification of the history of the moment, but the argument of just the opposite, steeped in some nuance - but of only one side of the equation and therefore itself a simplification - is not a falsity?
10:10 AM on 01/10/2011
Any document that witholds citizenship and civil rights from a segment of the popluation is tremendously flawed and in fact, immoral. There are well-argued portions of the Constitution and as our nation's founding document, it should be respected. Why you feel the need to provide any defense of the "3/5" clause is literally beyond me as is your failure to condemn the fact that the founders were themselves, slaveholders. It's fine to hold reverance for the Constitution, flaws and all, but to defend the most reprehensible portions and omissions and to act as if your ancestors were thought of with anything other than utter disregard... truly beyond me.
10:06 AM on 01/10/2011
is it me or is this country going backwards?
Who Dares Win.
10:43 AM on 01/10/2011 is not you...THIS COUNTRY IS ACTUALLY MOVING BACKWARDS.

When a black man (republican) starts defending a piece of document that characterized him as one-third human earlier in the history of this nation, you are right to ask this question.
12:51 PM on 01/10/2011
Exactly, his ego attachment to being a republican is allowing him to re-write history and do a spin that makes "spinning the truth" seem inadequate to explain what he is doing.
Steve Holloway
Can't wait until we're living in 5D!
10:05 AM on 01/10/2011
Making references to the civil rights voting history of the Democratic and Republican Parties is irrelevant and even ridiculous, if you're suggesting that it sheds some light into the heart, ideology or platform of today's politics. Neither party resembles today what they were 60-100 years ago. The Civil Rights Act is largely what caused the Southern to desert the Democrats, and GOP has done little since to deserve to call itself "The Party Of Lincoln."
I read a book once.
10:36 AM on 01/10/2011
It also plays into a sort of "sins of the father" situation. Very much not an individualist argument.
Hello, I must be going.
10:04 AM on 01/10/2011
To think you can talk of the intent of the founding fathers is quite laughable. They didn't agree on many things, and Slavery was a big one. So some may have been ashamed but quite a few more might have wanted it in writing what they believed.

And as Editorjuno says, what part of 3/5 don't you understand?
Musician, wordsmith, accidental mystic, etc.
09:33 AM on 01/10/2011
Which part of "3/5" don't you understand, Mr. Blackwell, the "3" or the "5?" It couldn't be more obvious that the Constitution as originally ratified condoned slavery by failing to summarily abolish that institution. The necessity of that compromise at the time can certainly be argued, but not the clear implication of the resulting wording.
09:30 AM on 01/10/2011
This is not surprising from the Family Research Council.
09:46 AM on 01/10/2011
It's hard to make the Westboro Babtist Church look good, but the Family Research Coucil never fails in that regard.
Brian Gryphon
Photographer, Web-preneur, Gay in Ohio
09:17 AM on 01/10/2011
Condoned defined: "Verb - excuse, overlook, or make allowances for; be lenient with;" and clearly our Constitution, before it was amended, was both lenient with and made allowances for, the continued existence of slavery. Case closed.