Current Events > C/D: The people who wrote the Constitution did not understand slavery was wrong

(+) Yeah! (+)

What do you think, CE?

---

Of course they knew, they just didn't care

A lot of them owned slaves so...

---

thrashmetal14 posted...

Of course they knew, they just didn't care

---

They knew it was wrong, but they also knew if they outlawed slavery in the Constitution then the south would tell them to fuck off and never ratify it. Basically itmwas more important at the time to keep the people united and form a government and deal with slavery at a later date. Yes it sucks for those that were slaves, but the alternative was a possible civil war even earlier and/or Britain invading again while the nation was divided and infighting.

---

thrashmetal14 posted...

Of course they knew, they just didn't care

---

62.5% believe that this is an incorrect take.

Now what if I told you it was Pete Buttigieg's?

https://twitter.com/JasonOverstreet/status/1211328022621474816

---

Gamerguymass posted...

They knew it was wrong, but they also knew if they outlawed slavery in the Constitution then the south would tell them to fuck off and never ratify it. Basically itmwas more important at the time to keep the people united and form a government and deal with slavery at a later date. Yes it sucks for those that were slaves, but the alternative was a possible civil war even earlier and/or Britain invading again while the nation was divided and infighting.

how many of the people who wrote the constitution were slave owners themselves?

---

Gamerguymass posted...

They knew it was wrong, but they also knew if they outlawed slavery in the Constitution then the south would tell them to fuck off and never ratify it. Basically itmwas more important at the time to keep the people united and form a government and deal with slavery at a later date. Yes it sucks for those that were slaves, but the alternative was a possible civil war even earlier and/or Britain invading again while the nation was divided and infighting.

Thats a weird take on it. Many of the Founders were also slave owners, who likely viewed the institution as necessary to sustain a viable agricultural economy. When technology began to make large-scale farming easier, and industry become more prominent, then the people started to question slaverys viability status. The southern states still had a large focus on agriculture and were worried, and its a legit concern, about their ability to farm their cash crops. So really slavery was a necessary evil up until modern industry negated the need for it.


---

scorpion41 posted...

Thats a weird take on it. Many of the Founders were also slave owners, who likely viewed the institution as necessary to sustain a viable agricultural economy. When technology began to make large-scale farming easier, and industry become more prominent, then the people started to question slaverys viability status. The southern states still had a large focus on agriculture and were worried, and its a legit concern, about their ability to farm their cash crops. So really slavery was a necessary evil up until modern industry negated the need for it.

Were it not for the civil war, mechanization would have made slavery largely obsolete within a few decades.
What happens to the slaves after that is up for speculation, but it wouldn't have been pleasant in most hypothetical cases.

scorpion41 posted...

Thats a weird take on it. Many of the Founders were also slave owners, who likely viewed the institution as necessary to sustain a viable agricultural economy. When technology began to make large-scale farming easier, and industry become more prominent, then the people started to question slaverys viability status. The southern states still had a large focus on agriculture and were worried, and its a legit concern, about their ability to farm their cash crops. So really slavery was a necessary evil up until modern industry negated the need for it.

That's literally what they teach in school. Or at least what they used to. I have no idea what they teach now or what other states teach. But that is the reason. The South barely joined the war in the first place as they had good trade going on with Britain at the time and so to basically burn that bridge by revolting was a big deal. The you tell them they can't have slaves afterwards? There would have been civil war. This also being near 80 years earlier, not all the northern states would have joined the anti-slavery side, not to me tion it's doubtful they would have won either. The Founders knew it was wrong but considered it a necessary evil to keep a fledgling country united.

---

Many of the Founders felt that slavery was wrong. Some expressed it publicly, others privately. Even some of the slave owners questioned it in private letters. It's part why the Federalist essay that justified slavery to the North was written as a "one what might say" sort of argument. But ultimately, it was upheld to get the whole thing going. I remember reading quotations from the late 1700's of politicians saying they were confident that the groundwork for abolishing slavery had been accomplished, where other southern politicians felt the ground work for protecting slavery had been laid. It's interesting to see how the roots of the Civil War had been seeded as early as the the ratification of the Constitution.

---

Deep down inside they might have known it was wrong, but they were too racist to admit it.

---

Stagmar posted... Deep down inside they might have known it was wrong, but they were too racist to admit it.

Not even: Jefferson condemned King George for perpetuating the institution of slavery in the colonies, but the passage had to be struck to appease other Southern delegates. They were very much aware it was wrong, even if they didn't grasp just how wrong it was(because they were incredibly racist), they just agreed winning independence came first.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Were it not for the civil war, mechanization would have made slavery largely obsolete within a few decades.
What happens to the slaves after that is up for speculation, but it wouldn't have been pleasant in most hypothetical cases.

I wouldn't bet on it. That was certainly the position of moderates, but there's not much reason to believe it would ever happen(at least not quickly), as a lot of the Southern aristocracy's status and mystique was tied up in the institution, and even less reason to believe that Southern politicians would ever compromise on the matter. I just can't envisage a scenario where the Southern aristocracy let all that go without a fight. Elites very rarely relinquish power of their own volition.

Buttgieg sucks so fucking much

---

There were debates about banning it while they were writing stuff up. I'd say the mast majority thought it was morally wrong even if they still kept their slaves.

Stagmar posted...

Deep down inside they might have known it was wrong, but they were too racist to admit it.

Free the slaves doesn't have much to do with racism, most of the people who argued for freeing the slaves were still racist.

Abraham Lincoln was still racist even though he didn't like slavery, he wanted to send all the free blacks to Liberia to get them out of the US.

---

Intro2Logic posted...

62.5% believe that this is an incorrect take.

Now what if I told you it was Pete Buttigieg's?

https://twitter.com/JasonOverstreet/status/1211328022621474816

Pete's an absolute dipshit so this checks out.

---

Many of them literally called it a "necessary evil" indicating they knew it was wrong but thought it was justified.

---

It's my understanding that many were against slavery but knew compromises had to be made to create the country. I also heard that many wanted to fully abolish slavery but believed it would have to happen at a later time.

D. How can you believe all people are created equal and deserve certain, unalienable rights, all while denying an entire segment of the population its rights based soely on skin color?

---

thrashmetal14 posted...

Of course they knew, they just didn't care

---

I'm sure they looked at it as one of those moral compromises that have to be made to survive.

Not that I agree survival is worth making moral compromises, lol.

---