| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/25 |
| 2008/4/29-5/4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:49853 Activity:kinda low |
4/29 How Frederick Douglass addressed the 3/5 issue:
"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."
http://medicolegal.tripod.com/douglassuos.htm#three-fifths-clause
\_ Quite impressive, the human ability to rationalize. He practically
sounds like a Randroid. -tom
\_ The irony police are overwhelmed with tom, send in the irony
national guard!
\_ The 3/5 compromise was made by abolitionists who wanted to weaken
slave states. Go back and read history tom.
\_ It was actually done by both sides, hence the label used
"compromise."
\_ Yes, but the slave states wanted the slaves to count as 1
person.
\_ ...with their votes cast by the slave owner. -tom
\_ You are confused. The slave owner still only had
one vote. The 3/5 rule was for the number of seats
that state got in congress.
\_ Right, so if the slaves were truly free to vote,
and at 1:1 representation, the state of Georgia
might have more seats in Congress, but the people
in power in Georgia would lose power. -tom
\_ Well, at the time women were counted as 1
person but couldn't vote. People under
voting age are still counted as 1 person but
obviously can't vote.
\_ Parents are the legal representatives of
their children; slave owners and slaves
have diametrically opposed interests. -tom
\_ And womenfolk?
\_ Personally I think women's suffrage is
a good thing--you disagree? -tom
\_ The US had the choice to allow slavery, or not allow
it. It is pretzel logic to claim that, presented
with that choice, deciding to allow slavery but make
it somewhat less attractive was "encouraging
freedom." There's also no reason to believe that
slaves would vote the same way as their masters;
giving slaves full votes would likely have led to
abolition via democratic processes, for example,
rather than civil war. You could say that the 3/5ths
rule meant that "Georgia" had less power than New
York, but the people who actually had power in Georgia
were strengthened by the fact that their slaves couldn't
vote themselves freedom. -tom
\_ The current congress has the choice to continue war or not.
And? I thought you lefties thought it was conservatives
that only think in black and white.
\_ Do you think that the current Congress deciding to
continue to fund the war is "encouraging peace"? -tom
\_ Are you trying to change the topic?
\_ Umm, the US had the choice to allow slavery, or not exist.
You know when the constitution was written right?
\_ I thought you trolls believed in the power of the
free market. -tom
\_ Whaa? Am I talking to some sort of eliza program
based on tom rantings here?
\_ The idea that the US could not have existed
without slavery in 1787 is ridiculous. -tom
\_ It seems pretty obvious that the South would
not have signed a constitution that outlawed
it. Hence, the US would not exist, at least
as we know it.
\_ It's not necessarily obvious. The Southern
Colonies might have conceded, or they might
not have. That they were never forced into
position where they had to make the decision
is not evidence of which way they might
have jumped. Interesting counterfactuals
proceed from both eventualities.
\_ Don't let that whole Civil War thing
stand in the way of your hypothetical.
\_ Don't let a lack of understanding of
the causes of the Civil War or the
nearly century-long gap between it
and the signing of the Constitution
stand in the way of a one-line quip
full of sound and fury signifying
nothing
\_ is there some reason the 3/5ths compromise is suddenly big news on the motd?
did Hillary finally get behind it? Did Reverend Wright vow to travel
back in time and rip Dred Scott limb from limb? What's going on?
\_ is there some reason the 3/5ths compromise is suddenly big news on
the motd? did Hillary finally get behind it? Did Reverend Wright
vow to travel back in time and rip Dred Scott limb from limb?
\_ Rev. Wright would more
likely wish to rip Taney,
CJ, limb from limb.
What's going on?
\_ Assuming this quote is correctly attributed to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Douglass call me crazy, but
on this one I'm going to go with the smart guy who lived through
it over tom.
\_ In what way? Frederick Douglas and tom speak to utterly
different audiences: FD to a world where legalized slavery is
still considered a possibility, whereas tom speaks to a world
where slavery is an abhorrent concept. FD had to be almost
painfully cautious in expressing his beliefs, whereas tom is
free to express his with very little fear of danger to his own
physical person. Had he had his 'druthers, FD might have said
something more strident and provocative. --erikred
\_ FD wrote tons of provocative stuff. Start with the wiki
link. Not buying it. Also tom is claiming the union could
have somehow existed with the south agreeing to end slavery.
No. Ridiculous. If that were the case there would have been
no need of the 3/5th "compromise". You really think they
didn't talk about all this stuff at the time? Wow!
