Slavery and the Constitution

[shanek]

Trying to answer "yes" or "no" about what a group of people believed is stupid.

This is what Claus does: he tries to shoehorn people into answering "yes" or "no" to questions where neither yes or no is the right answer. He then starts bleating on about how they refuse to answer questions.

Of course, the true answer, as you pointed out, is that some did and some didn't. But since this was made clear in my very first post in this thread, then it was disingenuous for Claus to have even put this question forward, particularly after all of this discussion.

The conclusion is clear: Claus is not here to know, or to learn. Only to talk, and lie, and abuse.

 

[Darat]

Thanks shanek for very interesting opening posts, the historical background is very interesting.

 

[roger]

Claus, it's not so easy to answer that question.

It's been awhile since I read about the life of Jefferson, so I am sure that much of what I write below will be factually questionable. Nonetheless, it will make clear one thing - that the opinions of the founding fathers changed throughout the course of their lifetime, and thus it is not possible to make an unequiviable answer.

First, I think that at one point in the draft Jefferson penned "all men, black and white," and that this was excised during debates. Basically there was no hope in getting some necessary support with that phrase in the document. So he bowed to political reality.

In his earlier part of his life, Jefferson believed that slaves should be free, yet on their own land, separate from whites. Partly because he felt that society would not accept integration (and let's face it, we didn't get that together until the 1960's), and partly, I think, because of racism - presumed inferiority.

Jefferson, through his travels and through interactions with blacks at his farm, came to regard blacks as equals. This took a long time.

So how do we answer your question? Was the constitution written by the founders to allow slavery? Yes. Was that motivated by political considerations? Yes. Was there some inherent racism in the founders? Yes. Did that racism continue unabated? No. Did at least one founder (Jefferson) consider blacks equal to whites at some point of their lives? I'd say probably yes, within limits, at the end of his life, but not so much at the time of the authoring of the constitution.

I'm sure the better read posters among us can correct my historical blunders, but I feel my central point remains - this was a time of wildly shifting opinions about slavery, and the founders were not immune to it. Their opinions evolved, rendering yes/no answers an impossibly crude measuring stick of opinions composed of part intellectual argument, part deeply engrained cultural norms. I would be surprised if Jefferson ever wholly got rid of his racism at the gut level, whatever his intellectual position.

 

[shanek]

First, I think that at one point in the draft Jefferson penned "all men, black and white," and that this was excised during debates.

That doesn't appear in the draft he created. There were some earlier drafts, but if it was in those, then Jefferson excised it himself. The draft we have is the one given to the Declaration Committee, who made only a very few changes before presenting it to Congress.

I would be surprised if Jefferson ever wholly got rid of his racism at the gut level, whatever his intellectual position.

I don't know. Going by his writings, it seems clear to me that he was actively looking for and hoping to find reasons that blacks could achieve anything that whites could.

 

[crimresearch]

Roger, your only 'blunder' may lie in the notion that the 3/5ths clause was solely about defining the status of slaves as 'not fully human'.

In practical effect, it was about preventing the slave holders from getting a majority in Congress, and elsewhere, by counting all their slaves as votes.

Compromise or no, it was a *good* thing, since it kept the balance of power in a position where abolitionists could ultimately prevail.

Those are criticize the 3/5ths clause are therefor, de facto advocates of slavery.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

I don't know. Going by his writings, it seems clear to me that he was actively looking for and hoping to find reasons that blacks could achieve anything that whites could.

Considering he also remained close to the ideas of the real founding father of the USA, Thomas Paine then I think it is probably true he at least intellectually supported the idea of equality for all, (well perhaps not women).

 

[roger]

That doesn't appear in the draft he created. There were some earlier drafts, but if it was in those, then Jefferson excised it himself. The draft we have is the one given to the Declaration Committee, who made only a very few changes before presenting it to Congress.

Hmm, perhaps it was a debate point in the Continental Congress, but was never penned? I don't know. I'll try to look it up tonight, but a majority of my library was destroyed in a flood awhile ago and I doubt I have the resources at hand anymore.

 

[hgc]

...
Those are criticize the 3/5ths clause are therefor, de facto advocates of slavery.

Probably fair to say that they miss the point, not that they de facto support slavery.

 

[crimresearch]

Probably fair to say that you are right...by 'de facto', that is what I meant.

 

[Skeptic]

People,

Try to answer this question:

Did the Founding Fathers consider black people equal to white people?

Just yes or no.

