Is The Constitution A Slave Document?

[romacox]

James Madison, who is known as the architect of the Constitution said, "Twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves. So long a term will be more dishonorable to the American character than to say nothing about it in the Constitution"

During the creation of the Constitution, Article I (Section 2), known as the "Three Fifths Clause", was not about slavery. Check it out: it is all about State's representation in the House of Representatives. Slavery only entered the discussion as a result of an attempted power grab. Each State wanted to make sure they had ample voting powers.

The non-slavery States were in a very heated discussion with the slave holding States. The latter insisted on a representation strictly according to the number of inhabitants, whether they were slaves or free persons. It was the non-slave holding States that wanted representation according to the number of free persons only (slaves not to be counted at all).

As one can see, the former version would have given the slave holding States a big advantage, and encouraged more slavery. By simply importing more slaves, a State could have easily increased their representation, and power in the House Of Representatives. The disagreement was so volatile that it nearly ended the creation of the Constitution of these United States. (Justice Joseph Story)

After much discussion, a compromise was reached which was that three fifths of the slaves were counted as part of the number of free persons, as the basis of the appointment of Representatives. Interesting note: They purposely did not use the word slaves for reasons to be explained below. But it was well understood that "other persons" referred to the slave population.

Note: The word slavery was never used in the original Constitution for a reason. The framers did not want the Constitution to enforce or endorse slavery. In fact; George Mason, said: "[Slavery is a] slow Poison, which is daily contaminating the Minds & Morals of our People. Every Gentleman here is born a petty Tyrant…. And in such an infernal School are to be educated our future Legislators & Rulers."


more about the Constitution and slavery at: http://www.read-phonics.com/constitution-slavery.html

One will logically ask: "why are these things taught in older text books like Justice Joseph Story's book, "A Familiar Exposition Of The Constitution Of The United States", and not taught in modern test books...the progressives do not want you to know.

 

[erowe1]

Note: The word slavery was never used in the original Constitution for a reason. The framers did not want the Constitution to enforce or endorse slavery.

So you don't think the following lines from Article IV Section 2 were talking about slavery?

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

 

[romacox]

So you don't think the following lines from Article IV Section 2 were talking about slavery?

Absolutely it was talking about slavery as was "other persons" used in Article I Section II. But do you see the word slavery in there?

Article IV Section 2
"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due. "

 

[erowe1]

Absolutely it was talking about slavery as was "other persons" used in Article I Section II. But do you see the word slavery in there?

Article IV Section 2
"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due. "

If it's clear that it was talking about slavery, then why does it matter if it doesn't use the word "slavery"?

 

[romacox]

If it's clear that it was talking about slavery, then why does it matter if it doesn't use the word "slavery"?

The word slavery was never used in the original Constitution for a reason. The framers did not want the Constitution to enforce or endorse slavery. In fact; George Mason, said: "[Slavery is a] slow Poison, which is daily contaminating the Minds & Morals of our People. Every Gentleman here is born a petty Tyrant…. And in such an infernal School are to be educated our future Legislators & Rulers."

Article I Section 9: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."

"James Madison, who is known as the architect of the Constitution said, "Twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves. So long a term will be more dishonorable to the American character than to say nothing about it in the Constitution"

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his book "The Familiar Exposition Of The American Constitution", writes "This clause as is manifest from its language, was designed solely to reserve to the Southern states, for a limited period, the right to import slaves. It is to the honor of America, that she should have set the first example on interdicting and abolishing the slave trade, in modern times." (pg 185). It is interesting to note that his book was written well before the Civil War.
http://www.read-phonics.com/constitution-slavery.html

American history was not perfect, but there is far more greatness than we have been led to believe.

 

[erowe1]

The word slavery was never used in the original Constitution for a reason. The framers did not want the Constitution to enforce or endorse slavery.

I'm having trouble following you here.

Above you agreed that it is talking about slavery in Article IV, Section 2, which is a passage that, given that it's talking about slavery, explicitly endorses and enforces it.

