- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The Constitution and Slavery (Very Long)
Posted on 3/3/14 at 8:59 pm
Posted on 3/3/14 at 8:59 pm
I had to write this for a class and thought I'd share it. I rushed through it and I need to clean it up but I'm interested to read any responses of people who have the time or desire to read it:
Although the United States Constitution does not contain the words "slave" or "slavery", through euphemistic language its protection was certainly contained within the document. Many people throughout history including abolitionists Fredrick Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison have lamented this fact. It even sparks controversy in our own time. A couple decades ago for the bicentennial celebration of the United States Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote that the “proud proclamations of the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice shared by the framers” were not deserved. He criticized the Constitution for not addressing the issue of slavery; writing that “the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, that we hold as fundamental today” (Marshall Nov., 1987). Although I understand Marshall’s sentiment, his assessment is weakened by the seeming inevitability he ascribes to the events following the Constitutional Convention. Furthermore, had the few anti-slavery demanded a constitution without these “defects” there might not have been a union of states at all.
Though a few delegates such as Rufus King of Massachusetts and Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania spoke out against slavery, the anti-slavery members did not possess the numbers nor the coordinated plan to influence the document to the degree the pro-slavery faction did. David O. Steward wrote in The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution, “for the southerners, no goal was greater than the protection of slavery” (Stewart 2007). And though Morris for example, vehemently spoke out against slavery and it’s entrenchment in the proposed government it was all for naught. In regards to the three-fifths compromise he declared “[T]he inhabitant of Georgia and South Carolina who goes to the Coast of Africa, and in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections and damns them to the most cruel bondages, shall have more votes in a government instituted for protection of the rights of mankind, than the citizen of Pennsylvania or New Jersey who views with a laudable horror so nefarious a practice.” Despite the eloquence of his speech, the motion only garnered one supporter, Jonathan Dayton of New Jersey. Eric Foner elaborated on this point writing, "South Carolina’s delegates had come to Philadelphia determined to defend slavery, and they had a powerful impact on the final document. They originated the fugitive slave clause, the three-fifths clause, and the Electoral College. They insisted on strict limits on the power of Congress to levy taxes within the states, fearing future efforts to raise revenue by taxing slave property. They threatened disunion if the Atlantic slave trade were prohibited immediately, as the New England states and Virginia, with its abundance of native-born slaves, demanded" (Foner 2011). At times delegates, even Southern ones, such as Luther Martin of Maryland questioned slavery’s place in the nascent republic. On August 21, he advocated the taxation on imported slaves or the outright abolition of the slave trade as it “was inconsistent with the principles of the revolution and dishonorable to the American character.” The South Carolinian John Rutledge immediately parried Martin’s proposal. In his typical pragmatic style he argued that Martin and the Northerners should step away from their moral qualms with the institution of slavery and embrace avaricious self-interest. With all the bluntness of realpolitik he exclaimed, “Interest alone is the governing principle with nations. The true question at present is whether the Southern states shall or shall not be parties to the Union. If the Northern States shall consult their interest, they will not oppose the increase of slaves which will increase the commodities of which they will become the carriers.”
Ultimately, the sporadic moral contentions of the disorganized few fell to the firm faction of Carolinian and Georgian planters. Catherine Drinker Bowen in the seminal Miracle at Philadelphia put it best when she wrote that the evil institution was “no part of the Convention's immediate problem” after all the framers did not meet to “reform society but to create a government for society as it existed.” (Bowen 1966) Slavery, though not explicitly, would become entrenched in this “Empire of Liberty” and that crime would not be “purged away but with blood.”
Works Cited
Bowen, Catherine Drinker. 1966. Miracle at Philadelphia. New York: Back Bay Books.
Foner, Eric. 2011. Give Me Liberty! New York: Norton.
Marshall, Thurgood. Nov., 1987. "Reflections on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution." Harvard Law Review, Vol. 101, No. 1 pp. 1-5.
Stewart, David O. 2007. The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Although the United States Constitution does not contain the words "slave" or "slavery", through euphemistic language its protection was certainly contained within the document. Many people throughout history including abolitionists Fredrick Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison have lamented this fact. It even sparks controversy in our own time. A couple decades ago for the bicentennial celebration of the United States Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote that the “proud proclamations of the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice shared by the framers” were not deserved. He criticized the Constitution for not addressing the issue of slavery; writing that “the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, that we hold as fundamental today” (Marshall Nov., 1987). Although I understand Marshall’s sentiment, his assessment is weakened by the seeming inevitability he ascribes to the events following the Constitutional Convention. Furthermore, had the few anti-slavery demanded a constitution without these “defects” there might not have been a union of states at all.
