Hey guys in reading over my copy of the constitution I always keep in my back pocket, I can't find where it originally said we could have slaves. Can anyone help me?
>>77591341
I'm quite interested (yet lazy) in the issue, what was the legislation around slavery? specially in the lifetime of the forefathers, washington owned slaves and all, but what were the laws that protected that ownership? because if there were none at the time, it's more like serfdom
>>77591341
Right next to the part about the muskets.
I'm only familiar with the part that says all men are created equal
>>77591341
Hey where can I buy a pocket sized version of the Constitution? I seriously need to start keeping a copy in my back pocket for stupid faggots.
>>77591584
Oh that's my favorite part
>>77591539
>"I'm quite interested (yet lazy)"
>lazy
>check flag
>>77591341
That is the most punchable face I have ever seen.
>>77591711
constitutionbooklet.com
Free printable pdf pocket sized
Fucking dumbass it's right in the beginning. "We the whites have a right to freedom, liberty and to own human garbage. They are our slaves and we will always have a right to own them, if they're freed we have a right to have police shoot them for any reason too"
Fucking bigot educate yourself.
>>77591539
Tbh I don't know TOO much about it but in the constitution I think something along the lines of they changed "life liberty and freedom" to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" because some owned slaves. Even before independence the laws varied by locality, and the founding fathers figured it would die out soon enough. Can't find it now but I thought estimated said it would have become economically unfeasible around 1900s from mechanization etc
>>77591539
Wow a lazy spaniard, who would have thought.
Open a fucking book, Julio.
>>77591899
Oh, neat.
Is there a pocket sized compilation of all abrahamic religions?
I wonder if they're even aware that they owe their freedom and equality thanks entirely to the constitution.
>>77591341
There is nothing in the constitution that talks about slaves.
Slavery was a moral right in the past and slaves were not consodered human.
The morals hanged, but, the right to own guns is and will always be set in stone.
>>77591341
Lefties argue that "other persons" are intended to be slaves. There's an interesting bit of bickering between the southern and northern representatives at the time. However, it doesn't validate slavery.
The issue is, Articles of Confederation never once mentioned it. Honestly, this picture is fucking triggering m8.
>>77591539
But yeah that's why they didn't put it in the constitution itself. It started as indentured servitude, idk how/what laws turned it into actual slavery but I know Georgia was originally a free colony for example.
>>77591341
the 3/5's person implies it
>>77591899
Damn, thanks friend.
>>77592013
Maybe. One sec. Here's another Constitution one in the meantime
http://www.thecapitol.net/Publications/PocketConstitution.html
>>77591854
and he says punchable things too. 'oh yeah its time we took our human rights behind the shed and shot them, so our generous leaders can draft us new ones!'
blind sheep walking idly towards tyrannical rule.
>>77591924
It was changed from Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Property I believe. Going on ancient knowledge here so I could be wrong.
>>77591341
Freedoms aren't enumerated except in the cases where they are mentioned specifically in order to protect them.
>>77592141
I know that's why I had to bring it here, my brain seized up. I mean I see right wingers post "stupid" stuff sometimes, but never this blatantly fucking stupid false yet so easy to look up. Fucking "intellectual" libtards using comedians as historical sources
>>77591341
Technically, he doesn't say that the constitution says you could own slaves. He says that both slavery and the constitution are just something dead, old, white men said and that, like slavery, the constitution should be abolished already.
SNL was always liberal leaning, but in the last 2 years or so, it's turned into full blown cultural marxist propaganda. They don't even try to hide it anymore.
Even the nig's cohost on Weekend Update is a voice cracking beta cuck white male.
They get 5 cents per reply.
sage
>>77591539
> laws that protected ownership
Ownership of slaves was never actually explicitly mentioned in the constitution, nor was it protected. They basically jumped around the issue to appease the southerners who had large portions of economy based around slavery and agriculture. There were groupsof people early on ( especially in the north) who wanted to ban slavery, but that sentiment wouldn't come around again until a good 80 years or so later with the second great awakening.
>>77591341
The US Constitution never mentions slavery. It doesn't even mention servants. Neither does the Bill of Rights
>>77592402
>>77591341
But there's literally nothing in the constitution about slavery. How are these people able to get away with blatant lying?
