# Constitutional "Originalists" and Slavery **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 24, 2005, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-originalists-and-slavery/300894 "2005-04-24T19:32:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-originalists-and-slavery/300894/241 "2017-07-10T09:19:22Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > Polygamy was not a multi-party arrangement between more than two people. It was simply multiple two-party arrangements, but not restricted to forcing a man to only make one such arrangement. For example, a polygamous man could divorce one of his wives without at all affecting the status of the others - their marriages to him is completely independent of the divorcing one’s marriage to him. > > The limiting of men to a single wife did not change the definition of a marriage relationship. It simply said a man can’t have more than one at a time. I’d say that was a major change. As mentioned earlier, the common law definition used by the English courts and followed until recently in Canada was: > [@](#): > > I conceive that marriage, as understood in Christendom, may for this purpose be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others. The definition of marriage under Anglo-Canadian common law explicitly excluded polygamy from the definition of marriage. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-originalists-and-slavery/300894/242 "2017-07-10T15:02:43Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Granted the Fourteenth Amendment could have been a hell of a lot clearer on exactly what its scope was to be and how that was to be enforced. It’s plenty clear. The problem historically has been that it’s gone against so many people’s prejudices that it has been only belatedly enforced. > [@](#): > > [parrot voice]: “AAWRK! Slavers! AAWRK!”[/parrot voice] > Seriously, _ **that** _ again? That nothing else they ever said or did matters because by progressive standards they forfeited all moral authority? No, the point is that the source of the federalist ideology is not stone tablets handed down by God, but a political compromise cobbled together by a committee to keep the slave states in the Union. In later years, it’s been kept alive to support Jim Crow and segregation and various other forms of civil rights abuses that the more-backward states have wanted to retain. That is the historical reality, and an honest discussion of it has to acknowledge it as such. If a historical fact is inconvenient to your ideology, it is not the fact that needs to be reconsidered, now is it? You’re not doing well by simply disparaging it and hoping it goes away. Opposing slavery is a “progressive” position? Really? That’s clearly intended as an insult. Wow. Just … wow. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-originalists-and-slavery/300894/243 "2017-07-10T16:00:06Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > We are not well served by this “federalism.” We are a people, and _our_ government, our sovereign government, is the government of the United States of America. And we will use that government as we see fit, and not be bound by “states’ rights.” What is a state anyway? Should the Democrats adopt this as a party platform plank for 2018 or 2020? ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-originalists-and-slavery/300894/244 "2017-07-10T16:26:49Z")
Northern Piper: > [@](#): > > I’d say that was a major change. As mentioned earlier, the common law definition used by the English courts and followed until recently in Canada was: > > > [@](#): > > > > I conceive that marriage, as understood in Christendom, may for this purpose be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others. > > The definition of marriage under Anglo-Canadian common law explicitly excluded polygamy from the definition of marriage. Yes, I must admit that that definition constitutes a change from any definition that allowed for polygamy. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-originalists-and-slavery/300894/245 "2017-07-10T16:45:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Should the Democrats adopt this as a party platform plank for 2018 or 2020? You typo’d “1864”. It worked, btw. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-originalists-and-slavery/300894/246 "2017-07-10T17:41:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Should the Democrats adopt this as a party platform plank for 2018 or 2020? The Democrats are moribund anyway. But sure, why not? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-originalists-and-slavery/300894/247 "2017-07-10T19:08:46Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > We are not well served by this “federalism.” We are a people, and _our_ government, our sovereign government, is the government of the United States of America. And we will use that government as we see fit, and not be bound by “states’ rights.” What is a state anyway? Just to be clear, “federalism” is deeply embedded in the Constitution. Are you saying we should ignore that, or that we need to change it? Because I’m not seeing a clear path to that change if we go the official route. Do you? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-originalists-and-slavery/300894/248 "2017-07-10T19:33:17Z")
Societies evolve. Ours was evolving into a nation. Why should a cult of the “Founding Fathers” derail that? My position is that Jefferson was largely wrong, and the Southern Democratic model led to a poorer and less humane society; whereas Clay was at least onto something, and the Northern Whig model led to one of the richest regions in human history. Why would anyone want to follow a Virginia planter with that track record? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-originalists-and-slavery/300894/249 "2017-07-10T19:40:57Z")
