https://librivox.org/short-nonfiction-collection-vol-088-by-various/ https://archive.org/details/constitutionofun00thom/page/16/mode/2up https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_American_Constitution_and_the_Slave
"That individual has seen fit to place himself before the public as my opponent. Well, ladies and gentlemen, if he had placed himself before the country as an enemy, I could not have desired him - even an enemy - to have placed himself in a position so false, and to have committed himself to statements so grossly at variance with the truth as those statements I have just read from him. Why then did he read the constitution to you? Why did he read that which was not the constitution - for I contend he did read that which was not the constitution. He pretended to be giving you chapter and verse, section and clause, paragraph and provision, and yet he did not give you a single clause or single paragraph of that constitution."
-
"Here then are the provisions of the constitution which the most extravagant defenders of slavery have ever claimed to guarantee the right of property in man. These are the provisions which have been pressed into the service of the human fleshmongers of America; let us look at them just as they stand, one by one. You will notice there is not a word said there about "slave-trade" not a word said there about "slave insurrections;" not a word there about "three-fifths representation of slaves;" not a word there which any man outside of America, and who had not been accustomed to claim these particular provisions of the Constitution, would ever suspect had the remotest reference to slavery. I deny utterly that these provisions of the constitution guarantee, or were intended to guarantee, in any shape or form, the right of property in man in the United States. But let us grant, for the sake of argument, that the first of these provisions, referring to the basis of representation and taxation, does refer to slaves. We are not compelled to make this admission, for it might fairly apply, and indeed was intended to apply, to aliens and others, persons living in the United States, but who were not naturalized.
But giving the provision the very worse construction - that it applies to slaves - what does it amount to? I answer — and see you bear it in mind, for it shows the disposition of the constitution to slavery - I take the very worst aspect, and admit all that is claimed or that can be admitted consistently with truth; and I answer that this very provision, supposing it refers to slaves, is in itself a downright disability imposed upon the slave system of America, one which deprives the slaveholding States of at least two-fifths of their natural basis of representation. A black man in a free State is worth just two-fifths more than a black man in a slave State, as a basis of political power under the constitution. Therefore, instead of encouraging slavery, the constitution encourages freedom, by holding out to every slaveholding state the inducement of an increase of two-fifths of political power by becoming a free State. So much for the three-fifths clause; taking it at is worst, it still leans to freedom, not slavery; for, be it remembered that the constitution nowhere forbids a black man to vote."
-
"My opponent is just fifty-two years too late in seeking the dissolution of the Union on account of this clause, for it expired as far back as 1808. He might as well attempt to break down the British Parliament and break down the British constitution, because, three hundred years ago, Queen Elizabeth granted to Sir John Hawkins the right to import Africans into the West Indies. This ended some three hundred years ago; our ended only fifty-two years ago, and I ask is the constitution of the Unted States to be condemned to everlasting infamy because of what was done fifty-two years ago?"
-
"I now go to the “slave insurrection” clause, though, in truth, there is no such clause in the constitution."
-
"But there is one other provision, called the “Fugitive Slave Provision. ... The proposition was met by a storm of opposition in the convention: members rose up in all directions, saying that they had no more business to catch slaves for their masters than they had to catch horses for their owners - that they would not undertake any such thing, and the convention instructed a committee to alter that provision and the word "servitude," so that it might apply NOT to slaves, but to free-men — to persons bound to serve and labour, and not to slaves. ... But it may be asked, if this clause does not apply to slaves, to whom does it apply? It says— "No person serving and labouring escaping to another State shall be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up to whom such service or labour may be due." To whom does it apply if not to slaves? I answer that it applied at the time of its adoption to a very numerous class of persons in America; and I have the authority of no less a person than Daniel Webster that it was intended to apply to that class of men — a class of persons known in America as "Redemptioners." There was quite a number of them at that day, who had been taken to America precisely as coolies have been taken to the West Indies.”
-
"No Union with the Bible!"
-
"What do you do when you are told by the slaveholders of America that the Bible sanctions slavery? Do you go and throw your Bible into the fire? Do you sing out, "No Union with the Bible!"? Do you declare that a thing is bad because it has been misused, abused, and made a bad use of? Do you throw it away on that account! No! You press it to your bosom all the more closely; you read it all the more diligently; you prove from its pages that it is on the side of liberty - and not on the side of slavery. So let us do so with the constitution of the United States."
All powers not covered in the Constitution, reverts to the states. The constitution is neutral regarding slavery up to the 13th amendment.
Frederick Douglass drops the mic.
This is another item that I searched and searched for, probably two dozen times. When I finally found it I didn’t say a word to anybody, I just recorded it.
I would like to know your thought about the speech substance, not my recording. I know my own issues.
I guarantee you will learn something here that you’ll want to share and repeat many times.
The proclamation of “All Men are created equal” while slavery was still legal and the resultant Civil War that resulted in freeing the slaves should tell you all you need to know.
Revisionist history may differ.
Some pings, you might find this of interest. If nothing else, note the speech highlights.
“What do you do when you are told by the slaveholders of America that the Bible sanctions slavery? Do you go and throw your Bible into the fire? Do you sing out, “No Union with the Bible!”? Do you declare that a thing is bad because it has been misused, abused, and made a bad use of? Do you throw it away on that account! No! You press it to your bosom all the more closely; you read it all the more diligently; you prove from its pages that it is on the side of liberty - and not on the side of slavery. So let us do so with the constitution of the United States.”
ping
Slavery was part of the old world (not geographically but enlighteningly). America demonstrated the value of an enlightened world with the Constitution, and eventually successfully argued that slavery was an abomination.
Our nation was founded on indentured servitude, aka, ‘slavery’. Common practice back then.
The clause also comes with a warning that after 1808 congress is free to act on the issue.
Thanks for ping. Frederick Douglas was a great man. He had first hand experience of being a black slave on a plantation, with harsh whippings and brutal treatment. He rose above it to become a brilliant voice for his people and for America. A truly great American. Thanks again for sharing his thoughts on the Constitution and it’s role in Slavery.
bfl
Just a friendly ping, no reply needed.
See entry #1:
https://librivox.org/short-nonfiction-collection-vol-088-by-various/
Merrick - it was an "Occupy Congress" protest that went bad. Two windows were broken and one door damaged. "Occupy Congress" lasted less than 5 hours...
BLM and Antifa rioted for over 300 days and caused over two billion dollars in damage to cities in flyover... and you white liberal 'elites' didn't give a damn because it wasn't YOUR city and the rioters were on your team. History will not be kind to you Merrick...