4 ms·

Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 is even more damning I think. Basically saying that importation of slaves must be allowed for at least the first 19 years of the

Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 is even more damning I think. Basically saying that importation of slaves must be allowed for at least the first 19 years of the country's existence. > 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.

buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
How is that damning? The alternative was to create the union without the south. Then slavery would have continued much longer in the south. How would it have been better for the north to refuse to compromise? The constitution brought the end of slavery. It didn’t prop it up.
- Technically 6y ago
  I'd argue the damning point is that we still use the original constitution.
zepto 6y ago
Ok - but that expired a long time ago, and the Civil Rights act was passed in 1964. Is the complaint that we haven’t erased the slavery related stuff from the record? What has this got to do with people being racist now?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > the Civil Rights act was passed in 1964. A Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. Civil Rights Acts were also passed in 1866, 1871, 1875, 1957, 1960, 1968, and 1991. But the passage of a Civil Rights Act is not, in and of itself, an indication of the end of systemic racism.
  - sanity31415 6y ago
    What evidence would prove that systemic racism doesn't exist?
  - zepto 6y ago
    “But the passage of a Civil Rights Act is not, in and of itself, an indication of the end of systemic racism“ Systemic racism is rampant in every country I have lived in, the US included. But you are changing the subject. The question is about why it matters that it was once part of the constitution if it is no longer?

buzzerbetrayed 6y ago

How is that damning? The alternative was to create the union without the south. Then slavery would have continued much longer in the south. How would it have been better for the north to refuse to compromise? The constitution brought the end of slavery. It didn’t prop it up.

Technically 6y ago
I'd argue the damning point is that we still use the original constitution.

zepto 6y ago

Ok - but that expired a long time ago, and the Civil Rights act was passed in 1964. Is the complaint that we haven’t erased the slavery related stuff from the record? What has this got to do with people being racist now?

dragonwriter 6y ago
> the Civil Rights act was passed in 1964. A Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. Civil Rights Acts were also passed in 1866, 1871, 1875, 1957, 1960, 1968, and 1991. But the passage of a Civil Rights Act is not, in and of itself, an indication of the end of systemic racism.
- sanity31415 6y ago
  What evidence would prove that systemic racism doesn't exist?
- zepto 6y ago
  “But the passage of a Civil Rights Act is not, in and of itself, an indication of the end of systemic racism“ Systemic racism is rampant in every country I have lived in, the US included. But you are changing the subject. The question is about why it matters that it was once part of the constitution if it is no longer?