First let me say I love you boys from below the mason-dixon. Due my time spent in the Carolinas I know what I'm about to step into, so I won't take any offense to those who will inevitably call for my death in a slow immolation without honor but here it goes.

The founders understood that slavery was completely incompatible with the Constitution. Even in the original draft of the Declaration of Independance James Madison tried to blame George III for the slave trade, and it was later taken out when it was decided that the declaration was stronger without it. (fn. 1)

George Washington: "There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of [slavery]."

Benjamin Franklin: "Slavery is an atrocious debasement of human nature."

John Adams: "Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the total extirpation of slavery from the United States....I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in abhorrence."

James Madison: "Great as the evil [of slavery] is, a dismemberment of the union would be worse." (fn 2)

These quotes demonstrate the ideology of our founders at the writing of the Constitution. They understood the fact that abolition of slavery would mean the document would not be ratified, thereby aborting the greatest experiment in human history before it got started. They also understood that slavery was not compatible with the Constitution.

In light of this, they instituted two very important things into the Constitution that they believed would cause the phasing out and eventual death of slavery in America.


Firstly the infamous "3/5ths Clause", found in article 1 section 2.

"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 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."

This clause has been used (wrongly and completely out of context) by pinko's of all colors to denounce the founders and call them racists. This is the main point also of many marxist's claims that Blacks where only thought of little more than half a person.

Here's reality. Forget slavery for one second and think of the purpose of this clause. Our Congress is bicameral made up of two parts. The senate and house of representatives. Section two of Article one in the constitution sets up this legeslature and denotes where representatives come from. Each state was to have two senators. But the House would be full of representaives and each state would get a different number based on population. More populaion in your state, more representatives. More representatives more political POWER for THAT state.

Slave states wanted slaves to count. Why? Did they think it was a good idea to let them vote? They wouldn't be alowed to anyway. Equal under the law? Definately not. For example the 1790 census shows that the slave population in South Carolina was 77% of the white population! A huge number. In fact in 1820 the slaves outnumbered free whites. Similar numbers could be seen in both Virginia and Georgia. (fn. 3)

The founders could not let slaves be counted in the census because they feared that slavery would never be abolished. The slave state's would have too much voting power. It was hard enough, (and still is) to amend the Constitution and rightfully so. The founders made it so to try and prevent things like the Patriot Act or Obamacare.

The slave states of course insisted that slaves be counted. So the two sides, in the intrest of ratifying the constitution agreeed on a comprimise to allow every slave to count as 3/5ths of a unit instead of one.

The 3/5ths clause was an effort by the founders to limit the voting power of slave states to allow a window by which slavery could eventually be abolished through the Amendment process.


Secondly, the "Twenty Year Clause" found in Article 1 but Section 9.

"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

Okay so let's see. This says that any person importation "may" be taxed by Congress. What slave was going to be paying ten dollars for his "admission" to a state? None. This clause is not about taxing immigration like my hippie father suggests. It's a tax on importers of the "Persons being admitted", or in laymens terms it was a tax that could be levied on each slave brought over, not to exceed ten bucks.

So what? Well Ten dollars don't sound like much to you and me but in 1787 that was alot of money. Especially for a wealthy slave trader. And that was the idea, to make it less and less profitable and eventually end the slave trade.

(I guess this also shows that it IS Constitutional for congress to put high taxes on things it dosn't like.)

So next time some asshole tells you the Constitution was racist slap hip with truth.

But here's where Dixie rises up, rolls right across Gettysburg and you southern boys crush my little sanctuary on the reservation.

THE POINT: This Constitution, as ratified, was the FIRST attempt by the federal government to peacefully and over time end slavery. Join or Die right? The founders believed that if the union were to fall apart we would all succumb to a foreign power. And considering the climate of the time, I think they were spot on. There was France to fuck us. (French and Indian War) Spain was around too. It took the Red Coats how long to leave AFTER the revoulution. And of course that little matter of the War of 1812 I surely think that Britan was still a threat.

This is just the founders and our Constitution trying to abolish slavery while keeping our great nation in tact at it's argueably most vulnerable moment.

There has been many, many examples since of slave states making efforts to not only continue slavery, but to expand it to new territories to ensure "the Paculiar Institution's" survival. The founders clearly meant for it to die.

Fever pitch had risen in this country in the late 1850's leading up to the War of Northern Aggression. The anti-slavery movement was incredible. The Dred-Scott case, John Brown at Harpers Ferry, and most damningly the Wanderer issue, which is just one of many examples that southern courts were unwilling to enforce laws involving slavery.

And when the founders design to eliminate slavery finally became a reality in 1860 with the election of Abraham Lincoln. The writing was on the wall and Slavery knew it. The founders INTENDED for this to happen. But what they had not intended was this:

The deep South suceeded, but went on the offensive. By March 1861 state troops nabbed an enormity of Union property that should have been handed over. Federal post offices, custom houses,arsenals and especially the Mint in New Orleans with about half a million worth of silver and gold. Fort Johnson on James Island had fallen to the South Carolinians, and Fort Sumter was next. In light of this of what he was facing, I applaud Lincolns decision. War was brought to him anyway.

My Opinion:

Regardless of a pitiful 1600 blacks putting on a grey uniform, bottom line is this. If the boys in blue won slavery would end, and if the boys in grey did it would have continued. How many German-Americans left these shores to answer Hitler's call to arms? I should reaserch the numbers but it was alot. It dosn't validate the cause they fought for.

I doubt any southerners here would have liked to see slavery continue, but may I know personally would have liked a victory for the Confederacy. At least they did until I handed out a copy of the Confereate constitution.

Did the outcome trash states rights? You bet it did. And we've been paying the price for the past century. We are truly slaves through taxation.

In what manner does the Constitution best preserve individual rights? How is it strongest? Allowing slavery, empowering state governments enough power to continue it? Or freeing an entire race by slapping down state's right to sucession? I don't know, I'm torn. I do know that if a man is allowed to be enslaved due to his race that you can use any reason to take his liberty. I'm sure that was a thought that a few white guys in blue had. Shit from that perspective it wasn't just Rebs that were fighting for Constitutional principles or their OWN freedom, Yanks fought for thiers too.

Despite our founders best efforts to do so peacefully, through legislation, the United States (as a whole)ended up solving the slavery issue with war. Will we now solve the state's rights issue with another?

Good Luck Montana with your new fire-arms legislation, and to Arizona and Texas on their legislative assault on the federal government. We all need it.

And if not, well i suppose history will again repeat itself, for better or worse...