Ok. There is reference to slavery -- WASHINGTON BOARD

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 20:53:31 10/14/02 Mon
Author: Wilbs
Author Host/IP: 208-58-251-94.s94.tnt2.nwhv.ct.dialup.rcn.com / 208.58.251.94
Subject: Ok. There is reference to slavery
In reply to: Grumpy� 's message, "And another thing;" on 21:26:53 10/11/02 Fri

Was it mostly because it was a fact of life to them? Was it because they didn't think anything strange about it?

I agree, they wrote it knowing it existed, but the provisions don't allow for it, they just mention it. It doesn't say that we have the right - but those guys had slaves. So they would never had said it. It didn't dawn on them that it was wrong.

I've never read anything in the Constution that said "you guys have a right to keep slaves." I didn't realize it had to be amended.

What you quoted is in the Constitution. But it dilineates activities based on the number of this or that person. Yes, it does get a little obnoxious in the rights thing. It probably needed to be amended because the jerks who read it before the Civil war thought those passages gave "permission" to own slaves.

You are right, I have to read it again. I read like novels, you know? Fast. While I was in school, I realized that was a problem. Now? I just read fast. Yes, I miss some stuff. I have read it. When I was in high school, and quickly lately, a couple of years ago. Expect me to come back at you, though, because there was no way that anything in the constitution said that you could have slaves. I read what you quoted. It detailed different rules based on kinds of persons. The fact that the government wanted a tax on it is no conclusive evidence. Hell, there's a tax on smokes isn't there??

But don't forget - they mistreated Catholics back then . . .

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Ok. There is reference to slavery -- Grumpy�, 22:59:18 10/14/02 Mon
- And Catholics were not treated very well -- Wilbs, 19:36:01 10/16/02 Wed
  - Re: And Catholics were not treated very well -- Grumpy�, 21:15:07 10/18/02 Fri
    - You are right. -- wILBS, 18:52:24 10/29/02 Tue
      - Re: You are right. -- Grumpy�, 00:27:09 10/30/02 Wed
        It's all about Cat tracks -- Wilbs, 21:01:28 11/01/02 Fri
        Re: It's all about Cat tracks -- Grumpy�, 01:14:24 11/02/02 Sat
        Re: It's all about Cat tracks -- Wilbs, 19:54:11 11/08/02 Fri