Active Now

Danilo_G
my2cents
Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » Was the Constitution "defective from the very beginning"? Was the Constitution " a proslavery document"?
RosieG

Was the Constitution "defective from the very beginning"? Was the Constitution " a proslavery document"?

25 of the 55 who signed it owned slaves.

They included that "3/5 a person clause". Did no one there notice how insulting a thing that is?

We pray to the Constitution and insist it is followed because it the basis of what we are whom we are. Allegedly.

Well it was certainly who THEY WERE at the time they wrote it.

It is NOT WHO WE ARE NOW. Mostly. Some reactionaries who dream of owning slaves once again would disagree. They are the insurrectionists who want their country back to what it used to be in 1776! How forward thinking of them. Visionaries all of them.

Posted - May 29, 2021
Tags : None

Responses


  • 2706
     You're correct, they did own slaves. Is the Constitution defective? It's not perfect and the Founders knew that. Even though I know your obvious reasoning behind your question, perhaps this article may help you better understand how the Founders actually felt about slavery. It's always better to step back and look at and see the whole picture than it is to stand with your nose touching it and seeing but a very small part of it.


      https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/founding-fathers-views-slavery


      You may also find this article interesting:

      https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/slavery-and-the-constitution
      May 29, 2021 10:04 AM MDT
    1

  • 32645
    No. The Constitution was not pro-slavery.  There is no wording in it to limit rights by race.  

    The U.S. Constitution does not relegate blacks to “three-fifths of a person” status. Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states:

    “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.”

    The 3/5 compromise:

    1. Was not Pro-slavery. In fact, it was an anti-slavery clause put in by the Congress to prevent the slave states from having a larger voice than they should have had. 

      The number of members in the House of Representatives is determined by each states population.  So by counting slaves as a whole it would have given slave states a larger number of Representatives in the House than they should have had in reference to the rest of the country. 

    (Who do you think those extra House members would be looking out for?  The slaves who could not vote/etc or the voting population in that state.  (Many slave owners)

    https://www.theusconstitution.org/news/understanding-the-three-fifths-compromise/
      May 29, 2021 10:35 AM MDT
    1

  • 2706
      God answer and thank you for it. It gives me hope and warms my heart to see someone who does their research and takes the time to find out what the Constitution actually says. When I was in high school, one of my favorite classes was government class. They taught us about the Constitution as well as what makes up our federal government. That always stuck with me down through the years.
      May 29, 2021 11:13 AM MDT
    0

  • 757
    No it wasn't, but the stupid, retarded ass Democraps want to think it is. This post was edited by Wolfhound at May 29, 2021 11:28 AM MDT
      May 29, 2021 11:26 AM MDT
    0