Now you say that the reason it doesn't use the word is so as not to endorse and enforce it.

 

[romacox]

erowl, the point is the 3/5th Clause is not what we have been led to believe. We have been mislead by the educational system and media...They have left out very important history facts.



Be sure to listen to the whole video. Free black men actually voted in our early history, but that has been left out of modern textbooks too.

Also left out:
Visiting a black college had a profound effect on Ben Franklin. Several years later he joined an abolition Society. Franklin came to believe that slavery should be ended, and eventually freed his own two slaves.

 

[erowe1]

erowl, the point is the 3/5th Clause is not what we have been led to believe. We have been mislead by the educational system and media...They have left out very important history facts.

OK. But the fact remains that the Constitution explicitly endorsed and enforced slavery, whether it used the word or not. It's also interesting to me that it did that by violating state sovereignty.

 

[The Goat]

you have to take into consideration that their were alot of indentured servants back then too. and these things applied to them as well not just slaves.

 

[romacox]

you have to take into consideration that their were alot of indentured servants back then too. and these things applied to them as well not just slaves.

This is true. In fact there were black and white indentured servants, and some black men were owners of white indentured servants.

We sometimes imagine that such oppressive laws were put quickly into full force by greedy landowners. But that's not the way slavery was established in colonial America. It happened gradually -- one person at a time, one law at a time, even one colony at a time.

All servants imported and brought into the Country. . . who were not Christians in their native Country. . . shall be accounted and be slaves. All Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves within this dominion. . . shall be held to be real estate. If any slave resists his master. . . correcting such slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction. . . the master shall be free of all punishment. . . as if such accident never happened.

- Virginia General Assembly declaration, 1705 .


In some of the Colonies, if one was not a Christian he/she (black, red, yellow or white) became a slave to anyone who financed the voyage to that Colony.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1narr3.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,599903,00.html

Even though some Founding Fathers like Madison strongly opposed slavery, some owned slaves, and some changed their mind; first condoning slavery, and later opposing it (Ben Franklin who became part of the "underground Railroad" )

Even though the Constitution was written with the intent of ending slavery in 1808 ...It did not happen.
Article I Section 9: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."

Obviously, the U.S. has not a perfect history, but much of the true history of our past has been omitted from modern text books. Why?

 

[Microsecessionist]

The Constitution absolutely is a slave document. It was a slave document because it not only enforced private ownership of slaves, it also forces individuals to do certain things for the general welfare and common defence of the United States rather than guaranteeing every state its own sovereignty, freedom, and independence within its jurisdiction. The Articles of Confederation was not a slave document because it placed no limitations on individuals.

 

[TonySutton]

It may have been worded broadly to include indentured servants, although on the decline, and redemptioners.

 

[romacox]

The Constitution absolutely is a slave document. It was a slave document because it not only enforced private ownership of slaves, it also forces individuals to do certain things for the general welfare and common defence of the United States rather than guaranteeing every state its own sovereignty, freedom, and independence within its jurisdiction. The Articles of Confederation was not a slave document because it placed no limitations on individuals.

That is the propaganda we have been fed in modern schools. But when one researches early documents, and dictionaries one will find we have been fed a bunch of lies. I too once believed this, and was surprised when I laid down modern text books, and began reading early documents.

For example: The word "welfare" is used in the Preamble of the Constitution, and the 1828 edition of the word is:
"2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity, the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states." (as Judge Napolitano explains: Welfare in the Constitution means to treat all States equally...not to favor one over the other)

In today's Webster's edition "welfare is defined as "receiving government aid because of poverty, etc.

Thomas Jefferson stated, " Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

There are several other important words used in the Constitution whose meanings have been twisted to mean just the opposite of what they meant when the Constitution was written:

Free On Line Websters Dictionary http://machaut.uchicago.edu/websters



Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/3418852

The Constitution needs several of the Amendments removed, and I would make some adjustments in the original Document. However it created the most successful society in history. But the further we allow our leaders to circumvent the Constitution, the worse things get. That is why Ron Paul says, "If the Constitution does not say I can do it, I don't do it." Ron Paul also stated that the Constitution served us well for the first 120 years. (that is when Woodrow Wilson created the Federal Reserve, the 16th amendment, and the 17th amendment) So don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

 

[eOs]

If you had no pen to sign nor had no say, to some degree it is a 'slave' document

 

[osan]

So you don't think the following lines from Article IV Section 2 were talking about slavery?

Not necessarily so. Firstly, there was indentured servitude wherein a freely constituted contract obliged a party to discharge labor or other services in exchange for some reciprocal consideration. If such a servant skipped to another state, this clause specifies the authority to apprehend the individual and return him to the state in which his contract to serve is held. This is eminently reasonable and has nothing whatever to do with slavery, but with the enforcement of a legitimate contract.

More generally, the same may be said of other sorts of similar contracts. For example, if John has a contract with James wherein John has paid James a sum to build a garage onto John's house and James takes the money and runs, I would say there may be plausible grounds to support the existence of a tort or perhaps even a crime. I have no problem with compelling parties to a contract to face judgment in they jurisdiction wherein the contract is in effect. If we decide that contracts are to be acceptable as instruments binding the parties thereto, then there must be authority to judge and enforce them. Without it, contracts become utterly meaningless. The language you cite has nothing necessarily to do with slavery, though because of possibly poor wording, that interpretation may be alternately or additionally valid.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

they only reason the U.S. Constitutional convention was held in 1789 was because of Shays Rebellion in which revolutionary war veterans of the continental army rebelled in an attempt to throw off debts which the newly formed american government was subjecting them to with debtors prison. The U.S. Constitution was specific in giving lots of federal power and the ability to stomp out any rebellion even if it was a justified rebellion of free people against a tyrannical government.The document which was suppose to bind the federal powers only enabled them more.If all other rights of free people not in the enumerated powers belong to the people( the right to rebel against tyranny and usurpation) then the U.S. Constitution would have never been written in the way that it allows the federal government to suspend Habeas Corpus and stomp down an "insurrection". The war powers are not clearly defined,leaving the president and u.s. congress with near limitless and empirical power.Samuel Adams wrote a bill to suspend Habeas Corpus during Shays Rebellion...he was such a hypocrite.

I do say though with all the history and knowledge we have, we can at least reduce the power of the federal government by removing the Federal Reserve/National Bank permanently.

 

[acptulsa]

Whether it was or was not, the U.S. Constitution as it stands is unquestionably not a slave document. You can say certain amendments make it something other than a slave document, or you can say it never was. But it is not.

 

[osan]

For example: The word "welfare" is used in the Preamble of the Constitution, and the 1828 edition of the word is:
"2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity, the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states." (as Judge Napolitano explains: Welfare in the Constitution means to treat all States equally...not to favor one over the other)

John Uoft dictionary of 1785 defines it as: We'lfare: Happiness; success; prosperity.

 

[osan]

Whether it was or was not, the U.S. Constitution as it stands is unquestionably not a slave document. You can say certain amendments make it something other than a slave document, or you can say it never was. But it is not.

Unquestionably? I would not go nearly that far. But more importantly, intent at construction can become lost in the wake of INTERPRETATION. In my experience, few people possess the literary chops to specify a document that cannot be interpreted in wild variance with the actual intended meaning, particularly with context-dependent languages of which English is a prime example.

The constitutional architecture I devised as an exercise is very different from that what we have. Included therein is a dictionary of all terms used in the document. My design is pretty well thought out, but is still prone to "interpretation", though far less so than what we currently have. I believe that a better constitution is needed precisely because of the nature of those who covet power. A better constructed document, while perhaps necessary in the context of having to withstand the onslaughts of scoundrels, remains insufficient. Smart people with an unbending determination to carry freedom forward is also necessary.

 

[gerryb]

If you had no pen to sign nor had no say, to some degree it is a 'slave' document

Sou ds like you may have read "No Treason" by Lysander Spooner =)

http://jim.com/treason.htm