# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Frederick Douglass on Slavery & the US Constitution

## Galileo Galilei

*Frederick Douglass on Slavery & the US Constitution

The constitution is interposed. It always is.*

“Let me tell you something. Do you know that you have been deceived and cheated? You have been told that this government was intended from the beginning for white men, and for white men exclusively; that the men who formed the Union and framed the Constitution designed the permanent exclusion of the colored people from the benefits of those institutions. Davis, Taney and Yancey, traitors at the south, have propagated this statement, while their copperhead echoes at the north have repeated the same. There never was a bolder or more wicked perversion of the truth of history. So far from this purpose was the mind and heart of your fathers, that they desired and expected the abolition of slavery. They framed the Constitution plainly with a view to the speedy downfall of slavery. They carefully excluded from the Constitution any and every word which could lead to the belief that they meant it for persons of only one complexion. 

The Constitution, in its language and in its spirit, welcomes the black man to all the rights which it was intended to guarantee to any class of the American people. Its preamble tells us for whom and for what it was made.”

_Frederick Douglass (June 1863)

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...p?document=777_

Modern liberals and neocons use slavery to bash the Constitution and the Founding Fathers.

Let Frederick Douglass retort them in his own words.  Douglass has great authority on the subject.  He was a brilliant man, born a slave in 1818, but taught himself to read when he was 6 years old (without the benefit of the public schools).  He was a man who valued liberty, and escaped from slavery when he was 20, in 1838.

Then he worked for the liberty of others, and at the same time, educated himself.  He read the Founding documents of our nation, and commentaries on them, like the _Federalist Papers_.  After 1840, he was able to get his hands on Madison's _Notes on the Federal Constitution_.  Hence his great statement of liberty, above, from 1863.

Douglass was there.

----------


## sratiug

Sweet find.  Add to that the fact there were free blacks.  Were there white slaves also?

----------


## foofighter20x

You can also add this not so well known fact:

After the Revolution, some blacks in the north were given citizenship and suffrage, only to later have the right to vote taken away from them by northern whites.



So much for northern benevolence...

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> You can also add this not so well known fact:
> 
> After the Revolution, some blacks in the north were given citizenship and suffrage, only to later have the right to vote taken away from them by northern whites.
> 
> 
> 
> So much for northern benevolence...


What does that have to do with Frederick Douglass, James Madison, or the Constitution?

Have you heard of the "southern benevlence" that Frederick Douglass received between 1818 and 1838?.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

*'A Glorious Liberty Document'
Frederick Douglass' case for an anti-slavery Constitution*
http://reason.com/archives/2006/10/0...berty-document

----------


## Galileo Galilei

*The Changing View of Frederick Douglass*
http://www.ocic.k12.ok.us/SMASH_Reso...Slavery%3F.pdf

----------


## foofighter20x

> What does that have to do with Frederick Douglass, James Madison, or the Constitution?
> 
> Have you heard of the "southern benevlence" that Frederick Douglass received between 1818 and 1838?.


It has to do with showing people that conventional wisdom isn't that accurate.

Also, where did I ever claim the South treated Douglass well? 

"If A, then B" doesn't mean "If not A, then not B"; the latter error of thinking is, I believe, what you are saying I have implied, which just isn't the case. I know better than to make such a sloppy logical transition or argument. 

You said this:



> Modern liberals and neocons use slavery to bash the Constitution and the Founding Fathers.


My point here is that people generally throw all this praise on the northern states and the abolitionists for having opposed slavery (which I agree the abolitionists were right to do); however, those showering that praise tend to also at the same time conveniently ignore the fact that the northern states took away the right of blacks citizens to vote, segregated their societies, and treated free blacks, if not worse than the south, then no better than southerners did, minus of course, the whole institution of slavery. While the northern states may have been right on ending slavery, they weren't the shining beacons and paradises of rights and liberties most people assume they were.

What I'm saying is that while you are throwing Frederick Douglass in their face, it'd do well at the same time to show that the antebellum North was full of racist a*holes too.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> It has to do with showing people that conventional wisdom isn't that accurate.
> 
> Also, where did I ever claim the South treated Douglass well? 
> 
> "If A, then B" doesn't mean "If not A, then not B"; the latter error of thinking is, I believe, what you are saying I have implied, which just isn't the case. I know better than to make such a sloppy logical transition or argument. 
> 
> You said this:
> 
> 
> ...


Where did you get that idea?  I'm from Wisconsin, and all my life I have read and heard about great virtuous leaders like Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson.  Jefferson Davis, while not as revered, is not as well known, but never looked upon as a devil.  Rather, he is looked at as a good stateman.

The guy Douglass broke with, Garrison the abolitionist, is barely known at all, a footnote in history.

On the other hand, warping history does no good.  Douglass was enslaved in the South (actually a border state, Maryland), and escaped to the North.  I never heard of any black people from your so-called "racist" north escape to the South.

As far as shining beacons, the big hero Abe Lincoln, while promoted, is seldom quoted.  The reason is that he has few good quotes for liberty.  Meanwhile, southern slaveowners like Madison, Jefferson, Washington, and Patrick Henry are quoted all the time, a lot more than Lincoln.

Lincoln got a lot of attention this year, because it was the 200th anniversary of his birth and Obama got elected.  But what long term affect will it have?

Not much.  Books about Lincoln are boring.  The fact is, Lincoln didn't do much.  Anyone reading a biography of him can see right through to the fact that he was pretty weak when it came to being anti-slavery.  He was a poor military leader.  He changed his views for no good reason (aka flip-flopper).