\_ FD also had his house burned down. I'm sure they talked
about it at the time; that doesn't change the fact that
deciding to encode slavery in the Constitution is not
"encouraging freedom." -tom
\_ /shrug. FD was being politic, working with what he had
at the time. It would be interesting to see what he had
to say post-Civil War, Emancipation Proclamation, 14th
Amendment. Also, pp's point vis-a-vis that the union
could not have existed without a 3/5ths compromise is
speculative. Carry on. --erikred |
| 5/25 |
|
| medicolegal.tripod.com/douglassuos.htm#three-fifths-clause This site reprints from the pre-Civil War slavery era, abolitionist Frederick Douglass's lecture, "Unconstitutionality of Slavery." The lecture aims to show by Constitutional and legal principles, that US slavery was unconstitutional. "William M Wiecek, "Somerset's Case," Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, Leonard W Levy and Kenneth L Karst, eds. During the pre-Civil War slavery era, a number of abolitionists wrote books or essays against slavery. They, like Douglass, showed that slavery was unconstitutional pursuant to common law, centuries of precedents, and rights dating back to the Magna Carta of 1215. That 1215 rights document had banned detentions without due process, eg, charges verified by conviction in a jury trial. Wherefore, such abolitionists said it was unconstitutionaland illegal as well, pursuant to anti-kidnaping laws. series of educational sites reprints a number of abolitionist writings. This specific site reprints a 26 March 1860 speech on US constitutional law by Frederick Douglass (1817-1895). Mr Douglass was an abolitionist, and was a particular expert, having himself escaped from slavery (1838). This site reprints his 26 March 1860 lecture, "Unconstitutionality of Slavery." It provides in a brief overview, some of the many principles of constitutional law making slavery unconstitutional. He is explaining, verbally, points of constitutional law, obscure, abstruse, difficult, esoteric, constitutional law. As Douglass's 1860 audience of laymen were not law students nor scholars, nor even had a copy by which to follow along, they did not have that opportunity. Douglass must (and does) therefore in some detail, lay the precise, detailed, obscure, foundation, by way of introducing the subject. He must proceed slowly, meticulously, laboriously, so that the audience, some of whom were hostile and heckling, would understand. the several constitutional law books reprinted in this series. In that era, Americans were traveling to England and Scotland, before the War, seeking their support. Such Americans naturally presented their own legal opinions on slavery, as to whether it was or was not constitutional, attempting to persuade the British to whatever was their individual view. One issue was whether the US should (or would) be dissolved, broken up, as hopelessly pro-slavery. It is still early, on 26 March 1860, in the Election-1860 campaign season and calendar. Lincoln's nomination at the then-future 16-19 May 1860 Republican Convention was then unknown. Even less knowable, even inconceivable, was his then-far-future November 1860 win. These events were then, March 1860, UNKNOWN as not yet having occurred. Interest in Douglass' views was heightened, as a pro-slavery candidate would likely foreseeably once again win. It was that Senator who was expected to be the pro-slavery nominee to run against William H Seward, the then-anticipated Republican nominee. Audiences of that era were prone to heckle or applaud depending on their reactions. While some in the lay audience evidently were Frederick Douglass supporters, others were not, especially as his viewpoint was (as now), generally unknown or disbelieved. The speech as originally published contains hints of audience reactions, outbursts, during the course of the presentation! A fundamental reason this type anti-slavery analysis is nowadays generally unknown is that the pro-Southern viewpoint (their pretense that slavery was constitutional) is the one most presented in textbooks, due to Southerners' ultra-disproprtionate influence in the textbook market. slavery is already unconstitutional,' position, pre-13th Amendment. Douglass admits that when he had first escaped slavery, he had been provided the standard Confederate disinformation claim that slavery was constitutional. This speech revealing the real truth (slavery has always been unconstitutional) is going to be a tense situation, so Douglass must use care. He must use references with which the audience WOULD be familiar. And in doing so, he must use some humor, as any professional speaker would in such a situation. This will be an interesting time for both the speaker and audience! above-cited Southern view disproportionately disinforming modern textbooks. Partem aliquam recte intelligere nemo potest, antequam totum, iterum atque iterum, periegerit. No one can rightly understand any part until he has read the whole again and again. Unconstitutionality of Slavery Lecture Delivered in Glasgow, Scotland 26 March 1860 by Frederick Douglass (London: William Tweedie, Pub, 1860) Frederick Douglass I have witnessed with great pleasure the growing interest in the great question of slavery in this city, and in Scotland generally. Meetings with reference to that question have become more abundant of late than perhaps at any time since the abolition of slavery