5 ms·

Democrats (the South) always said that this country was always about slavery. They used that rhetoric to argue FOR slavery for decades after it was abolished. T

Democrats (the South) always said that this country was always about slavery. They used that rhetoric to argue FOR slavery for decades after it was abolished. This is all documented in supreme court cases from the 18th century on up through the civil war. Some of the founding fathers argued as attorneys in some of those cases in fact, stating firmly that slavery was always illegal in the United States. Republicans (Lincoln included) pointed to the Constitution as evidence that slavery was always illegal and that the southern states had a limited time to abolish it (that's factually written in the Constitution, a concession made in order to earn their support in the revolution). The disagreement on that is exactly what led to the civil war. The South refused to live up to the Constitution's terms and end slavery, counter to the law. The Republicans won that war. We live in that country that won. Not the one you're describing. Jim Crow was a Southern state thing. The North never allowed it. We live in the North. The South is gone and it was never part of this country because it violated the laws that would have made it so. They rebelled against anti slavery laws from the beginning and they finally got what they deserved, to be conquered by the United States that we live in today. And then they still argued to keep slavery and the Supreme Court kept slapping it down. Over and over and over. If you believe that the United States was ever about slavery, then you carry the rhetoric of the very party that created Jim Crow and that supported slavery, and you make them the good guy in the story. You support their version, where it was always legal and they got screwed by the lying North. The irony... Don't ignore the writings of Washington, Franklin, Hancock, etc. All wrote to say that slavery has no place in this country. And it never did! Their letters are preserved for you to read. They are available online or in one of the museums in DC. Probably the National Archive? Someone can correct me if they know. Anyway, that some people refuse to follow the law, isn't a reflection of the country as a whole. Similarly, when someone is killed in Norway, I don't jump to conclude that Norwegians are murderers. That wouldn't make any sense. Did you go to high school in the South somewhere? The revisionist's history of the US seems to stem from that part of the country. I'm just curious if it tracks.

raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
The constitution literally said that slaves were counted as 3/5th of a person - the actual founding documents. How can you say this country wasn’t about slavery from the beginning?
- trimethylpurine 9mo ago
  I don't think you read my comment. I mentioned this exact thing. The 3/5 vote was part of how the North protected from the South using greater numbers (voting in place of their slaves) to remove the expiration date that the North placed on slavery as a concession. The North wanted to ensure that slaves would in fact be released as soon as possible, without losing the South as an ally against the impending invasion from England. Had they not reduced the voting ability of the South, the South would have simply removed that expiration date and kept their slaves. (They kept them anyway, that's why the civil war happened.)
  - raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
    There are a lot of excuses being made to dispute the fact that this country literally has slavery built into its founding documents and let Jim Crow laws stand in a part of the country for almost a century later. There was no “expiration date” in the constitution. “Plessy vs Ferguson” was decided by the US Supreme Court after the Civil War which enshrined Jim Crow and “Separate but Equal”. It wasn’t until 1967 that the Supreme Court outlawed bans on interracial marriage. In 1985 there were still sundown towns (https://www.reddit.com/r/Georgia/comments/1f4hzlt/oprah_visits_a_county_where_no_black_person_had/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Georgia/comments/1f4hzlt/oprah_visi...). This country was built on racism and it was enshrined into law up to 6 years before I was born In all fairness, my family had a house built here in 2016 and the only reason we sold in 2024 was to move to Florida. While my (stepson) was one of only 5 Black students in his high school, he never had any issues.
    - trimethylpurine 9mo ago
      >There was no “expiration date” in the constitution. Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution (often called the Slave Trade Clause) prevented Congress from prohibiting the importation of slaves prior to January 1, 1808. This effectively allowed the international slave trade to continue until that date, after which Congress could (and did) ban it. Seems I need to reword my take, as this demands a bit more specificity, but the overall take remains unchanged. Had the 3/5 provision not been made, the South would have further prevented the North from enforcing a ban on slavery and inequality, which was already in place in the North, and in place federally with the "created equal" component in the Declaration, as was argued by founders in court cases. We can't just ignore court documents and the Constitution itself, along with the Declaration. Not to mention the first draft of the Constitution which had a lot more provisions against slavery before the English forced then to take allies with the South or die. They had no choice but to agree to the South's terms and allow for the South's slaves, temporarily. A stark difference from the previous Constitution of the first Congress. You can try to frame it however you like, but you can't hide the fact that the founders wrote that slavery is bad, and they don't want it in this country even before it was a country. And they subsequently fought to eliminate it as soon as the wars were over. Those documents remain, right in the face of your argument. Sundown towns existing doesn't change that. There was no sundown country, just as this isn't a sex cult country, despite there being some law breaking Nexium participants setting up shop and torturing people. It happens, that doesn't mean we as a country yearn to have more racists walking around. In fact, I think if you read why Republicans voted Trump, it's because they perceive immigrants to be racist and they want to reduce the inflow of racist ideology and rape culture into the country. That's exactly the scare tactic that their advertising relies on. They believe they are the ones who aren't racist, just like Democrats. (I hate both political parties equally by the way. I'm not sure if that's clear from my commentary. But I reject the South's view of history because I can read the damn court cases and see that it's a total fabrication. And I know that Democrats like to spread that version as justification for why black people need help, and I think they know full well that it's bullshit, but it convinces juries on rare occasion so they continue to use it.)
Forgeties79 9mo ago
You can’t talk about this Republican/Democrat dichotomy over 150 years without acknowledging party realignment. Are you familiar with it? Let me ask you this: what party did Strom Thurman swap to and why?
- trimethylpurine 9mo ago
  I'm familiar with this theory and on some issues maybe it's relevant but what I'm referring to here is that Democrats today still seem to be in agreement with Democrats of old on the topic of whether the founders meant to abolish slavery. Republicans say they absolutely did, just as they always have. Democrats say they absolutely didn't, just as they always have. I would argue that realignment occurred geographically, not on the basis of morality. Under slavery, the southern states were rich and mostly Democrats, now the northern states are more largely rich and leaning Democrat. That's to be expected, I think, where the wealthy wouldn't enjoy the new found poverty of the southern states as they rebuilt after the war, and would take their ideals with them. But that's just my guess, I don't have any research to substantiate that. Maybe it's an interesting topic for research. Similarly, the stance on issues of whether people are naturally born inferior and deserving of special treatment, good or bad, remains a largely Democrat ideology, just as it always has. Republicans on the other hand argue that all man is created equal not equitable, and they used that rhetoric to free slaves, stop Jim Crow era horrors, etc. And they continue to use it to argue against race based government aid. So on these specific topics, I don't see any realignment as objectively observed. All of this was and is documented in many SCOTUS cases, old and new.
  - Forgeties79 9mo ago
    It is a theory in the same way gravity is. Both parties have experienced both gradual and sudden, major shifts and realignments throughout history. Most of the dispute is where and when these changes occurred and what constitutes them exactly. The changes clearly occur, usually over several decades but sometimes more quickly. I’m still curious what your response is to my Strom Thurman question. It illustrates the entire point and marks one of the most recent major party realignments in the US.

raw_anon_1111 9mo ago

The constitution literally said that slaves were counted as 3/5th of a person - the actual founding documents. How can you say this country wasn’t about slavery from the beginning?