When I said “Just to be clear”, I didn’t mean “Please give me a cryptic answer”. 😉 I still don’t get what you are saying. Are you suggesting, for instance, that the larger states just start sending more Senators to Washington after the next election? That whoever wins the popular vote for president should take over the WH by force if he or she doesn’t win the electoral college vote? Please give some concrete examples of what you are suggesting we do. If you are suggesting that there be a spontaneous uprising to amend the constitution and rid it of all traces of federalism, then that’s cool. One can always dream, right? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-originalists-and-slavery/300894/250 "2017-07-10T20:36:44Z")
You’re talking about constitutional structures. I was alluding to economic policy. Washington has proven capable in the past of passing useful social programs. The refusal to do that is what I am tying to “Jeffersonians” and so-called “conservatives.” Pretending that the present mix of state legislators are “the people” and that social liberals are somehow anti-democratic is a way to defend the present plutocratic mess in practice without defending it on its merits. Want a concrete proposal? OK. We need a political party to run on a mixed public works and welfare program in a way that we haven’t really since LBJ. No massive constitutional reform necessary. But failing that, this country is getting more likely to crack up in bloody fashion. ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_Mac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Doug\_Mac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doug_Mac)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-originalists-and-slavery/300894/251 "2017-07-10T21:03:16Z")
A more interesting question might be what the Donald might have proposed had he lost the election given his threats. Given the times I would not be too hard on TJ. There was not exactly a whole lot of examples of progressivism or even liberalism in the history he studied. Book learning maybe but not many actual examples. Man by his very nature is a mean bastard. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-originalists-and-slavery/300894/252 "2017-07-11T00:37:41Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > You’re talking about constitutional structures. I was alluding to economic policy. > > Washington has proven capable in the past of passing useful social programs. The refusal to do that is what I am tying to “Jeffersonians” and so-called “conservatives.” Pretending that the present mix of state legislators are “the people” and that social liberals are somehow anti-democratic is a way to defend the present plutocratic mess in practice without defending it on its merits. > > Want a concrete proposal? OK. We need a political party to run on a mixed public works and welfare program in a way that we haven’t really since LBJ. No massive constitutional reform necessary. But failing that, this country is getting more likely to crack up in bloody fashion. You lost me. This thread is about the constitution, and those posts of yours seem to be about the conception, not about economics. If you want to talk about economics, then that’s probably a hijack here and is best discussed in another thread. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-originalists-and-slavery/300894/253 "2017-07-11T17:51:55Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Societies evolve. Ours was evolving into a nation. Why should a cult of the “Founding Fathers” derail that \ Constitutional Amendment Constitutional Amendment Constitutional Amendment Constitutional Amendment Constitutional Amendment Constitutional Amendment Constitutional Amendment Constitutional Amendment Constitutional Amendment Constitutional Amendment Constitutional Amendment Constitutional Amendment Constitutional Amendment _ **THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT SET IN STONE FOREVER** _ What part of “change the official rules if enough people agree they ought to be changed” is so incomprehensible? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-originalists-and-slavery/300894/254 "2017-07-11T19:02:48Z")
Tell us more about parrot squawks. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-originalists-and-slavery/300894/255 "2017-07-11T19:05:39Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You lost me. This thread is about the constitution, and those posts of yours seem to be about the conception, not about economics. If you want to talk about economics, then that’s probably a hijack here and is best discussed in another thread. Actually, I think I lost my own train of thought in between posts. Sorry. I’ll think about this some more. But I still think the “states” are ridiculous. Maybe we can work around them and get useful federal programs passed. like Medicare and Social Security were. It seems to me that Tenthers are against that, and that’s what I was thinking about. Oh, yeah, the Tenth Amendment! Yes, that’s what I meant. We don’t have to abolish the states if we just allow the American people to use the federal government for purposes it can serve better than the states can. You know, all that New Deal alphabet soup. Talk about California sending more Senators to Washington was not what I meant, and confused me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-originalists-and-slavery/300894.md?page=12)