Loaded question. WHICH ONE of the founding fathers considered blacks equal IN WHAT RESPECT to whites?

In any case, rough answer: equal in Intelligence and civilization? No. Even Lincoln could hardly have been said to consider blacks equal to whites in that respect; by today's standards, Lincoln was a deep-south segregationist.

Equal in legal rights? Some did, some did not. Those who were against slavery did believe that black people should have the legal rights whites do, in the sense of having the right for equal protection under the law.

 

[crimresearch]

Founding Fathers, as opposed to Framers of the Constitution?

Hmmmm....I think that people like Thomas Paine (who was born into a Quaker family), William Penn, et al. just might have had some inkling about the innate equality of even slaves.

And what did old TJ himself think about the Quaker's refutation of slavery due to their belief in the equality of all?

"To Doctor Benjamin Waterhouse, 26 June 1822:
How much wiser are the Quakers, who, agreeing in the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, schismatize about no mysteries, and, keeping within the pale of common sense, suffer no speculative differences of opinion, any more than of feature, to impair their love of their brethren."


And some guy you might have heard of called Patrick Henry?

"Letter to Robert Pleasants, Jan. 18th, 1773
I cannot but wish well to a People, whose system imitates the Example of him whose Life was perfect. And believe me I shall honour the Quakers in their noble Effort to abolish Slavery. It is equally calculated to promote moral & political Good."

 

[livius drusus]

Sorry, I wasn't being clear. The thing about Haiti is that there wasn't, as in the US, 1) Revolution, followed by 2) abolition of slavery. The revolution was the abolition of slavery--it was a slave revolt. It just took time, from the initial slaughter-the-settlers stage in the 1790's until finally sending France packing in 1804 for the revolution to fully succeed. There was no point in that interval where the revolutionaries decided to abolish slavery: it was the entire point of the enterprise.

Thank you for your clarification. That is indeed an important distinction. In the end, I think kedo1981's question is not an apt window through which to view the role of slavery in the US or anywhere else.

The United States became a country during a time of fundamental seachange in the understanding of human rights. It does not seem to me so remarkable that a country formed by late 18th century intelligentsia would abolish slavery within a century. An argument could be made that given the philosophical context of its framing, the US was comparatively sluggish in recognizing the fundamental injustice of slavery.

Even the eventual emancipation was a narrowly tailored political choice, a wartime chess move rather than an acknowledgement that all human beings should be free.

Ugh. Pardon my ramble. Shanek, thank you for an interesting analysis of how slavery figures in the Consitution even when the word is studiously avoided.

 

[DanishDynamite]

In another thread, DanishDynamite brought up the issue of how our founding fathers, in trying to form a free country, nonetheless allowed for slavery in the Constitution. The issue is so interesting, with many facets, that I thought it deserved its own thread.

I'm honored.

I've been wanting to get this thread off the ground, so I just did a basic amount of research to get it going. This isn't by far all I have to say on the issue; but for now we'll just get the discussion going.

There are three clauses in the Constitution (all of which have either expired or been made irrelevant by the 13th Amendment) that directly deal with slavery. I'll deal with each in a separate post because of the length.

The first is I.2.3 (Article I Section 2 Clause 3):

Nice article. In short it denounces the principle of all men being created equal by not only excluding a particular "race" (Indians), particularly those who didn't pay taxes, but categorizing "non-free" men (slaves) as being exactly non-equal in the proportion 3/5:1

Not only were the sacred and holy founding fathers racists and hypocrites, they were disfunctional as logicians as well.

*A whole lot of sidestepping hypocracy deleted*

In other words: no, the Constitution isn't a perfect document, and they knew it wasn't.

Thank you for this statement. I've been trying to get you to admit this simple truth for a while.

It makes any other discussion with you or other Libertarians so much easier.

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Slavery and the Constitution

Nice article. In short it denounces the principle of all men being created equal by not only excluding a particular "race" (Indians), particularly those who didn't pay taxes...

Minor quibble. The reason that the Constitution excludes "Indians not taxed" is because they weren't citizens, and by and large weren't subject to the state government. That same principle holds to a large extent today -- territory held by Indian tribes as corporate units aren't subject to state regulation, which is why so many Indian tribes run casinos.