in the British West Indies. I read with deep interest the speeches made recently at a meeting called to sympathise with and to assist that faithful champion of the cause of my enslaved fellow-countrymen, Dr. has largely recovered his long-lost health, and much of his wonted eloquence and fire; but my chief ground of satisfaction is that its deliveryperhaps I ought to say its publicationfor I would not have noticed the speech had it not been published in just such a journal as that in which it was publishedfurnishes an occasion for bringing before the friends of my enslaved people one phase of the great struggle going on between liberty and slavery in the United States which I deem important, and which I think, -1- before I get through, my audience will agree with me is a very important phase of that struggle. The North British Mail honored me with a few pointed remarks in dissent from certain views held by me on another occasion in this city; but as it rendered my speech on that occasion very fairly to the public, I did not feel at all called upon to reply to its strictures. I stand before you under the fire of both platform and press. that I occupied here when I spoke in another place before you. Let me invite your attention, I may say your indulgent attention, to this very interesting phase of the question of slavery in the United States. He seemed to feel that to discredit me was an important work, and therefore he came up to that work with all his wonted power and eloquence, proving himself to be just as powerful and skillful a debater, in all its arts, high and low, as long practice, as constant experience could well fit a man to be. days, to the anti-slavery cause both in England and America. We all remember how nobly he confronted the Borthwicks and the Breckenridges in other days, and vanquished them. They belong to his past, and will render his name dear and glorious to aftercoming generations. He then enjoyed the confidence of many of the most illustrious philanthropists that Scotland has ever raised up. He had at his back, at those times, the Wardlaws, the Kings, the Heughs, and Robsonsmen who are known the world over for their philanthropy, for their Christian benevolence. he stood up for the dumb, for the down-trodden, for the outcasts of the earth, and not for a mere party, not for the mere sect whose mischievous and outrageous opinions he now consents to advocate in your hearing. When in Glasgow a few weeks ago, I embraced the occasion to make a broad statement concerning the various plans proposed for the abolition of slavery in the United States, but I very frankly stated with what I agreed and from what I differed; but I did so, I trust, in a spirit of fair dealing, of candor, and not in a miserable, man-worshipping, and mutual-admiration spirit, which can do justice only to the party with which it may happen to go for the moment. No difference of opinion, no temporary alienations, no personal assaults shall ever lead me to forget that some who, in America, have often made me the subject of personal abuse, are at the same time, in their own -2- way, earnestly working for the abolition of slavery. On very many accounts, he who stands before a British audience to denounce any thing peculiarly American in connection with slavery has a very marked and ... |
| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Douglass When Douglass was about twelve, Hugh Auld's wife, Sophia, broke the law by teaching him some letters of the alphabet. When Hugh discovered this, he strongly disapproved, saying that if a slave learned to read, he would become dissatisfied with his condition and desire freedom; Douglass later referred to this as the first anti-abolitionist speech he had ever heard. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave (published in 1845), Douglass succeeded in learning to read from white children in the neighborhood in which he lived, and by observing the writings of the men with whom he worked. As he learned and began to read newspapers, political materials, and books of every description, the young Douglass was exposed to a new realm of thought and experience that led him to question and then condemn the institution of slavery. As word spread, the interest among slaves in the local community was extensive enough that on any week over 40 slaves would attend lessons. For about six months, their work went relatively unnoticed. While Freeman himself remained complacent about their activities, other plantation owners became incensed that their slaves had been offered such instruction, and burst in one Sunday armed with clubs and stones to disperse the congregation permanently. In 1833, Thomas Auld took Douglass back from his brother after a dispute ("as a means of punishing Hugh," Douglass wrote). Edward Covey, a poor farmer who had a reputation as a "slave-breaker," where Douglass was whipped regularly. The sixteen-year-old Douglass was indeed nearly broken psychologically by his ordeal under Covey, but he finally rebelled against the beatings and fought back. Covey lost in a confrontation with Douglass and never tried to beat him again. From slavery to freedom Douglass first unsuccessfully tried to escape from Mr Freeman, who hired him out from his owner, Colonel Lloyd. In 1836, he tried to escape from his new owner, Covey, but failed again. The Liberator, and in 1841 heard Garrison speak at a meeting of the Bristol Anti-Slavery