JACK'S BLOG
|
|
AmericanaMany decry the Constitution as flawed because it allowed or authorized slavery. Yet, there is no mention of it. Where are the words “slave” or “slavery” even mentioned in the Constitution of the United States of America? Some claim that the Constitution considers blacks (or African Americans) to be just three-fifths of a person. However, the words “black” and “African” appear nowhere in the Constitution. Isn't it interesting that it doesn't even mention them let alone legalize slavery? Strictly interpreting the Constitution, slavery was never legally acceptable in the United States. It was, rather, culturally accepted within the Slave States, and the Non-Slave States were not yet in a position to deprive them of their “peculiar institution”, as slavery was referred to in those days, when the Constitution was framed and ratified. Representatives of Slave States to the Constitutional Convention could have insisted on including it. They could have withheld ratification of the Constitution and thus prevented it from ever being adopted unless slavery was given official recognition. Had they, slavery could not have been abolished, not even by amendment to the Constitution. Had such an amendment been offered, it would never have been ratified by three-quarters of the states. Although outnumbered, there were a sufficient number of slave states to avoid it. Why didn't they? The representatives from the slave states to the Constitutional Convention weren't stupid men. They were largely very successful professionals. Most were well-versed in the law. They were smart enough to discern the fact that counting their slaves for the purposes of apportionment in the House of Representatives would give them a legislative advantage. They were successful enough to have three-fifths of their slaves included, but not all. The representatives from the non-slave states were equally intelligent, successful professionals. “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.” – Article 1, Section 2, Constitution of the United States Does “all other Persons” mean slaves? If so, it's also interesting that they allowed their slaves to be referred to as Persons.
These oversights on the part of the representatives of the Slave States meant that ending slavery was a cultural change rather than a Constitutional change which is why the southern states seceded from the union. They saw the culture changing, turning against them, and the Constitution wasn't going to protect their “property rights” in owning human beings. In returning to the Union following the Civil War, citizens of southern states had to swear allegiance to the Constitution including the new Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery. They refused to accept the cultural change and hid behind a misinterpretation of States Rights for several generations. It wasn't until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1966 that they were confronted with the reality of cultural change. Sadly, morality cannot be legislated. No law will ever eradicate prejudice. There will always be bigots. Fortunately, it is no longer socially acceptable. Thus, it is not the Constitution that is flawed, but rather how some would interpret it.
3 Comments
3/8/2015 01:15:57 am
1st an #InalienableRight to #LIFE+#LIBERTY+#PROPERTY was wisely changed(lastly) to #PURSUITofHAPPINESS since Property might refer to #SLAVE(persons)#WAY2SMARTbyGOD_ThomasJefferson?
Reply
2/11/2017 12:27:00 pm
I do not understand your point of view. That the Constitution did not specifically state it was talking about "Slavery" does not negate this meaning. The historical record is replete with debates about this. For my humble insights, please view http://smolenskylaw.com/2015/12/29/lincoln-emancipation-proclamation/
Reply
Jack Durish
2/11/2017 02:51:07 pm
You open your own essay with a rather interesting, though unsubstantiated assertion: "Although Lincoln had despised slavery before his presidency, the United States Constitution favored it." Please enlighten us. The fact is that the US Constitution is a document that outlines the parameters of a very limited form of government, one in which rights are natural and We the People are sovereign. The only mention of slavery is to limit indentured servants (slaves) from being counted in such a manner as to give weight to slave-owning states when distributing votes in Congress (a wise restriction). The Constitution could no more give slaves their freedom or women the right to vote than it could give us individual liberties such as speech, self-protection, et al. So many people attempt to denigrate the Constitution. What is their purpose other than to give credence to their attempts to replace it with one in which government has greater power (that is, transfer sovereignty from We the People to the government). That I will resist to the death.
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
More than 500 postings have accumulated since 2011. Some categories (listed below) are self explanatory, others require some explanation (see below):
CategoriesAll America Army Life Blogging Cuba Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 2016 Entrepreneurs Food Good Reads History Humor Infantry School In The News Korea Middle East Oh Dark Thirty Opinion Sea Scouts Short Story Sponsored Survey Technology Television Terrorism Today's Chuckle Veterans Vietnam Writing Explanations |
Copyright © 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 Jack Durish All rights reserved
|
Web Hosting by iPage
|