Slavery and the Constitution

[crimresearch]

I suspect that whatever time you have in mind, I will still be against slavery, and you will still be on record as defending it.

The 3/5ths clause was an *anti* slavery measure...are you now claiming to be too dense to understand that?

Or are you stil criticizing it?

Either way...

Thanks for losing

 

[DanishDynamite]

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

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.

Thank you for enlightening me. I suspect there is an interesting story behind this idea that they should not be allowed citizenship.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I suspect that whatever time you have in mind, I will still be against slavery, and you will still be on record as defending it.

The 3/5ths caluse was an *anti* slavery measure...are you now claiming to be too dense to understand that?

Or are you stil criticizing it?

Either way...

Thanks for losing

You seem to be proclaiming my losing an argument fairly often. It is sad that you have yet to provide the slightest argument or evidence for this.

Perhaps you should firstly learn to make a sound argument. I suspect there are University classes on this.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I'll read the other two posts you made, shanek, tomorrow.

Thanks for being an interesting source of debate.

 

[Michael Redman]

What it comes down to is this: Did the Founding Fathers consider black people equal to white people?

The answer is a resounding NO.

Did the Danes consider black people equal to white people?

The answer is a resounding NO.

Did the English?

No.

Did the Chinese?

No.

Did anyone?

What does equality have to do with slavery? As Skeptic pointed out, deciding to eliminate slavery is a far cry for throwing out racial prejudices.

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

Everyone was racist in the 18th century. How does attacking the character of these men with modern sensabilities effect the validity of their argument? Should we not believe all men are created equal because those who originally affirmed this ideal fell short themselves?

Thank you for enlightening me. I suspect there is an interesting story behind this idea that they should not be allowed citizenship.

Indian tribes are sovereign entities. Members of Indian tribes are citizens of those sovereign entities. It doesn't say racial Indians can not be citizens, it says "Indian not taxed" (those subject to tribal authority instead) are not counted for representation purposes.

(Of course, without the insatiable European demand for slave-labor produced goods from the new world, slavery would have been a moot question at the time the Constitution was drafted anyway.)

 

[crimresearch]

You seem to be proclaiming my losing an argument fairly often. It is sad that you have yet to provide the slightest argument or evidence for this.

Perhaps you should firstly learn to make a sound argument. I suspect there are University classes on this.

And all you have to do to sustain that position is put on your magical 'I can't see any proof' glasses eh?

I guess that is easier than you answering direct questions, or backing up your assertions.

But feel free to prove me wrong by answering the questions about the 3/5ths rule.

And you are right about one thing...there are indeed University classes that will explain why logic and proof are wasted on those willing to lie to avoid facing facts.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Did the Danes consider black people equal to white people?

The answer is a resounding NO.

Did the English?

No.

Did the Chinese?

No.

Did anyone?

What does equality have to do with slavery? As Skeptic pointed out, deciding to eliminate slavery is a far cry for throwing out racial prejudices.

No, Michael, no one of much import at the time thought slavery was enough of of a scourge that any Constitution should be free of it. Which is exactly my point.

The US Constitution was written in another era. There is no reason whatsoever to hold its proclamations in any great awe. It is a document of its time. It is an outdated document.

Everyone was racist in the 18th century. How does attacking the character of these men with modern sensabilities effect the validity of their argument? Should we not believe all men are created equal because those who originally affirmed this ideal fell short themselves? Indian tribes are sovereign entities. Members of Indian tribes are citizens of those sovereign entities. It doesn't say racial Indians can not be citizens, it says "Indian not taxed" (those subject to tribal authority instead) are not counted for representation purposes.

It specifically contradicts itself.

I know the bible does the same and is still held in great reverance, but this quirk of human phsycology is probably for another thread.

(Of course, without the insatiable European demand for slave-labor produced goods from the new world, slavery would have been a moot question at the time the Constitution was drafted anyway.)

I'm disappointed by this non-relevant comment.

 

[DanishDynamite]

And all you have to do to sustain that position is put on your magical 'I can't see any proof' glasses eh?

I guess that is easier than you answering direct questions, or backing up your assertions.

But feel free to prove me wrong by answering the questions about the 3/5ths rule.

And you are right about one thing...there are indeed University classes that will explain why logic and proof are wasted on those willing to lie to avoid facing facts.

I look forward to the day you can ask a straight question. If you have done so previously without my notice, please tell me.