>>77591539
It was protected by lack of laws against it, as any attempt to form laws around it would gridlock congress/the founding fathers
>>77591341
It isn't anywhere but it does talk about unfree persons for the purpose of representation. Note that this also included the Irish and that Thomas Jefferson's children with Sally Hemmings were slaves and legally white. The one-drop rule was created by progressives in the early 20th century.
>>77592306
Yeah that sounds more familiar, briefly skimmed wikipedia (for what that's worth) and the connection to slavery is dodgy anyway. They just didn't want "persuit of property" something the government should help the people with. Gimmie dats BTFO
>>77592612
Funny thing that you used that picture.
The author in it HATED Americans for the reason that "they cry for freedom and patriotism whilst holding slaves!"
No need to worry though, since the dude was practically an autistic sperg
>>77592429
>2 years
Nah, you just got older and notice it more. For me it's been a cultural Marxist propaganda machine of the highest order since I turned 20 back in 2002.
>>77591341
slavery was a state issue
Really made me think
>people wanting to remove the constitution
This will never not trigger me
>>77592195
Very welcome
>>77592013
Not finding much for this. It would be a lot to pack into even a standard sized book though, and the Islam section would have a pretty high chance of being cucked beyond usefulness anyway. I'll have another go and post if I find anything
>>77592766
I think it had more to do with people not wanting to own property and appealing to a wider base tbqh senpai. But, as a consequence, gibs btfo.
>>77592780
It was still good in 2002 though. They actually good cast members then.
Now it's just sheboons, affirmative action cases and muh strong womyn.
The Three-Fifths clause is an acceptance of the reality that people did own slaves, and this was a positive towards slave owners..
>>77592013
>Is there a pocket sized compilation of all abrahamic religions?
Not pocket-sized, but then again, religious books are huge.
Have a collection of sacred books though.
mega://#F!51Q0waSI
Key:
!4Ut-eePQr9YSjHJJTQs7Ew!F5ZV0TSR
>>77592095
>>77592142
>>77592402
>>77592493
>>77592499
>>77592733
Article Five ends by shielding certain clauses in the new frame of government from being amended. Article One, Section 9, Clauses 1 prevents Congress from passing any law that would restrict the importation of slaves into the United States prior to 1808, plus the fourth clause from that same section, which reiterates the Constitutional rule that direct taxes must be apportioned according state populations. These clauses were explicitly shielded from Constitutional amendment prior to 1808. On January 1, 1808, the first day it was permitted to do so, Congress approved legislation prohibiting the importation of slaves into the country.
>>77591341
>>77591539
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't slavery fall into #10, regulated by states until the 13th was added?
>>77592402
Yeah but the forfathers didn't even say THAT. They knew it was hypoctritical and so the ones who owned slaves ignored it to be left up to the future, but the made the bill of RIGHTS to base the county on for all time. Again they didn't include the right to own people, but DID include the right to speech, arms etc
>>77592448
And whatever you autistic idiot. Guess I can't come to pol for opinions/venting, I have to plug into hivemind or gtfo
>>77591341
Who's this ugly smug nigger, and why does it think that it shouldn't still be in chains like the subhuman trash it is?
>>77591341
Life, liberty, property
Niggers weren't citizens and had no rights.
If they didn't want to become farming equipment, they should have fought other niggers harder.
>insulting the document that gives him freedom and never mentioned the right to slaves
Niggers, everyone.
>>77592983
It did not however, protect that right to own slaves. The constitution is about defending certain rights from being taken away. Slavery was never protected under the constitution because many in the continental congress realized it was likely to be temporary and in no way necessary.
>>77593364
Article Five ends by shielding certain clauses in the new frame of government from being amended. Article One, Section 9, Clauses 1 prevents Congress from passing any law that would restrict the importation of slaves into the United States prior to 1808, plus the fourth clause from that same section, which reiterates the Constitutional rule that direct taxes must be apportioned according state populations. These clauses were explicitly shielded from Constitutional amendment prior to 1808. On January 1, 1808, the first day it was permitted to do so, Congress approved legislation prohibiting the importation of slaves into the country.
