Origins of the US Constitution: The Reconstruction Amendments
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 жов 2022
- Dr. Todd Arrington from James A. Garfield National Historic Site and our own Dr. John Foster discuss how the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments shaped our nation's past and inform its present. They also explain why the amendments were necessary during (in the case of the 13th amendment) and after the Civil War. Finally, Dr. Foster provides examples of how the amendments have been subverted by narrow readings from the Supreme Court.
John and Todd are the dream team.
Very important question 🙂⁉️ speciality for you juramentation 👍🇺🇸🌎
Contra the lecture, the primary way in which the original Constitution was "pro-slavery" is not the recognition of the existence of the "institution" in the 3/5th clause, or even the unmentioned explicit provision requiring allowing the continuation of African slave imports for a period of time, but the also unmentioned provision in Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution that "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." Taney's opinion decided Dredd Scott's case on other grounds, but that provision seems to me anyway dispositive of the case.
And, contra one lecturer, the laws against speaking in favor of abolition were NOT in violation of the First Amendment, which at the time -- the 14th Amendment not yet being in effect -- did not apply to the States.
The South was of course quite correct to regard Lincoln as a great liar who would abolish slavery in the slave states if he acquired the ability to do so despite his protestations that the design of the Federal government prohibited such an act, because that's what he did.
Slavery was anyway doomed to come to an end because of the progress of industry dooming the employment of the population in agriculture, still less slave-suitable agriculture, to become as reduced as it has and because free labor requires less investment and is thus more profitable, IMHO. That it was worth a war costing about a million American deaths to end it by force seems dubious to me.
I don't have a dog in that fight, none of my ancestors having been resident in the US of A at the time as far as I know. But facts is facts.
The slave ships were owned by Judaics. All part of the Luciferian Conspiracy for the genocide of the white, European race. England and Spain knew what do about the tribe.
Turned off at the beginning. The main person speaking is wrong in saying the Constitution is pro slavery. The 3/5 statement meant that slave owners had less power, not that blacks were less. Also, "men" at that time meant human.
Bohemian Grove Town road hello
He's trying to omg😮
Not 🚫 l i love it my I respect for you I think you are amazing my respect for you and just try to find more information about you 😂❤
The comprimise was established to get the Southern states to ratify the Constitution! Jefferson was skeptical when he wrote "All men are created equal".
Call you people supreme Court hello if you stronger 💪👁️👁️👁️👁️👁️👁️ if you Respect you nation let mske action reactions action's reflection actions of the universe humanos history lawyers 🌹
😷 ☕ 🇺🇸
Bog games
I heard all the Reconstruction Amendments - 13, 14, 15 - were not legally ratified and therefore are UN-Constitutonal.
When you really people start to hide in documents and treasure for or really you know colonies when when when Hillary hilarious 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Hello egipcian 😂amazyng documents evidence
That why Kennedy died 😮
No scientific basis for "race" but this was not shown until the 20th Century and, especially, the Human Genome Project.
Sounds like it was the fake "Jews" who came up with the "race" card thing.
Gee, it's almost like you're providing an *excuse* for slavery.