He is basically known for only three writings;

The Lincoln/Douglas Debates

The Emancipation Proclamation

The Gettysburg Address

Ever read any of these?

The first one is the only extended writing.  In it, Lincoln tells us how he opposes blacks voting, opposes blacks holding office, opposes blacks serving on juries, and opposes blacks marrying whites.  He also jumps around on his positions on the issues, depending on whether his is in southern or nourthern Illinois.  This writing is nowhere near the calibur of earlier classic extended writings like the Federalist Papers, Franklin's Autobiography, Paine's Common Sense, Rights of Man, The Crisis Papers, or Age of Reason, or even Last of the Mohicans by James Fennimore Cooper (1826).

As to the other Lincoln writings, the Emancipation Proclamation, the first thing anybody learns about it who actually reads it, is that it did not free any slaves.

The Gettysburg Address is also a let down.  Have you read it?  All it is is a statement of national unity after a battle victory.  It does not contain any profound principles of limited government.

Lincon also has a few quotes he is known for; the House divided quote (from the Lincoln/Douglas Debates), and the one about fooling people.  While these are great quotes, the first is not very profound (and adds nothing to other quotes from the Revolution), and the second is very clever, but not really a blockbuster on how to have good government.

The reality is that the Founding Fathers are more often quoted, better known, and more often read, than Lincoln.

----------


## foofighter20x

Where did I mention _you_ in the part that you hove bolded?

Hint: I didn't. I said "people _generally_..."

Obviously you are intelligent enough to be here posting, which means it is highly unlike that you fall within that generalization.

Don't think this is some debate or disagreement. I'm not saying you are wrong. You made a point about countering idiots of American history and law with Frederick Douglass. I was simply offering more ammunition toward that same goal. I don't understand your need to discuss this as if I'm saying you are incorrect. I'm not.

As for never hearing of any free blacks "escaping" to the South: well, no $#@!. Free blacks were banned from even entering many of the Deep South states. South Carolina authorities routinely would detain black sailors, whether they were from the North or foreigners, precisely to refrain the slaves from even seeing freedom as a possibility.

The State of New York was a slave state as late as 1827; Pennsylvania as late as 1847; New Jersey as late as 1845. It wasn't until the 1840s that northern states repealed allowances for slave to be transport within their jurisdiction, as long as the slaves stayed in the state less than 6 months.

My point is that most people generally assume that from the beginning of the Republic that the north was free and treated blacks with at least a modicum of equality. That's not the case.

Regulation restricted the places where blacks could live. Some of these regulations were passed to discourage blacks from settling within the state. Blacks couldn't vote, had their vote taken away, or were allowed to vote only if they met stringent property qualifications (while at the same time those very northern states were expanding the right to vote for whites). They couldn't live in the Midwest unless they could prove their freedom and had a white man sign a bond assuring their ability to provide for themselves. Regulations even restricted them only to certain jobs. Blacks weren't allowed to intermarry. They weren't allow to testify in court against whites.

And we're talking about the NORTH here. Some great bastions of liberty, freedom, and equality.

----------


## sratiug

> Sweet find.  Add to that the fact there were free blacks.  Were there white slaves also?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery..._United_States



> From 1654 until 1865, slavery for life was legal within the boundaries of much of the present United States.[6] Most slaves were black and were held by whites, although some Native Americans and free blacks also held slaves; there was a small number of white slaves as well.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Where did I mention _you_ in the part that you hove bolded?
> 
> Hint: I didn't. I said "people _generally_..."
> 
> Obviously you are intelligent enough to be here posting, which means it is highly unlike that you fall within that generalization.
> 
> Don't think this is some debate or disagreement. I'm not saying you are wrong. You made a point about countering idiots of American history and law with Frederick Douglass. I was simply offering more ammunition toward that same goal. I don't understand your need to discuss this as if I'm saying you are incorrect. I'm not.
> 
> As for never hearing of any free blacks "escaping" to the South: well, no $#@!. Free blacks were banned from even entering many of the Deep South states. South Carolina authorities routinely would detain black sailors, whether they were from the North or foreigners, precisely to refrain the slaves from even seeing freedom as a possibility.
> ...


This thread is about the *Constitution* and slavery.  We are not here to re-fight the Civil War.  You guys lost, because you failed to industrialize, and kept 45% of your people enslaved.

Herodotus, the Father of History, explained how the Greeks beat the Persians; FREE PEOPLE FIGHT BETTER THAN SLAVES.

Frederick Douglass says that the Constitution is anti-slavery.  Are you trying to say otherwise?

*The Constitution of the United States: Is It Pro-Slavery or Anti-Slavery?*
_Frederick Douglass
March 26, 1860
A Speech Delivered in Glasgow, Scotland_
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...?document=1128

----------


## Danke

> We are not here to re-fight the Civil War.  You guys lost...

----------


## foofighter20x

> You guys lost, because you failed to industrialize, and kept 45% of your people enslaved.


lolz.

1. I didn't lose the Civil War.

a. I wasn't even born then.

b. I'm not from the South, I'm from the PacNW. 
2. I still don't get how you are failing to comprehend the fact that I agree with you.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

On this day in history, September 3, 1838, Frederick Douglass successfully escaped from slavery.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

Let me submit Lysander Spooner's argument as well. http://medicolegal.tripod.com/spooneruos.htm

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Let me submit Lysander Spooner's argument as well. http://medicolegal.tripod.com/spooneruos.htm


good work, Lysander.

----------

