Funny how this shit is taught in school and yet the writers of the Constitution bought and owned slaves. To them slaves meant $$$$$$ but fuck their human rights. Below is an excerpt from the Constitution:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

What is your opinion?

Owning slaves was the "in" thing back then if you had money.
The modern equivalent of it would be like owning a Tesla.
The only difference is that you could possibly make money selling the Tesla!

It also completely leaves out women and implies that women have no rights whatsoever. If they meant "mankind", why then did women not have the right to vote or hold office?

We should remove the names of all these fuckwad misogynists from all schools, monuments, highways, cities, etc. Nobody who deliberately excludes over half the free population is deserving of recognition.

They were well aware of the hypocrisy, but since they had a lot on their plate (i.e. a war with England) they didn't want to disrupt the economic order of the new states, which probably would've broken apart the union, during wartime. Not a good thing.

But they were cognizant that their talk of freedom and liberty seemed hollow in the face of slavery, and they really thought the next generation of Americans would deal with it and end it. And then the cotton gin was invented, which made slavery much, much more lucrative.

Today, some people own robots. In 250 years, society will look at that practice with disdain and disgust.

Do you view people who own robots as vile scum?

pjku3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny how this shit is taught in school and yet
> the writers of the Constitution bought and owned
> slaves. To them slaves meant $$$$$$ but fuck
> their human rights. Below is an excerpt from the
> Constitution:
>
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
> men are created equal, that they are endowed by
> their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
> that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit
> of Happiness. That to secure these rights,
> Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
> their just powers from the consent of the
> governed."
>
> What is your opinion?


Well, let's start with the fact that your above quote is not in the US Constitution. Are you 10 years old?

The founding fathers did not write a constitution which said "all men are created equal". Those words are found in the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution.

The principal author of the Declaration of Independence was Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson did not participate in the Constitution Convention because he was serving as U.S. minister to France. Before leaving he had pushed for the adoption of an ordinance organizing and governing the territories northwest of the Ohio River. Jefferson's proposed ordinance indicated slavery would be illegal in those territories after 1800. This proposal served as the basis for the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, passed by the U.S. government which the framers of the Constitution were seeking to replace with the U.S. Constitution. During Jefferson's second term as president the U.S. Congress adopted a law which prohibited the importation of slaves into the U.S. This law was enacted before a similar law was approved by the British Parliament.

Bottomline though is that slavery wasn't abolished during the founding father's reign. They talked about it but in the end it was money that talked louder. If they wanted to end slavery they could of but did not. Some founding fathers freed their slaves only after their(founding fathers) death. Nice gesture but still used them while they were alive.

Same thing back then is still the same today..........Say this but do that.

Oh well. Slavery is still present this day but in a different shape.

the truth!!!! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bottomline though is that slavery wasn't abolished
> during the founding father's reign. They talked
> about it but in the end it was money that talked
> louder. If they wanted to end slavery they could
> of but did not.

If they outlawed slavery in 1777, states would've immediately cried that the federal government was overreaching and acting like King George. And they probably would've quit the union and re-joined the British side. The country was under attack, and with states seceding, it's very likely France would've never bothered to get involved in the war. The US would've been one really short-lived endeavor.

OP needs to lay off the dope.

Niggers will always be a slave to something...greed seems to have owned them for the last few thousand years.

By stating that all men were created equal they drove the first nail in the coffin of slavery. And they did it intentionally - a lot of the Founding Fathers abhorred slavery but they had to tread lightly when dealing with abolition so as not to alienate the southern contingents among them, who they needed to coalesce the young country.

'tis what it is Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the truth!!!! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Bottomline though is that slavery wasn't
> abolished
> > during the founding father's reign. They
> talked
> > about it but in the end it was money that
> talked
> > louder. If they wanted to end slavery they
> could
> > of but did not.
>
> If they outlawed slavery in 1777, states would've
> immediately cried that the federal government was
> overreaching and acting like King George. And
> they probably would've quit the union and
> re-joined the British side. The country was under
> attack, and with states seceding, it's very likely
> France would've never bothered to get involved in
> the war. The US would've been one really
> short-lived endeavor.


Kind of. The Southern states would never have joined if the Constitution outlawed slavery. As Bill.N. so boringly put it, they set a path that slowly abolished slavery. First, you couldn't bring any new ones in. Then a law was passed that new states had to be free states after Texas joined (the last state to allow slavery to join the union). This was one of the main reasons for the Civil War. When Kansas joined as a free state, that was a final straw for the confederacy. The Civil War started a couple of months later.

it's all relative Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Today, some people own robots. In 250 years,
> society will look at that practice with disdain
> and disgust.
>
> Do you view people who own robots as vile scum?