Society. At one of these meetings, Douglass was unexpectedly asked to speak, and he told his story and was encouraged to become an anti-slavery lecturer. autobiography, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, which was published in 1845. At the time, some skeptics attacked the book as inauthentic, questioning whether a black man could have produced such an eloquent piece of literature. The book's success had an unfortunate side effect: Douglass' friends and mentors feared that the publicity would draw the attention of his ex-owner, Hugh Auld, who might try to get his "property" back. motto of The North Star was "Right is of no Sex -- Truth is of no Color -- God is the Father of us all, and we are all brethren." Douglass understood that a key way African-Americans could improve their socio-economic status was through education. For this reason, he was an early advocate for the desegregation of schools. While the ratio of African American to white students there was 1 to 40, expenditures on education had a ratio of 1 to 1,600. This meant that the facilities and instruction for African-American children were vastly inferior. In response, Douglass called for court action to open all schools to all children. He even went so far as to claim that inclusion within the educational system was a more pressing need than political issues such as suffrage. This shift in opinion, and other political differences, created a rift between Douglass and Garrison. Douglass further angered Garrison by saying that the Constitution could and should be used as an instrument in the fight against slavery. With this, Douglass began to assert his independence from the Garrisonians. Frederick Douglass Frederick Douglass Douglass and the abolitionists argued that the aim of the war was to end slavery and that African Americans should be allowed to engage in the fight for their freedom. Douglass publicized this in his newspapers and several speeches. As the North was no longer obliged to return escaped slaves to the South, Douglass fought for equality for his people. He made plans with Lincoln to move the liberated slaves out of the South. Grant's vigor in disrupting the Klan made him unpopular among many whites, but Frederick Douglass praised him. An associate of Douglass wrote of Grant that African Americans "will ever cherish a grateful remembrance of his name, fame and great services." Abraham Lincoln's memorial, Douglass was in the audience while a tribute to Lincoln was being given by a prominent lawyer. The tribute was not as successful as some of the audience there would have hoped. Reluctantly, Douglass was goaded by the people to stand up and speak. At first out of respect for the speaker he declined, but eventually he gave in to the pressure and with no preparation gave a fantastic tribute to the President for which he received much respect. In the speech, Douglass spoke frankly about Lincoln, balancing the good and the bad in his memorial. He called Lincoln "the white man's president" and cited his tardiness in joining the cause of emancipation. He noted that Lincoln initially opposed the expansion of slavery but did not support its elimination. citation needed While this is anecdotal, it is a commonly accepted fact that Lincoln's wife gave Douglass Lincoln's favorite walking stick which still rests in Cedar Lodge. This is a testimony both to the success of Douglass' tribute and to the effect and influence of his powerful oratory. two of them, Charles and Rossetta, helped produce his newspapers. He expanded the house from 14 to 21 rooms and included a china closet. One year later, he expanded his property to 15 acres (61,000 m), by buying adjoining lots. Mount Holyoke College (then called Mount Holyoke Female Seminary), and had worked on a radical feminist publication named Alpha while living in Washington, DC The couple faced a storm of controversy as a result of their marriage, since she was a white woman and nearly 20 years younger than he. his was bruised, as they felt his marriage was a repudiation of their mother. February 14 as his birthday because his mother, Harriet Bailey, used to call him her "little valentine". By his calculations, he was born in February 1817, but as described below, historians have found a record indicating his birth in February 1818. Eastern Shore of Maryland, where slaves were punished for learning to read or write and so could not keep records. Eventually, the records of his former owner Aaron Anthony were examined by Dickson Preston, as reported in William McFeely's Frederick Douglass, and these indicated February 1818 to be the birth date. In My bondage and my freedom he wrote: "From certain events, however, the dates of which I have since learned, I suppose myself to have been born about the year 1817". In Life and Times of Frederick Douglas he wrote: "From certain events, however, the dates of which I have since learned, I suppose myself to have been born in February, 1817". Life and Times of Frederick Douglass (1881, revised 1892) * Douglass also edited the abolitionist newspaper The North Star from 1847 to 1851; The North Star was merged with another paper and became Frederick Douglass' Paper. Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! They want the ocean without the roar of its many waters." It is necessary to darken the moral and mental vision and, as far as possible, to annihilate the power of reason." |