No one lied. But your petty attempt at spinning = FAIL
duke, it isn't spinning. it's called having a sense of history. slavery was not mentioned, though it was accepted, because it was a common practice in almost every corner of the world at that time. women didn't vote because gender roles at the time were not as loosely construed as they are today. it was considered unseemly for a woman to concern herself with the filthy workings of running a nation. the new world was a eurocentric world, still filled with the same bias as europe and its tightly controlled class structure. landowners were seen as the responsible members of society, educated enough to understand the workings of government and with a bit of skin in the game.
no one is trying to bring any of this back. this is
your spin. you're so caught up with the "progress" in "progressive" that you seem to see anything traditional in its most negative light. people who embrace a more traditional view of the constitution, the concepts of limited federal involvement and more power to the individual, aren't interested in taking away anyone's rights. what they are interested in is disposing of the notion that the federal government can arbitrarily make up rules to curry favor with anyone who has an axe to grind, increasing its own size and power with every new "right" it creates.
there's a saying i've become increasingly enamored with over the years and it applies particularly well to folks like you.
"get down off the cross, somebody might need the wood"