>>77591341
Start here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States
Pay attention to 1790 and onwards.
After the Revolutionary War ended, several states banned slavery in the North. Ever since it was a slow process of banning slavery until the South went full 'muh economy' and caused gridlocks in Congress. It all culminated with the Southern states with the most slaves seceding. Boom civil war.
It's obvious the founding fathers knew slavery was bad, but they couldn't slam down the hammer throughout the whole country. Too many powerful figures got in the way.
So next time someone pulls the 'founding fathers were racists and owned slaves' card, remind them how they immediately set the stage for abolition in America in 1790
>>77591341
it's right next to the "obesity is superior" part
>>77591341
>muh founders were all evil slaveowners that whipped black people
Excellent revisionist history. Some had slaves; some didn't.
>>77593113
Ok well
#1 you could say that was "just leaving it to the states" not saying "yeah slavery is good!"
And
#2 it had a BUILT IN EXPIRATION is almost like they anticipated it would come up again and would allow future congress to limit it as they pleased, presumably restricting it
>>77593626
>it had a BUILT IN EXPIRATION
the only thing with a built in expiration was the protection of slave importation.
>>77593407
Keep copy and pasting wikipedia Mr. Constitutional scholar
>>77593764
are you saying it is not factual, or are you saying that it does not protect slavery?
>>77591341
Correct me if im wrong but what was written in the constitution was the abolition of slavery not the enforcement of it was it not?
>>77592088
I wonder if they're even aware that a big, essential part of the civil rights movement was focused on extending the right to bear arms (the second amendment they hate so much) to blacks too.
>>77593821
read this:
>>77593407
unlike much of the constitution, they took pains to say that importation of slaves could not be restricted for a few decades, meaning the old men who wrote it wanted slavery to be fine for the rest of their lives.
>>77593816
I'm saying you're interpreting it wrong
I basically see it saying
"O-ok southerners, Congress can't tell you what to do about importing slaves until 1808, I'd you wanna ban it yourselves that's good. But after 1808 they can do what they want *and we'll probably promptly ban it*"
Because they knew it would be a future issue and don't want to do everything at once, not cause they wanted slavery
>>77593994
Do 1808 was the test of their lives? Then knew they'd be able to breed slaves indefinitely if necessary. The slave trade was a slightly different humanitarian issue. You can participate in the slave trade without owning them, and you can own them without participating in the slave trade, which the south did for about 50 years
>>77594385
>I'm saying you're interpreting it wrong
you are correct. I read it wrong. it said slavery was illegal.
bye.
>>77593821
What do you mean?
Section 2 of article fifteen says
> The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation
Its a catch all that lets them write laws to enforce the abolition of slavery.
But also, you can look at the 14th amendment as an enforcement tool. The 14th amendment is kind of wordy, but it basically says that the state governments have to protect the rights listed in the Bill or Rights, as well as rights protected in other states. Before, for example, state governments had no obligation to protect the freedom of speech, but after the 14th amendment they had to. The 14th amendment is an all around good idea, but you can view it as an enforcement tool too, because it gives the federal government license to interfere with a lot of state level business.
>>77593407
Wow thanks. I didnt know that was in the constitution.
>>77593994
>>77594640
Basically SOME of the founding fathers thought slavery was "ok" but ALL of the founding fathers thought arms were a right and made it literally the second amendment. There was nothing in the bill of rights saying "states rights foreverr :DD you can't do nothin' bout our slaves!! :DDD"
>>77591341
>treating the constitution like it's a senile old man.
These people need to be shot for treason.
Also blacks are only 3/5 of a person, so it's fine to be able to own one since they're not completely real people
>>77594640
>Everything is black and white and you suck
>>77594936
>Also blacks are only 3/5 of a person, so it's fine to be able to own one since they're not completely real people
>>77593438
>>77593829
That's what really gets me, black Americans complain about past slavery and don't realize if they were still in Africa they'd have a pretty good chance of being a slave TODAY, or at least wallowing in ture poverty. They should be thanking the founding fathers for everything they did, from writing the constitution to including purchasing their ancestors