Though a few delegates such as Rufus King of Massachusetts and Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania spoke out against slavery, the anti-slavery members did not possess the numbers nor the coordinated plan to influence the document to the degree the pro-slavery faction did. David O. Steward wrote in The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution, “for the southerners, no goal was greater than the protection of slavery” (Stewart 2007). And though Morris for example, vehemently spoke out against slavery and it’s entrenchment in the proposed government it was all for naught. In regards to the three-fifths compromise he declared “[T]he inhabitant of Georgia and South Carolina who goes to the Coast of Africa, and in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections and damns them to the most cruel bondages, shall have more votes in a government instituted for protection of the rights of mankind, than the citizen of Pennsylvania or New Jersey who views with a laudable horror so nefarious a practice.” Despite the eloquence of his speech, the motion only garnered one supporter, Jonathan Dayton of New Jersey. Eric Foner elaborated on this point writing, "South Carolina’s delegates had come to Philadelphia determined to defend slavery, and they had a powerful impact on the final document. They originated the fugitive slave clause, the three-fifths clause, and the Electoral College. They insisted on strict limits on the power of Congress to levy taxes within the states, fearing future efforts to raise revenue by taxing slave property. They threatened disunion if the Atlantic slave trade were prohibited immediately, as the New England states and Virginia, with its abundance of native-born slaves, demanded" (Foner 2011). At times delegates, even Southern ones, such as Luther Martin of Maryland questioned slavery’s place in the nascent republic. On August 21, he advocated the taxation on imported slaves or the outright abolition of the slave trade as it “was inconsistent with the principles of the revolution and dishonorable to the American character.” The South Carolinian John Rutledge immediately parried Martin’s proposal. In his typical pragmatic style he argued that Martin and the Northerners should step away from their moral qualms with the institution of slavery and embrace avaricious self-interest. With all the bluntness of realpolitik he exclaimed, “Interest alone is the governing principle with nations. The true question at present is whether the Southern states shall or shall not be parties to the Union. If the Northern States shall consult their interest, they will not oppose the increase of slaves which will increase the commodities of which they will become the carriers.”
Ultimately, the sporadic moral contentions of the disorganized few fell to the firm faction of Carolinian and Georgian planters. Catherine Drinker Bowen in the seminal Miracle at Philadelphia put it best when she wrote that the evil institution was “no part of the Convention's immediate problem” after all the framers did not meet to “reform society but to create a government for society as it existed.” (Bowen 1966) Slavery, though not explicitly, would become entrenched in this “Empire of Liberty” and that crime would not be “purged away but with blood.”
Works Cited
Bowen, Catherine Drinker. 1966. Miracle at Philadelphia. New York: Back Bay Books.
Foner, Eric. 2011. Give Me Liberty! New York: Norton.
Marshall, Thurgood. Nov., 1987. "Reflections on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution." Harvard Law Review, Vol. 101, No. 1 pp. 1-5.
Stewart, David O. 2007. The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution. New York: Simon and Schuster.
This post was edited on 3/3/14 at 9:00 pm
Posted on 3/3/14 at 9:10 pm to fouldeliverer
You are a fricking shitty writer.
Posted on 3/3/14 at 9:14 pm to Tigerlaff
Just because the OT posted a photo of your hover hands at a Brony convention doesn't mean you have to take your anger out on me.
Posted on 3/3/14 at 9:59 pm to fouldeliverer
Interesting thoughts.
One radical view that I have pondered lately is this:
The Founders and Framers should never have declared independence from Great Britain. The Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution were mistakes.
The American Colonies should have remained loyal to Great Britain until the issues of self-governance, including Slavery, had been completely analyzed and resolved.
This view, in essence, agrees with Justice Marshall, but it goes a step further. Marshall asserts that the Constitution is flawed. This radical view asserts that the Constitution is flawed because the founding of the USA in 1776 was pre-mature, and, a mistake ab initio.
Once the leaders, thinkers and people of the American Colonies had figured out Slavery was totally incompatible with "All men are created equal", then, and only then, the time would be proper for the Declaration of Independence.
One radical view that I have pondered lately is this:
The Founders and Framers should never have declared independence from Great Britain. The Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution were mistakes.
The American Colonies should have remained loyal to Great Britain until the issues of self-governance, including Slavery, had been completely analyzed and resolved.
