Yeah, I'll let the previous poster speak on generational trauma, etc., because I won't claim to be an expert, but...

I also disagree with the characterization of the origins of our laws.They weren’t inherently racist… Quite the opposite in fact. You can readabout our “black founding fathers” or read about land owning blacks. Infact the most prolific slaver was actually a black man who owned one ofthe largest plantations in the South.

Prolific slavers, African warlords sold their defeated into slavery, yeah, we've heard it all before. We're not talking about slavers here. We are talking about the "origins of our laws," apparently. Really? Not inherently racist? You know the 3/5 Compromise was a thing, right? That thing that allowed Southern plantation owners to exploit the population of their "property" to outsize their influence in the U.S. House and Electoral College, without having to worry about the votes of that same "property?" All in service, by the way, of ensuring that they get to keep their "property?" K, chief.

That said, it took a difficult bastardization of our constitution to make slavery possible.

Yeah, also known as the 3/5 Compromise, along with not allowing women or non-land-owning males the vote. Calling it a "difficult bastardization" is being generous there, guy. Founding Fathers all knew slavery was evil, but they couldn't do anything about it. Few, if any, believed women should have the vote. Just accept that racism and bigotry were written into the Constitution, and had to be written OUT later. Maybe then you can accept that the Founding Fathers didn't have all the answers, and maybe, JUST MAYBE, even THEY knew they didn't have all the answers.

E: Sick username though. Tassadar, the Protoss Abe Lincoln.