3 ms·
In a sense, it is, because otherwise the original Constitution may not have been ratified and a possible outcome would be the Balkanization of North America. I
by tadfisher 5y ago
In a sense, it is, because otherwise the original Constitution may not have been ratified and a possible outcome would be the Balkanization of North America.
In another, it justified and enshrined in foundational law the abhorrent practice of chattel slavery, and allowed the United States to form a strong centralized government capable of colonizing and subjugating the native people who were living there for thousands of years.
These can both be true at the same time.
- kadoban 5y agoIt's just a bizarre example of a compromise if you're looking for a positive example. At _very best_ it was a necessary evil, with a large emphasis on the "evil". There's a direct line from there to more slavery, the Civil War, a couple of centuries of mistreatment of a large portion of the American citizenry, internal strife, and the current clusterfuck of race relations and politics in America. Put against that there's the other option of "maybe there might have been one extra country".
- throw0101a 5y ago> Put against that there's the other option of "maybe there might have been one extra country". That 'extra country' would have all the things you describe, possibly without the check of the Free States on them to eventually apply pressure to get rid of slavery. There was even a possibility of improvement: was it Andrew Johnson that cut a deal to allow the slavers back into power?
- kadoban 5y agoThe "applying pressure" part was going to war. Not sure unioning up with slavers for ~a century, extending their influence, undermining the morality of your founding document, etc. can be judged to be worth it if you're just going to have to shoot them until they stop slaving anyway.