We are using robots to build our goods, process our foods, and other laborious actions. We are even using them for sexual gratification. How do you think society will look at us 250 years from now? They will view us as barbaric cretins.

beaner beaner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OP needs to lay off the dope.
>
> Niggers will always be a slave to
> something...greed seems to have owned them for the
> last few thousand years.

A thousand years ago they had not yet climbed down from the trees. Laziness is their chief problem followed closely by a lack of intelligence. To believe they are as evolved as the white man is foolish. We're clearly two distinct species.

Men are created true. Slaves or niggers are not, some are more stupid than others, this why you be careful on which one you buy.

Gunlover Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Men are created true. Slaves or niggers are not,
> some are more stupid than others, this why you be
> careful on which one you buy.

You have no money to buy anything.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gunlover Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Men are created true. Slaves or niggers are
> not,
> > some are more stupid than others, this why you
> be
> > careful on which one you buy.
>
> You have no money to buy anything.


I brought you for a nickel.

the truth!!!! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bottomline though is that slavery wasn't abolished
> during the founding father's reign.


At the time, it was considered a matter for the individual states to allow slavery, or not. This is one reason why I laugh at the Confederate apologists who holler about the Civil War's being about "States' Rights". Before the outbreak of the Civil War, the Southern States showed absolutely no respect for the rights of the Northern States to keep slavery without their borders and to refuse to support so vile an institution. In fact, some of the Northern States considered slavery to be so vile, disgusting and repugnant, that three of them actually did something to get rid of it even before the War of Independence ended (September, 1783, for the benefit of you public school "graduates").

Article One of the Vermont Constitution of 1777 bans slavery. Yes, Vermont was not admitted to the Union until 1791, Still, its men fought, bled and died alongside the men of the Thirteen States to rid America of the yoke of the British oppressors. The current Vermont Constitution is the same as that of 1777, The only changes were: 1) the elimination of the complaints against New York and New Hampshire in the original preamble and 2) the amendments that have been added over the years. Article One of the current Vermont Constitution is the same as Article One of the Vermont Constitution of 1777.

In 1780, the Pennsylvania Legislature passed a measure that provided for the gradual abolition of slavery in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It took until the Census of 1830 for there to be no slaves in Pennsylvania, but the law did pass before the end of the War of Independence.

In Massachusetts, slavery became effectively illegal in 1781; absolutely illegal in the Spring of 1783 (recall that the War of Independence ended in September, 1783). Massachusetts abolished slavery by judicial review; the only state that ever abolished slavery in that manner. By 1775, both Massachusetts and Vermont were in open, armed revolt against the English crown. In fact, it was the men of Massachusetts and Vermont who led the rest of the nation into the field against the English. While the men of Virginia were making fancy speeches that the English crown ignored, the men of Massachusetts and Vermont were in the field speaking to the British oppressor in the only languages that oppressors understand: gunpowder, lead and iron. No less a flower-tongued Virginia slave owner than Patrick Henry acknowledged this, and, acknowledged it for the record.


Texas was not the last slave state admitted to the Union. In June, 1863, Congress admitted West Virginia to the Union as a slave state. West Virginia was the only slave state admitted during the Civil War. West Virginia subsequently did abolish slavery in February, 1865.

There were five states where slavery was allowed that did not secede: Missouri, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and New Jersey. New Jersey and Delaware were under gradual abolition when the Civil War commenced. New Jersey finished it during the war. In Delaware, there were some nine-hundred slaves left at the conclusion of the Civil War. They would not go free until the Thirteenth Amendment took effect in December, 1865. Kentucky never did abolish slavery. The slaves there also did not go free until December, 1865. Missouri and Maryland abolished slavery during the war. Ironically, Maryland did so on 12 October, 1864, the same day that Roger Taney died.

It is to be noted that one Confederate State, Tennessee, did abolish slavery in 1865, before the Civil War did end. That action was largely moot, as large chunks of Tennessee had been in Yankee hands for most of the war.

the founding fathers sucked Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It also completely leaves out women and implies
> that women have no rights whatsoever. If they
> meant "mankind", why then did women not have the
> right to vote or hold office?
>
> We should remove the names of all these fuckwad
> misogynists from all schools, monuments, highways,
> cities, etc. Nobody who deliberately excludes
> over half the free population is deserving of
> recognition.




It's 2017, ingrate.

If you don't like something that happened hundreds of years ago, GTFO. You definitely will not be missed!