You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
141 points

Not so fun fact: the constitution allows for slavery as long as it’s a punishment for a crime.

Hmmm… Nah, those dots don’t connect at all.

permalink
report
parent
reply
72 points

And many plantations converted to prisons that are still in operation to this day.

And many states can’t reduce their prison populations because then they’d lose free labor.

And some states use prison labor to staff the governor’s mansion with butlers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points
*

Here in California, prisoners are employed to fight wildfires.

Until very recently, former prisoners were not allowed to be employed as firefighters when they got out. That was corrected by Newsom in 2020.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Man, I fucking love that guy and what he’s been doing. Him and my governor, as well as the governor of Michigan have been having a pissing contest to see who can be the best governor, and we’re all winning.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Go read about the nightmare this Angola prison in Louisiana.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

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
report
parent
reply
19 points
*

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
report
parent
reply
16 points
*

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
report
parent
reply
1 point

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
report
parent
reply
1 point

There’s a great documentary called 13th about this and racial inequality in America

permalink
report
parent
reply

Asklemmy

!asklemmy@lemmy.ml

Create post

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it’s welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Icon by @Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de

Community stats

  • 9.7K

    Monthly active users

  • 4.9K

    Posts

  • 275K

    Comments