 

[shanek]

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"?

They weren't. Some Indians were taxed. They were counted in the enumeration. Other Indians weren't taxed. They weren't counted. It's as simple as that.

 

[Michael Redman]

No, Michael, no one of much import at the time thought slavery was enough of of a scourge that any Constitution should be free of it. Which is exactly my point.

The US Constitution was written in another era. There is no reason whatsoever to hold its proclamations in any great awe. It is a document of its time. It is an outdated document.

It is not outdated. It's time is today. It has been updated frequently since its adoption. Perhaps you've heard? Slavery is now prohibited, and black and white are equal under the law.

It specifically contradicts itself.

Currently? Where?

Honestly, does anyone argue that the 1789 version of the US Constitution should be considered infallible and sacred? This seems to be the position you are attacking.

Just because we don't want to change something that's been in the Constitution since the beginning does not mean that we doen't want to change it because it was in the Constitution from the beginning. We have changed our Constitution many time, and in substantial ways, when we felt the old way was was no longer appropriate.

 

[shanek]

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

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.

"Not equal" only for purposes of enumeration. And as the 13th Amendment proves, their existance was far from "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?

Um, because they're two completely different things?

 

[shanek]

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

Thank you for enlightening me. I suspect there is an interesting story behind this idea that they should not be allowed citizenship.

It wasn't up to the Constitution or the Federal government to say who was a citizen and who wasn't. That was a state function. You were a citizen of your sovereign state, and, by extension, "entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." (IV.2.1) The 14th Amendment changed that.

 

[shanek]

I'll read the other two posts you made, shanek, tomorrow.

Thanks for being an interesting source of debate.

My pleasure!

 

[shanek]

No, Michael, no one of much import at the time thought slavery was enough of of a scourge that any Constitution should be free of it.

Except for Vermont. Oh, and Massachusetts. Oh, and New Hampshire...

 

[shanek]

Currently? Where?

Well, if you don't mind me jumping in, I'd say the 17th Amendment (one of the things I'd change about the current Constitution; specifically, I'd repeal it) contradicts Article V.

 

[DanishDynamite]

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

They weren't. Some Indians were taxed. They were counted in the enumeration. Other Indians weren't taxed. They weren't counted. It's as simple as that.

****, I should have been in bed by now, but then we only live once.

To reply, yes, they were mentioned as a particular subset. And not as a particular subset of "men", not as men who might for one reason or another not be allowed citizen rights, but as a subset of humanity. A race.

Were other "equal men" mentioned seperatly as not having citizen rights if they didn't pay taxes? I suspect they were, but if so, why were the Indians mentioned specifically?

 

[DanishDynamite]

It is not outdated. It's time is today. It has been updated frequently since its adoption. Perhaps you've heard? Slavery is now prohibited, and black and white are equal under the law.

Please look at the OP. It concerns itself with the original Constitution and the apologists' explanation of anything we don't like today.

Currently? Where?

Honestly, does anyone argue that the 1789 version of the US Constitution should be considered infallible and sacred? This seems to be the position you are attacking.

Exactly. Does this deviate much from shanek's apologist explanations for its problems?

Just because we don't want to change something that's been in the Constitution since the beginning does not mean that we doen't want to change it because it was in the Constitution from the beginning. We have changed our Constitution many time, and in substantial ways, when we felt the old way was was no longer appropriate.

Exactly. About time you took another look.

 

[DanishDynamite]

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

"Not equal" only for purposes of enumeration. And as the 13th Amendment proves, their existance was far from "enshrined."

Not sure I understand. Are you saying that subsequent enlightenment of Americans should result in commensensical ammendment of the old and anachronistical Constitution? If so, I agree.

Um, because they're two completely different things?

In what way?

 

[DanishDynamite]

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

It wasn't up to the Constitution or the Federal government to say who was a citizen and who wasn't. That was a state function. You were a citizen of your sovereign state, and, by extension, "entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." (IV.2.1) The 14th Amendment changed that.

So what? We are discussing the clear lacks of the Constitution. Please address them.

If those lacks allowed discrimination and racism, please acknowledge that they did so.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Except for Vermont. Oh, and Massachusetts. Oh, and New Hampshire...

Kindly explain the relevance. We are discussing the huge shortcomings of the US Constitution. The f*ck-ups of state constitutions is of no relevance whatsoever.