This view, in essence, agrees with Justice Marshall, but it goes a step further. Marshall asserts that the Constitution is flawed. This radical view asserts that the Constitution is flawed because the founding of the USA in 1776 was pre-mature, and, a mistake ab initio.
Once the leaders, thinkers and people of the American Colonies had figured out Slavery was totally incompatible with "All men are created equal", then, and only then, the time would be proper for the Declaration of Independence.
Posted on 3/3/14 at 10:02 pm to Champagne
quote:
Once the leaders, thinkers and people of the American Colonies had figured out Slavery was totally incompatible with "All men are created equal", then, and only then, the time would be proper for the Declaration of Independence.
Here you go board. This is about as classic a case of "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" as you'll ever see.
Bookmark and read again.
Posted on 3/3/14 at 10:14 pm to Champagne
quote:
This radical view asserts that the Constitution is flawed because the founding of the USA in 1776 was pre-mature, and, a mistake ab initio.
The Constitution didn't go into effect until 1789, 13 years after we declared our independence. We were under the Articles of Confederation from 1776-1789. If anything the Articles were flawed, not the founding of the country.
Posted on 3/3/14 at 11:59 pm to fouldeliverer
quote:
Foner, Eric. 2011. Give Me Liberty! New York: Norton.
if you are using this commie for a source, then it isn't worth reading
Posted on 3/4/14 at 3:11 am to Brosef Stalin
quote:
If anything the Articles were flawed, not the founding of the country.
The proponents of this position would be aware of the dates and documents you cite. None of these facts would cause a change in their viewpoint, because, the whole idea is that the USA was founded with the notion that "all men are created equal", and that this is absolutely incompatible with Slavery.
So, yes, the viewpoint holds that the "founding of the country" was flawed. At the point in time when all components of the new nation-state were prepared to abolish Slavery -- that point in time would be proper for the Declaration of Independence.
For example, If Slavery had been abolished in the American Colonies in 1833, and the USA was founded a year later, maybe there's no American Civil War.
Lots of problems might have been avoided had the Founders waited.
This post was edited on 3/4/14 at 3:12 am
Posted on 3/4/14 at 5:59 am to fouldeliverer
They insisted on strict limits on the power of Congress to levy taxes within the states, fearing future efforts to raise revenue by taxing slave property. They threatened disunion if the Atlantic slave trade were prohibited immediately, as the New England states and Virginia, with its abundance of native-born slaves, demanded" (Foner 2011)
I see how well they defended the anti slave sentiment. Hypocrites then and now. Were they not arguing for importation of more slaves or were they presenting a case for freedom for all? I see the first one being argued.
To the taxation, I can see them not wanting the Federal government taking money from them for no other reason than it shall be allowed.
I see how well they defended the anti slave sentiment. Hypocrites then and now. Were they not arguing for importation of more slaves or were they presenting a case for freedom for all? I see the first one being argued.
To the taxation, I can see them not wanting the Federal government taking money from them for no other reason than it shall be allowed.
Posted on 3/4/14 at 8:13 am to Champagne
quote:
Once the leaders, thinkers and people of the American Colonies had figured out Slavery was totally incompatible with "All men are created equal", then, and only then, the time would be proper for the Declaration of Independence.
"All men are created equal" has nothing to do with slavery. It's referring to the European practice of absolute monarchs.
Posted on 3/4/14 at 8:32 am to Antonio Moss
quote:Thank you!
"All men are created equal" has nothing to do with slavery. It's referring to the European practice of absolute monarchs.
Posted on 3/4/14 at 8:32 am to Champagne
One of the problems that might have been avoided by waiting was winning. Who were the Washington, Adams, Jefferson, etc. of 1833? How many British Colonies achieved independence from Britain from 1783 until the middle of the 20th Century? It's not like the British would have just allowed it to occur, and what were the political conditions in 1833 that would have prevented Britain from quashing the revolution?
The American Revolution had to occur when the political dynamics between Britain and France were favorable. Would that have been the case in 1833? Would the entire Napoleonic era have occurred as it did without the American Revolution?
There are too many variables to consider. Any guess as to what would have occurred if the American Revolution had been delayed is as good as another. But in the end it is just a feel good exercise to stroke one's ego.
The American Revolution had to occur when the political dynamics between Britain and France were favorable. Would that have been the case in 1833? Would the entire Napoleonic era have occurred as it did without the American Revolution?
There are too many variables to consider. Any guess as to what would have occurred if the American Revolution had been delayed is as good as another. But in the end it is just a feel good exercise to stroke one's ego.
Posted on 3/4/14 at 10:02 am to Poodlebrain
1833 is a rather arbitrary date because that's when the British Empire outlawed Slavery.
If the American Colonies could have found a way to abolish Slavery in 1810, for example, then the pressures of the UK/France war would have been great.
But, was American victory more likely later in time than it was in 1776 -1781? A good question.
One thing we do know, however, and that is, with the Slavery question resolved at the time of founding, the problems of resolving the question as an independent nation-state are less.
"All men are created equal" may indeed have been seen by slave-owners as having nothing to do with slavery, but, rather, a reference to monarchs. But, on the other hand, there were many who would give it a more broad interpretation, especially today.
Yes, this is but an exercise. A mental exercise. A device to generate thought about historical alternatives. As such, the exercise should be devoid of emotional accusations and catty recriminations.
It's just a mental exercise, and one that has some basis in rationality, since Thurgood Marshall and many others hold their views, as stated in the OP.
The alternative view is that Marshall and others like him are unfair. There was always the objective of finally resolving the Slavery question, even in 1776 and 1789. The question was resolved at great cost. In addition, the USA has very admirably tried to address all issues arising out of Slavery. As such, it's unfair to say that the USA's founding was unfair or illegitimate.
Personally, I hold the alternate view, but, I do very often hear the cries of many who disagree with me, as they try to de-legitimize the Constitution, or some other fundamental aspect of our country.
But, the exercise is to "stoke" thought, not "stroke" ego.
If the American Colonies could have found a way to abolish Slavery in 1810, for example, then the pressures of the UK/France war would have been great.
But, was American victory more likely later in time than it was in 1776 -1781? A good question.
One thing we do know, however, and that is, with the Slavery question resolved at the time of founding, the problems of resolving the question as an independent nation-state are less.
"All men are created equal" may indeed have been seen by slave-owners as having nothing to do with slavery, but, rather, a reference to monarchs. But, on the other hand, there were many who would give it a more broad interpretation, especially today.
Yes, this is but an exercise. A mental exercise. A device to generate thought about historical alternatives. As such, the exercise should be devoid of emotional accusations and catty recriminations.
It's just a mental exercise, and one that has some basis in rationality, since Thurgood Marshall and many others hold their views, as stated in the OP.
The alternative view is that Marshall and others like him are unfair. There was always the objective of finally resolving the Slavery question, even in 1776 and 1789. The question was resolved at great cost. In addition, the USA has very admirably tried to address all issues arising out of Slavery. As such, it's unfair to say that the USA's founding was unfair or illegitimate.
Personally, I hold the alternate view, but, I do very often hear the cries of many who disagree with me, as they try to de-legitimize the Constitution, or some other fundamental aspect of our country.
But, the exercise is to "stoke" thought, not "stroke" ego.
This post was edited on 3/4/14 at 10:07 am
Posted on 3/4/14 at 10:59 am to fouldeliverer
It took agreement with/tolerance of slavery to form the country.
not sure what the overall cost/benefit was but I doubt the southern states were about to give up slavery without a fight.
not sure what the overall cost/benefit was but I doubt the southern states were about to give up slavery without a fight.
Posted on 3/4/14 at 11:00 am to Antonio Moss
quote:but Jefferson originally had anti-slavery sentiment in the Declaration.
"All men are created equal" has nothing to do with slavery. It's referring to the European practice of absolute monarchs.
Posted on 3/4/14 at 11:23 am to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
but Jefferson originally had anti-slavery sentiment in the Declaration.
Absolutely. Flat out blamed British Parliament for colonial slavery.
It is an amazing historical document. Just wish more people understood what it's saying.
Posted on 3/4/14 at 12:28 pm to Champagne
The reason I used stroke one's ego is because I hate the way people adopt a morally superior tone simply by applying current standards to an unresolved complex situation and attempt to diminish the greatness of the Funders. I find it laughable for people to express moral outrage over something that requires zero courage since the issue was resolved by men of much greater convictions. All I have to do is look at the campaign for civil rights in the 1960's to realize those with the conviction to cause change are few in number. After the fact champions of the cause just strike me as self serving when compared to the champions of the times.
Posted on 3/4/14 at 12:30 pm to Antonio Moss
Blamed the King not so much Parliament.
This post was edited on 3/4/14 at 12:30 pm
Posted on 3/4/14 at 12:46 pm to fouldeliverer
quote:
Works Cited Bowen, Catherine Drinker. 1966.
She was intoxicated.
quote:
Marshall, Thurgood.
He hated the Constitution and did everything he could to circumvent it.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News