Redstate

"Any love letter is incomplete without a Ronald Reagan quote"
--my sophomore year roommate

And I'll recommend any other piece like this on the Constitution.

Many liberals believe they have a moral basis - indeed, a moral duty - to ignore the Constitution because it was originally an immoral document by immoral pro-slavery politicians. And why should we respect the views of such persons?

The facts are just the contrary, however. The Framers did everything they could in the Constitution to contain slavery and pave the way for its eventual abolition.

I wrote a piece on this I'd be happy to share with anyone who contacts me through RedState or my site (below).

www.win-the-war.com

I thought that was the point I was trying to make, but alas, I didn't exactly convey that very well. I should have separated the two ideas that I had there. I had hoped to portray that liberal republican was half correct. He was correct in saying that a slave counted as 60% of a person for representative purposes.

The second point was not to recommend that slaves should have counted as 100%, but rather it was the gut reaction that the South was forced to admit that slaves were (at least somewhat) human and not property.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

it may be a bit of a reach to say that Lincoln wouldn't have been elected had slaves counted as a full person... Lincoln was not on the ballot in the South and the three most populous states went to John Bell and the other Southern states went to Breckinridge. Lincoln won handily because of this... not to mention Douglas took some votes in the South from Breckinridge and Bell... now as you suggest had it been Breckinridge vs Lincoln then things may have been different...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1860

I am by no means advocating slavery by posting this, just making a historical footnote to a very good post...

View my blog at http://politicalperpetuity.blogspot.com/

Very good post - well thought out and informative.

You did misread my original comment (or atleast my original intent behind it).

Of course, without this compromise, the constitution may not have been ratified. It really was far from a done deal and took a great deal of selling - north and south.

I don't think I ever thought this all the way to its conclusion. Heartily recommended, and I agree.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

Actually, I don't know that it is entirely accurate to say that the South wanted a full count. They did want slaves to count as one full person when it came to apportioning seats in Congress. But they were also clear that, when it came to apportioning taxes on the states (which was done based on population), that slaves should be considered property and not counted at all. The Compromise was in part a reaction to that "best of both worlds" position the South was pushing - full representation with no taxes due.

The North would have gone along with full counting if it was across the board. If the South was willing to take the tax consequence along with the representational benefit, they would have probably gotten it. And yes, that probably would have changed much (would the North have been able to outlaw the slave trade in 1809? would those various compromises on state admissions been on the same terms? would the issue have come to a head in 1860 or much later with the South having more electoral power in the EC and Congress?). But to say that the North didn't want a full count is not fully true. The South did not want it when it was put to them that they'd have to be taxed on that count as well. The result was a "split the difference" kind of deal that gave the South part of what it wanted (more representation) and the North what it wanted (to use the same count for both representation purposes and taxation purposes).

congrats on the top rated diary, well done sir! I am with you, this has been one of those misunderstood soundbites for years that I have had the ability to quash as well. I think I even discussed this on daily krud once and got some good mojo :)

Of course the 3/5ths thing was not what slave owners wanted, heck they would have preferred slaves to count as twice a white. Of course the slaves could not vote their 3/5's.

There are so many things are teachers choose not to teach us. I bet many even here will be surprised to know blacks owned slaves in antebellum America. There was no clause that said a free black could not own slaves, any free man could own slaves.

I would say that a few would even be surprised that Mexican Americans and full blooded indians owned slaves. They might also be surprised to know there was at least one full blooded Indian Confederate General. Heck, I even remember that there was a free black in Washington DC (a slave area) that owned over fifty slaves.

Anyway, that is just a bit of "what the?" for those who only studied history up to the freshman survey level. No offense to anyone, we just can't learn history that is not taught.

Back to your original point, touche sir! I hope history discussions, as opposed to just the daily media barrage, reach the top list again.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

The Constitution recognized slavery's existence in some of the states, but it's inaccurate to say, without qualification, that the Constitution "legitimized"--that is, made legal or licit--slavery.

It recognized slavery by its oblique references to the institution in the 3/5 clause ("other persons"). It recognized that some states' laws affirmatively admitted certain "persons," whether by "migration or importation," (Art. I, sec. 9, cl. 1) and it noted that certain persons were "held to service or labor" under the laws of certain states (Fugitive Slave Clause).

Even the recognition of the institution was made deliberately obscure by the deliberate decision to omit the words "slave" or "slavery," and even by the substitution of "held to service or labor under the laws thereof" for "legally held to service or labor," because the drafters wanted to avoid suggesting that slavery was legal in any sense (moral, national) other than by the local, peculiar positive laws of some states.

As to the "legitimization," the Constitution provided legitimization only in this limited sense: Where by state positive law slavery existed, the importation of slaves would not be prohibited by Congress for 20 years (and provided the state was one of the original 13), and a slaveholder in one of those states had some right to recover a slave fleeing into a free state.

