Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Slaves were complete persons. Slaves were persons, not property -- original Constitu

  1. #1

    Slaves were complete persons. Slaves were persons, not property -- original Constitu

    The Democrats have been in full howl over how the Republicans read the Constitution on the House floor on Thursday. Here's the odd thing: they criticized the Republicans not because of what they read, but because of what they didn't read. And what they didn't read is stuff that's no longer in the Constitution, because it's been amended and is no longer valid or applicable.

    So the Democrats are so eye-crossingly enraged at the loss of power, so mind-numbingly confused about the Constitution, that they wanted stuff read that's not even in it. But to the credit of the Republicans, they read the Constitution, the whole Constitution, and nothing but the Constitution.

    The only parts of the Constitution the GOP read are the parts that are still in force, that have never been amended. If a part of the Constitution has been amended, then the amended part is no longer valid. (For instance, the 18th amendment, the Prohibition amendment, was repealed in 1933 and consequently was not read.) An amended part is no longer a part of the Constitution. It's no longer part of the supreme law of the land. It's part of the history of the Constitution, but no longer a part of the Constitution itself.

    You'd think that the Democrats, with all their bloviation about how the Constitution is a living and breathing document that must change with the times, would be ecstatic at Republican recognition of legitimate changes to our founding document.

    But no. The grievance industry, represented by Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. and other plantation politicians, is royally hacked off that the original part of the Constitution that dealt with representation in the slave-holding states wasn't read. News flash for Rep. Jackson: the Civil War ended 146 years ago. Wake up and smell the freedom! Get over yourself and get on up into the 21st century while you're at it.

    Rep. Jackson is acting as if the Civil War never happened, as if the Emancipation Proclamation was never issued — thank you, Republican president Abe Lincoln — as if the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments — thank you, Republican Party — were never ratified and never became a part of our ultimate governing document. He's acting as if the Civil Rights Act — passed by Republicans over strenuous Democrat opposition — was not and never has been the law of the land.

    So the grievance industry, still stuck woefully in the past, desperately wanted the Republicans to read the "three-fifths" clause. The Republicans didn't, for one simple reason. It's no longer part of the Constitution.

    And here's the kicker: while the Democrats wanted that read because they erroneously believe that it says that slaves were three-fifths of a person, the Constitution itself says exactly the opposite. The "three-fifths" clause clearly affirms the personhood of slaves.

    Check it out. Here is the relevant portion, with emphasis added:

    "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

    Note how the original Constitution referred to slaves: not as "three-fifths" of a person, but as "other Persons," period. It's as plain and unambiguous as it can possibly be. Slaves, according to the original Constitution, were full-fledged persons. It says it right there.

    As you can see by reading the clause in full, this portion of the original Constitution dealt with representation in Congress, not with the definition of personhood. In fact, the "three-fifths" clause was inserted at the insistence of the free states to limit the power of the slave-holding states. The Southern states were hoping for full counting, full numbering, because the number of slaves would have given them a huge advantage over the North in the House of Representatives.

    (The South wanted to treat slaves as property until it came to the issue of representation; then Southerners wanted them counted fully, even though they could not vote or hold office. The North politely said, well, if you're going to count your property for the purpose of representation, we are too. We'll apportion representation based on our houses, horses, and factories. That put a stopper in it right quick.)

    The opponents of slavery in the North — and yes, Virginia, there were plenty of Founders who found the institution of slavery odious even in their day — were not about to permit that. They knew slavery as practiced by the South was a grave moral injustice and could not last in a nation dedicated to freedom.

    By the way, you'll note that because this clause dealt not just with representation but with the apportionment of "direct Taxes," it entailed a loss of revenue to the federal government. Abolitionists were willing to forego the extra revenue to federal coffers in order to keep the South from maintaining enough clout to protect forever the institution of slavery.

    In passing, it's worthy of note that he importation of slaves was prohibited by the original Constitution after the year 1808.

    Bottom line: the three-fifths clause is not a pro-slavery clause, it is an anti-slavery clause.

    And the same clause affirms the personhood of all slaves. You could look it up.

  2. #2
    That is the same as with the Dredd Scott decision. The newspapers ran "Negroes Can't Vote" as if it was ever some new decision--slaves could not vote. Back in the 1700s, in North Carolina all free persons were citizens. It is said that Taney was a Roman Catholic and heavily part of that decision to promote lifetime chattel slavery of brown-skinned people. Keep in mind, tan skinned folks were voting and holding office in the colonies and in the states long before 1861. Racial segregation laws came AFTER 1861 and AFTER the Romanization of D.C. and AFTER the Papacy lost Papal States. Racial segregation laws didn't come to Tulsa, Oklahoma until 1891--the very same year a Roman Catholic church was established there.

    When it comes to falsely politicizing court cases or law, the mainstream media has often played the role of 'false interpreter'. Three fifths of all other "Persons" (uppercase, hmm doesn't sound like a slur). Persons could have been private citizens and nationals of the several states as opposed to the public citizens, quartered soldiers, residents, foreign ambassadors, etc. The word "negro" and "colored person" meant someone who was civilly dead or under a servitude or a felon (colored person). The term 'white' meant 'freeborn'. I suspect the idea was to keep someone from amassing 1M slaves and servants and counting them as 'credit' toward influence in Congress rather than to denigrate someone for their 'physical appearance type'.

    Similarly the media characterized the South as a bastion of racism and slavery (it may have become that way after the Civil War), but who ever mentions that was the first to Georgia banned slavery as far back as the 1700s?
    Last edited by allodial; 06-16-16 at 12:47 AM.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts