617
What is something that sounds 100% false but is actually 100% true? (lemmy.ca)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
653 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 17 points 3 years ago (6 children)

It's even worse. The original US Constitution does not prohibit slavery. It wasn't until the Thirteenth Amendment was passed seventy years later - after a Civil War tore apart the country - that slavery was abolished. With the express exception of punishment for a crime. No qualifications for the severity of the crime. And that exception gets frequent use to this day in the penal system

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 3 years ago* (4 children)

    The original US Constitution is explicitly pro-slavery. Not only does it explicitly require non-slaveholding states to return fugitive slaves to their oppressors, but it has multiple mechanisms intended to ensure the dominance of slave states in the federal government.

    The Constitution was never a unified idealist vision of liberty. It was a grungy political compromise between factions that did not agree on what the country should be. These included New England Puritans (religious cultists; but abolitionist), New York Dutch bankers (who wanted the money back they'd loaned to the states), Southern planters (patriarchal rapist tyrants), and Mid-Atlantic Quakers (pacifists willing to hold their noses and make peace with the Puritans and planters).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

    As a natural US citizen it took me a while to understand what I was taught about US history in grade school was not entirely accurate. US independence was about corporate interest. The land barons and industrialists did not want to pay taxes to the crown. That was the offense that led to a declaration of independence, everything else was cursory.

    At most half the American population was in favor of independence. Those that spoke against independence were labeled as Tories and terrorized into submission (sometimes horribly). The people with money and influence led a campaign of terror against them. If they had actually held a vote and went with majority rule, it's likely we'd still be a British territory.

    As far as the constitution, the authors did not consider other races as equals with human rights. When they said, "Liberty and justice for all." they were talking strictly about men of European descent. Even white women were not considered in the term "all". This is how the genocide of native people and slavery was justified. The people suffering these horrors were considered animals same as livestock. This ideology originated in the major Christian churches of the time which were all run by, you guessed it, men of European descent.

    Of course in modern times we know that human genetics are one of the least variant of any species on the planet, but back then they relied on the Church instead of science. You can thank those guys for over a millennia of dark ages and unjust human rights.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago

    In order to explain the injustices of the early US, one has to comprehend English common law, the economics of empires bound together by wind-powered sailing ships, Protestant and Catholic Christian doctrine, and the legacies of the Spanish Reconquista that became ideological white-supremacism.

    It is really easy to come up with caricatures that say "Jefferson was just a rapist" or "the Articles of Confederation were okay, but the Constitution sucked" or "the colonies would have been fine under British rule forever" or "everyone shoulda just joined the Iroquois".

    In fact, everything was worse and more fucked up and lots of people died in misery and horror.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Not only does it explicitly require non-slaveholding states to return fugitive slaves to their oppressors

    The Fugitive Slave Law wasn't part of the Constitution.

    but it has multiple mechanisms intended to ensure the dominance of slave states in the federal government.

    Again, not part of the Constitution. Those were the various compromises that the South kept getting pissy about foreseeing the end of Slavery, so they kept threatening rebellion.

    If anyone tries to tell you the civil war was about states rights, not slavery... These are pretty obviously about slavery. But if they don't believe that, just let them read the Southern States Declarations of Secession. They say what the civil war's about in their own words.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •