Re: [asa] Expelled and ID (slavery)

The horrible Dred Scot case from 1857 provides an originalist understanding
of both the Constitution as ratified by the founders and the Declaration of
Independence. As to the Constitution, Justice Taney said:

The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms,
and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who ... form
the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through
their representatives.... The question before us is, whether the class of
persons described in the plea in abatement [people of Aftican ancestry]
compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this
sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were
not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution,
and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that
instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the
contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior
class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether
emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no
rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government
might choose to grant them.

 And as to the Declaration, Taney said:

The general words above quoted ["all men are created equal"] would seem to
embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar
instrument at this day would be so understood. But it is too clear for
dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included,
and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration;
for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the
conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence
would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they
asserted; and instead of the sympathy of mankind, to which they so
confidently appeared, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke
and reprobation.

Yes, thank God, the Constitution eventually was amended to correct this
awful state of affairs, but that was only at the end of the Civil War.

 On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
wrote:

Things that are not in the U.S. Constitution
> http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html <
> http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html>
>
>
>
> Slavery
>
> Originally, the Framers were very careful about avoiding the words "slave"
> and "slavery" in the text of the Constitution. Instead, they used phrases
> like "importation of Persons" at Article 1, Section 9 <
> http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec9.html> for the slave trade,
> and "other persons" at Article 1, Section 2 <
> http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec2.html> for slaves. Not until
> the 13th Amendment <http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am13.html> was
> slavery mentioned specifically in the Constitution. There the term was used
> to ensure that there was to be no ambiguity as what exactly the words were
> eliminating. In the 14th Amendment <
> http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am14.html> , the euphemism "other
> persons" (and the three-fifths value given a slave) was eliminated. The
> Slavery Topic Page <http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html> has
> a lot more detail.
> Thanks to ches04 for the idea.
>
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"
>
> This phrase is commonly attributed to the Constitution, but it comes from
> the Declaration of Independence <http://www.usconstitution.net/declar.html>
> .
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of David Opderbeck
> Sent: Thu 5/22/2008 3:27 PM
> To: j burg
> Cc: Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] Expelled and ID (slavery)
>
>
> Burgy -- tair enough -- race in America certainly was and is complex. It's
> true that some of the founders were anti-slavery. Still, I get a kick out
> of jabbing Constitutional originalists with the fact that the original
> Constitution didn't recognize blacks (or women) as full persons under the
> law.
>
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 3:14 PM, j burg <hossradbourne@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 5/21/08, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Lincoln and the civil war were almost a hundred years after the
> Constitution
> > was ratified. The founders didn't address slavery for the most
> part because
> > they didn't consider blacks fully human.
>
>
> My reading of the early history on the US indicates it was a lot
> more
> complex than that.
>
> One of the more interesting books is NEGRO PRESIDENT. A review is on
> my website.
>
> Burgy
>
> www.burgy.50megs.com <http://www.burgy.50megs.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.