It seems to me you are attempting to distance the original 13 slave states from their unanimous vote to adopt the pro-slavery United States Constitution.
Brings to mind the University professor from up north who argued the U.S. Constitution does not provide a criminal defendant with the right to remain silent; only that a criminal defendant can't be “compelled . . . to be a witness against himself.”
Brother Joe, it is the same thing.
In his first inaugural address President Lincoln stated: “There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
“No person held to service or labor 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 labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
“It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause “shall be delivered up” their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?”
President Lincoln could find slavery in the United States Constitution, something you claim you can't find.
But I guess Lincoln was not playing a little game that day.
It seems to me that your nature is to always twist and turn words away from their plain meanings in order to support your own ridiculous conclusions.
So, first you proposed your word "enshrined" for slavery in the 1787 US Constitution, to which I argued effectively your "enshrined" should be replaced by "buried", "entombed" and/or "embalmed".
But instead, you now wish to replace "enshrined" with "pro-slavery", which is nearly the same and so my response is also pretty much the same -- our Founders were not "pro-slavery", but rather, to use the DOI's language, they were willing to say, "We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity..." of slavery, while also planning for its long term restrictions and abolition.
jeffersondem: "President Lincoln could find slavery in the United States Constitution, something you claim you can't find.
But I guess Lincoln was not playing a little game that day."
Naw... the only one playing little word-games here is you, FRiend, because that's what you love to do.
Our Founders clearly believed that slavery was wrong and disgraceful, so it should not be mentioned by name in their new Constitution and should also be restricted or abolished wherever possible.
See my post #99 above -- that's how they felt about exposing words like "slave" in their Constitution.