trimethylpurine 9mo ago
I don't think you read my comment. I mentioned this exact thing. The 3/5 vote was part of how the North protected from the South using greater numbers (voting in place of their slaves) to remove the expiration date that the North placed on slavery as a concession. The North wanted to ensure that slaves would in fact be released as soon as possible, without losing the South as an ally against the impending invasion from England. Had they not reduced the voting ability of the South, the South would have simply removed that expiration date and kept their slaves. (They kept them anyway, that's why the civil war happened.)
- raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
  There are a lot of excuses being made to dispute the fact that this country literally has slavery built into its founding documents and let Jim Crow laws stand in a part of the country for almost a century later. There was no “expiration date” in the constitution. “Plessy vs Ferguson” was decided by the US Supreme Court after the Civil War which enshrined Jim Crow and “Separate but Equal”. It wasn’t until 1967 that the Supreme Court outlawed bans on interracial marriage. In 1985 there were still sundown towns (https://www.reddit.com/r/Georgia/comments/1f4hzlt/oprah_visits_a_county_where_no_black_person_had/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Georgia/comments/1f4hzlt/oprah_visi...). This country was built on racism and it was enshrined into law up to 6 years before I was born In all fairness, my family had a house built here in 2016 and the only reason we sold in 2024 was to move to Florida. While my (stepson) was one of only 5 Black students in his high school, he never had any issues.
  - trimethylpurine 9mo ago
    >There was no “expiration date” in the constitution. Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution (often called the Slave Trade Clause) prevented Congress from prohibiting the importation of slaves prior to January 1, 1808. This effectively allowed the international slave trade to continue until that date, after which Congress could (and did) ban it. Seems I need to reword my take, as this demands a bit more specificity, but the overall take remains unchanged. Had the 3/5 provision not been made, the South would have further prevented the North from enforcing a ban on slavery and inequality, which was already in place in the North, and in place federally with the "created equal" component in the Declaration, as was argued by founders in court cases. We can't just ignore court documents and the Constitution itself, along with the Declaration. Not to mention the first draft of the Constitution which had a lot more provisions against slavery before the English forced then to take allies with the South or die. They had no choice but to agree to the South's terms and allow for the South's slaves, temporarily. A stark difference from the previous Constitution of the first Congress. You can try to frame it however you like, but you can't hide the fact that the founders wrote that slavery is bad, and they don't want it in this country even before it was a country. And they subsequently fought to eliminate it as soon as the wars were over. Those documents remain, right in the face of your argument. Sundown towns existing doesn't change that. There was no sundown country, just as this isn't a sex cult country, despite there being some law breaking Nexium participants setting up shop and torturing people. It happens, that doesn't mean we as a country yearn to have more racists walking around. In fact, I think if you read why Republicans voted Trump, it's because they perceive immigrants to be racist and they want to reduce the inflow of racist ideology and rape culture into the country. That's exactly the scare tactic that their advertising relies on. They believe they are the ones who aren't racist, just like Democrats. (I hate both political parties equally by the way. I'm not sure if that's clear from my commentary. But I reject the South's view of history because I can read the damn court cases and see that it's a total fabrication. And I know that Democrats like to spread that version as justification for why black people need help, and I think they know full well that it's bullshit, but it convinces juries on rare occasion so they continue to use it.)

Forgeties79 9mo ago

You can’t talk about this Republican/Democrat dichotomy over 150 years without acknowledging party realignment. Are you familiar with it? Let me ask you this: what party did Strom Thurman swap to and why?

trimethylpurine 9mo ago
I'm familiar with this theory and on some issues maybe it's relevant but what I'm referring to here is that Democrats today still seem to be in agreement with Democrats of old on the topic of whether the founders meant to abolish slavery. Republicans say they absolutely did, just as they always have. Democrats say they absolutely didn't, just as they always have. I would argue that realignment occurred geographically, not on the basis of morality. Under slavery, the southern states were rich and mostly Democrats, now the northern states are more largely rich and leaning Democrat. That's to be expected, I think, where the wealthy wouldn't enjoy the new found poverty of the southern states as they rebuilt after the war, and would take their ideals with them. But that's just my guess, I don't have any research to substantiate that. Maybe it's an interesting topic for research. Similarly, the stance on issues of whether people are naturally born inferior and deserving of special treatment, good or bad, remains a largely Democrat ideology, just as it always has. Republicans on the other hand argue that all man is created equal not equitable, and they used that rhetoric to free slaves, stop Jim Crow era horrors, etc. And they continue to use it to argue against race based government aid. So on these specific topics, I don't see any realignment as objectively observed. All of this was and is documented in many SCOTUS cases, old and new.
- Forgeties79 9mo ago
  It is a theory in the same way gravity is. Both parties have experienced both gradual and sudden, major shifts and realignments throughout history. Most of the dispute is where and when these changes occurred and what constitutes them exactly. The changes clearly occur, usually over several decades but sometimes more quickly. I’m still curious what your response is to my Strom Thurman question. It illustrates the entire point and marks one of the most recent major party realignments in the US.