The holocaust wasn't considered a "crime" in the countries perpetuating it. That's the point. Its those of different values which cause change. The North changed slavery, Allies changed the holocaust, civil rights changed segregation.
It's not like the others weren't crimes against humanity in their own ways, yet were still legal.
Legality is relative to the ruling faction. When the government in power issues a document saying it's okay that makes it legal whether it goes against a countries PREVIOUS laws or not.
Slavery is literally never mentioned in the entirety of the original constitution. You can read that entire document and you will not find that word. Check your facts before you comment.
Actually it's tricky- it's in the 2nd amendment. You could argue that the second amendment, which reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Consider the context of the amendment: a fledgling country with an economy heavily dependent on slavery (think columbus triangle yo). The reason a "well regulated militia" was so important for "the security of a free state" was to help remedy the problem of run-away slaves.
So yes, while the word "slavery" does not appear in the constitution, it is important to keep historical context in mind when having these discussions :)
Obviously you haven't read about how the British tried to confiscate the colonist's guns...that made people really upset. Started a whole war and to prevent someone in power or foreign invaders from dicking the people over, they added the second amendment to protect the first amendment.
Guest, you're the one who needs to keep historical context in mind. Slavery was legal in all 13 colonies around the time that the constitution was drafted. The first draft had both the second amendment and an additional section that abolished slavery which was later taken out of the final product. If the second amendment is only necessary for capturing runaway slaves, then why wold it even be necessary in a constitution that didn't recognize slavery?
It's not like the others weren't crimes against humanity in their own ways, yet were still legal.
Consider the context of the amendment: a fledgling country with an economy heavily dependent on slavery (think columbus triangle yo). The reason a "well regulated militia" was so important for "the security of a free state" was to help remedy the problem of run-away slaves.
So yes, while the word "slavery" does not appear in the constitution, it is important to keep historical context in mind when having these discussions :)