Proslavery Constitutionalism

This is where the history of the US gets a bit confusing……can you have an antislavery constitution and proslavery constitutionalism? Or how about the reverse?

Let’s look at these historic conundrum……

Historians today speak of the “proslavery Constitution” and “antislavery constitutionalism”; they almost never speak of the “antislavery Constitution” or of “proslavery constitutionalism.” This fact is a testament to the profound success of the critique of the Constitution leveled by abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison. In his condemnation of the Constitution as proslavery, his resort to Madison’s “Notes from the Constitutional Convention” to demonstrate this case, and his rejection of the Constitution’s authority—all punctuated by his dramatic burning of that document during a Fourth of July address—Garrison has set the terms within which subsequent historical debate on the relationship between the Constitution and slavery has been carried out.

Even historians who disdain Garrison’s caustic critique of the Constitution, who question his partial readings of the Convention’s debates, and who emphasize the development of constitutional arguments that culminated in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments concede at some level Garrison’s premise that the Constitution was intended to be proslavery. Thus, it is sad, but not surprising, to see that the mob rounded up by the New York Times’s “1619 Project” is setting fire to the project of antislavery constitutionalism. Garrison’s belief that the Constitution was intended to be proslavery is an unquenchable fire that will eventually consume all it touches.

The Legend of the Proslavery Constitution

For more information on Garrison……https://www.ushistory.org/us/28a.asp

Here is a look at pro slavery in the early Republic……from the perspective of Univ. of Virginia……

According to the standard view of Southern history, there was a strong antislavery tradition in the South until the 1830’s when the militant abolitionist attacks upon not only slavery but also slaveholders forced Southerners into a defense of their peculiar institution. This view over­ looks, however, the strong proslavery tradition that also existed in the South from 1790 to 1830. This study is an attempt to re-examine this period and consider the proslavery arguments that did exist in the early United States.

Examining sources primarily from the public forum, such as speeches, newspaper articles, and pamphlets, this study focuses upon the proslavery positions presented in the early republic. It looks at not only the actual statements but also the rationale behind them. The defenses used ranged from Biblical sanction and historical precedent to “scientific” evidence, from constitutionalism and economics to social considerations and racism. In each instance, proslavery advocates justified the institution of black slavery, and the way of life based on it, as not only necessary but also beneficial for both whites and blacks.

https://libraetd.lib.virginia.edu/public_view/g445cd210

If you like reading about early American history then may I suggest this book…it is an interesting read…..https://d3p9z3cj392tgc.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/09162520/9781501726446.pdf

Further reading……

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2019/09/30/the-anti-slavery-constitution/

Slavery is a terrible point in our history and to have a complete conversation we need to have all the facts and thoughts….and the ultra-conserv Heritage Foundation tries to explain the Constitution and slavery…..

While all today recognize this momentous accomplishment, many remain confused about the status of slavery under the original Constitution. Textbooks and history books routinely dismiss the Constitution as racist and pro-slavery. The New York Times, among others, continues to casually assert that the Constitution affirmed African-Americans to be worth only three-fifths of a human being.

Ironically, many Americans who are resolutely opposed to racism unwittingly agree with Chief Justice Roger Taney’s claim in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) that the Founders’ Constitution regarded blacks as “so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.” In this view, the worst Supreme Court case decision in American history was actually correctly decided.

read more and you decide……

https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/commentary/what-the-constitution-really-says-about-race-and-slavery

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.