Politics
Out of context: Reply #18778
- Started
- Last post
- 33,773 Responses
- TheBlueOne0
"Nice try at history though.."
– yurimonSo you're claiming that without the concessions to slave states - thus protecting the "few" that liked to enslave fellow human beings - the constitution would be ratified by all the states?
There's someone here who is unclear about history and it's not me.
Notes from the COnstirtuitional Convention, 1787:
"Mr. John Rutledge [SC]. If the Convention thinks that North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, will ever agree to the plan, unless their right to import slaves be untouched, the expectation is vain. The people of those states will never be such fools as to give up so important an interest."
There was even a little thing called the "Civil War" about a hundred years later to attempt to resolve that. You might want to look that one up.
The whole bullshit that Fox.Tea Party people lovve to throw around about "states rights" basically meant special laws to enslave people or we ain't playing in your nation" thing. Funny enough how today the same states that wanted special expections to own human beings "You know protecting the rights of the "slave owning minority" are the same ones that hire the most illegal aliens to pick their crops and support "right to work" laws against workers rights and imposing slave like conditions.
But you know "arrgle bargle FREEDOM libtards!"
- nice out of context rant...republic form of gov does ensure right via constitution nice try thoughyurimon
- wait... tea party is against illegal immigration, so to that point you are off base, its your party that pandors to the illegal workers.whhipp
- That plank? It's in your eye. The only one trying here is you. And it's failing.TheBlueOne