Of course, the Constitution did not mandate the slavery be legal in the several states. No amendment was necessary for a universal abolition of slavery throughout the states. Indeed, by the 3/5 compromise, the Constitution provided a mild disincentive to slavery; it reduced the congressional (and electoral college) representation of those states that allowed some of their inhabitants to be held in slavery.

Less known is this fact--in one respect the Constitution was more anti-slavery than the Articles of Confederation. The Articles allowed sojourning citizens to bring back to their home state any property imported into a state (a provision probably designed to provide an exemption from local anti-slavery laws). Under the Constitution, this protection for sojourning slaveholders was deliberately omitted from the Privileges and Immunities Clause--and a more emphatic provision was later included in the Confederate Constitution.

In this vein, here is Lincoln at Cooper Union (one of the greatest speeches ever) addressing the Dred Scott decision:

"The Court have substantially said, it is your Constitutional right to take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold them there as property. When I say the decision was made in a sort of way, I mean it was made in a divided Court, by a bare majority of the Judges, and they not quite agreeing with one another in the reasons for making it; that it is so made as that its avowed supporters disagree with one another about its meaning, and that it was mainly based upon a mistaken statement of fact -- the statement in the opinion that 'the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution.'

An inspection of the Constitution will show that the right of property in a slave is not 'distinctly and expressly affirmed' in it. Bear in mind, the Judges do not pledge their judicial opinion that such right is impliedly affirmed in the Constitution; but they pledge their veracity that it is 'distinctly and expressly' affirmed there -- 'distinctly,' that is, not mingled with anything else --'expressly,' that is, in words meaning just that, without the aid of any inference, and susceptible of no other meaning.

If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that such right is affirmed in the instrument by implication, it would be open to others to show that neither the word 'slave' nor 'slavery' is to be found in the Constitution, nor the word "property" even, in any connection with language alluding to the things slave, or slavery; and that wherever in that instrument the slave is alluded to, he is called a 'person;' --and wherever his master's legal right in relation to him is alluded to, it is spoken of as "service or labor which may be due,' -- as a debt payable in service or labor. Also, it would be open to show, by contemporaneous history, that this mode of alluding to slaves and slavery, instead of speaking of them, was employed on purpose to exclude from the Constitution the idea that there could be property in man.

To show all this, is easy and certain.

When this obvious mistake of the Judges shall be brought to their notice, is it not reasonable to expect that they will withdraw the mistaken statement, and reconsider the conclusion based upon it?"

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

One thing that bothers me is whether the US Constitution recognizes and counts an individual only if he is a US citizen? If slaves and Indians at that time were not recognized as US citizens, why would the Constitution still include them into the electoral and taxation calculations? Does that make any sense legally?

In order to have electoral votes, shouldn't one ask oneself that if one is going to count all votes, shouldn't they include the only eligible voters, that is the US citizens above the minimum age of voting? Finally, did it cause some of Framers to scratch their heads as they debated over these questions mentioned above?

------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.

The “3/5ths” debate also had a dynamic of taxation which provides another perspective aside from representation. This was therefore not only a legislative discussion, but also became one of economics.

In the 1787 debates you will occasionally find southern states speaking passionately about the contributions of slaves not just as “property” but opining generously about their “value” to the confederation. While this is somewhat ignominious given the institution under discussion is slavery, there appears to be genuine respect for their diligence, productivity, commitment and potential as soldiers. That some could not move beyond their status as slaves, one bound in servitude to another based on race, and treat them as equals in our national birthright is nothing less than tragic, short sighted and makes one weep.

It’s important to remember this was a very contentious debate where several members were truly ready to leave the convention had it not been settled with some type of equity (if I could use that word). People such as Morris (PA) said Penn. “will never agree to a representation of Negroes”. There was also debate amongst southern state delegations about the 3/5ths concept. For example Williamson (NC) whom I believe was amongst the first to suggest the idea and was opposed by Butler (SC) and Mason (VA) who thought slaves deserved “equal representation”. Mason also alluded to the southern states concept of “property” as “peculiar” but notably could not bring himself to vote for slaves as equals. In the vote on Butler’s motion to consider blacks as equal to whites in the apportionment of representation Georgia and Delaware both voted “ay”.

Overall, I prefer to see this as less of a “stain” on our countries founding and more of an abject lesson for others that not yielding to righteous moral issues when forming a democracy presages disaster and a plethora of enduring, destructive legacies. I personally have often thought a morally correct compromise was embedding slavery abolition in our Constitution as an exchange for counting 100% of what would then have been “former” slaves. While that certainly may have caused some states to leave, it could have left enough of a group to commence our countries initial bond and over time show others the unwise nature of their decision. But we could opine on what could have been all day.

"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report