Excluding Indians not taxed from a census makes as much sense -- and is no more hypocritical -- as excluding Danish citizens living in Copenhagen from being counted as part of the population of Florida.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Slavery and the Constitution

Nice article. In short it denounces the principle of all men being created equal by not only excluding a particular "race" (Indians), particularly those who didn't pay taxes, but categorizing "non-free" men (slaves) as being exactly non-equal in the proportion 3/5:1

For purposes of enumeration to establish the number of representatives and the amount of direct taxes. If they had considered slaves to be equal, the slaveowning states would have had disproportionate representation in Congress. Do you really think that would have been desirable?

The despicable thing was the existance of slaves. And plenty of our founders wanted it ended and blacks to have equal rights of all free men. You can hardly blame them for doing their best to deal with a bad situation.

Thank you for this statement. I've been trying to get you to admit this simple truth for a while.

You could have just asked. I'll shout it from the mountaintops!

My position, as I have said on so many occasions, is that it's really moot to try and get into the problems of the Constitution until we get the government to obey the freakin' thing in the first place.

That doesn't mean there aren't plenty of places in the Constitution I'd like to see changes.

 

[crimresearch]

Nice article. In short it denounces the principle of all men being created equal by not only excluding a particular "race" (Indians), particularly those who didn't pay taxes, but categorizing "non-free" men (slaves) as being exactly non-equal in the proportion 3/5:1

Talk about being hoist by his own petard.

So Danish Dynamite is on record as *favoring* the slave holders, and their desire to have their slaves fully enumerated, with its inevitable consequence of continuing slavery.

Why am I not surprised that another hypocrite reveals himself to be that which he purports to decry, while criticizing those who actually worked to *end* slavery.

Typical.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Re: Re: Re: Slavery and the Constitution

Minor quibble. The reason that the Constitution excludes "Indians not taxed" is because they weren't citizens, and by and large weren't subject to the state government. That same principle holds to a large extent today -- territory held by Indian tribes as corporate units aren't subject to state regulation, which is why so many Indian tribes run casinos.

Excluding Indians not taxed from a census makes as much sense -- and is no more hypocritical -- as excluding Danish citizens living in Copenhagen from being counted as part of the population of Florida.

If the fact that they weren't citizens (which deserves a thread on its own) was enough, then why in the wide world of sports were they even specifically mentioned as a particular branch of "non-equals"?

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Slavery and the Constitution

If the fact that they weren't citizens (which deserves a thread on its own) was enough, then why in the wide world of sports were they even specifically mentioned as a particular branch of "non-equals"?

Because the mere fact that they weren't citizens wasn't enough. For example, a hypothetical Danish subject living in New Jersey was still subject to New Jersey laws, paid New Jersey taxes on the land underneath his house, probably paid New Jersey sales tax on anything he bought or sold, and was generally treated as a New Jersey citizen in everything except the right to vote.

The Indian, living on his own land, did none of those.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Re: Re: Re: Slavery and the Constitution

For purposes of enumeration to establish the number of representatives and the amount of direct taxes. If they had considered slaves to be equal, the slaveowning states would have had disproportionate representation in Congress. Do you really think that would have been desirable?

Does it in any way matter? Slaves were specifically mentioned as being not only "not equal" but by their very mention as a particular subset, their existence was enshrined.

Why is it that this historical "oversight" can be accepted by trigger-happy Americans as "a sign of the times" but the hopelessly unarticulate 2nd amendment cannot?

The despicable thing was the existance of slaves. And plenty of our founders wanted it ended and blacks to have equal rights of all free men. You can hardly blame them for doing their best to deal with a bad situation.

If I can't blame them for being "accomodating" and "flexible" on this issue, I suppose I also can't blame them for any other ****ed up ammendments they were party too.

You could have just asked. I'll shout it from the mountaintops!

My position, as I have said on so many occasions, is that it's really moot to try and get into the problems of the Constitution until we get the government to obey the freakin' thing in the first place.

That doesn't mean there aren't plenty of places in the Constitution I'd like to see changes.

As I said, its good to see this in writing.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Nice article. In short it denounces the principle of all men being created equal by not only excluding a particular "race" (Indians), particularly those who didn't pay taxes, but categorizing "non-free" men (slaves) as being exactly non-equal in the proportion 3/5:1

Talk about being hoist by his own petard.

So Danish Dynamite is on record as *favoring* the slave holders, and their desire to have their slaves fully enumerated, with its inevitable consequence of continuing slavery.

Why am I not surprised that another hypocrite reveals himself to be that which he purports to decry, while criticizing those who actually worked to *end* slavery.

Typical.

I look forward to the time that you may have something coherent and relevant to express.