3 ms·

> And the amendments outlawing it actually show how the constitution works as ideas change over time. The amendment to end slavery happened on the backbone of

• markdown 5y ago
  > The amendment to end slavery This didn't happen, and the constitution still explicitly allows slavery.
• prepend 5y ago
  I think the civil war was independent of the constitution and it would have occurred regardless of whatever the legal structure was.
  • threatofrain 5y ago
    The southern states were required to ratify the 14th Amendment as a condition of having any federal representation, and it nullified a prior Supreme Court ruling on the Constitution. The 15th Amendment was specifically designed to counter anticipation of tactics to dodge the 14th Amendment. You were just talking about how the 14th Amendment reflects how the Constitution adapts to the changing values of a nation. Yes, after one side shoots the other side into agreement, and after 750,000 lives ended. Then the victor decided the outcome of history. One can only imagine how the course of the Constitution would have been "independent" to the course of the Civil War if the northern states had lost.
    • prepend 5y ago
      What I meant was that slavery was a big divide in the US. This was not caused by the constitution. I think any founding documents would have had the same effect: massive bloodshed to force part of the country to stop slavery. When I say independent of the constitution, I mean that no matter what legal foundational framework, I think we would have had the civil war to end slavery. Even if we had the magma carta or whatever.