Update III (3/3 @ 10:49 a.m.): I’m going to do something today that I haven’t done in a loooong time: go offline. I’ll check via the Treo periodically to approve comments caught in the moderation queue. Enjoy your freedom, and rest easy this weekend!
———————————————————————
Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - Abraham Lincoln
It matters little to me, in 2006, that some of the men who drafted the U.S. Constitution owned slaves or that none of them had people like me in mind when they drafted what is still and will always be the most astounding document ever conceived.
What matters is that the Constitution is mine today. I am a full-blooded, first-class American citizen who possesses all the rights guaranteed in the Constitution and those not given by men: inherent, unalienable, God-given rights.
When I write about my awe of what America’s founders were able to accomplish, I sometimes receive e-mail from blacks who think I’m off my rocker. They can’t understand why I write so favorably about America’s founding, given its history of human bondage.
Slavery, in one form or another, has existed all over the planet, and in some parts of the world (Mother Africa!), it still does. But slavery was abolished in the western world. I believe it was abolished on our own soil because to deprive a class of people their freedom, particularly based on the color of their skin, was inconsistent with the ideals upon which this nation rests. The inherent tension was bound to cause America to break the chains or collapse under the weight.
Whether or not you believe the Civil War was fought “to free the slaves” or was strictly about economics, the war was a pivotal point in our history. Either we were going to be true and faithful to the Constitution and give freedom to all, or we were going to be hypocrites, paying lip service to “freedom” while denying the same to others based on arbitrary notions of who is deserving and who isn’t.
The first ten amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, are unmatched in their respect for the dignity and autonomy of the individual. These amendments act as limits on the government. The government shall not…shall make no law. The people’s rights shall not be infringed…shall not be violated.
What happens to a people who don’t know their rights and freedoms? It’s shameful that some have no understanding or interest in knowing why they’re not thrown in jail for protesting against the government. They may ignorantly believe this is how the world works. Americans, including myself, are a spoiled lot, and most of us take for granted that we won’t face decapitation for marching on Capitol Hill and calling George Bush and Supreme Court judges fascists, or rallying to protest against child murder-supporting politicians.
This morning I planned to write a brief post about this article:
Only one in four Americans can name more than one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition for redress of grievances.) But more than half can name at least two members of the cartoon family, according to a survey.
The study by the new McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that 22 percent of Americans could name all five Simpson family members, compared with just one in 1,000 people who could name all five First Amendment freedoms.
But it turned into another long one.
When I first read the article, it was sadly funny that people know more about “The Simpsons” than their First Amendment rights. Then it was just sad. (Download a PDF copy of the survey)
[Note: The McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum sampled 1,000 adults. Some of the findings: When given a list of freedoms, most recognized that freedom of religion and freedom to criticize the government were FA rights; a majority incorrectly said the right to vote and trial by jury were FA rights; and one in five said the FA guaranteed the right to own and raise pets and drive a car!]
But this is what happens in a technologically advanced society with the sort of leisure that affords indulgence in popular culture tripe. It’s ironic that Americans are free enough to engage in trivial pursuits and not have to fight for basic rights or even know what those rights are or where they came from and how they came to be!
A few notes on our First Amendment rights:
- Freedom of religion — This doesn’t mean we’re free from religion. The Establishment Clause is a limitation on the government, not individuals. The government may not establish an official state religion, but individuals are free to practice their religion without government persecution. It doesn’t mean that the government is forbidden to mention the word “God” or that children in government schools can’t pray or that government schools can’t conduct Bible studies. The Supreme Court, interpreters of the law, decided that religion and the state must be entirely separate and unentangled. The Establishment Clause had no such thing in mind.
[Update: A commenter correctly notes that I gave "short shrift" to the Free Exercise Clause, although I referenced the right to practice religion without persecution.]
- Freedom of speech — Read some notes I made in the Holocaust denial post. I realized early in my blogging adventure how woefully ignorant some were about this freedom. When I deleted vile comments, for example, I was accused of being against “freedom of speech.” Clever types would argue that by deleting their droppings, I was stifling discourse and the free exchange of diverse ideas. So what? The First Amendment doesn’t limit me from restricting speech, as commenters have no such right on this blog. For details, read the comment policy.
- Freedom of the press — A free press is the lifeblood of a democracy/constitutional republic, and that’s not an overstatement. The press, ideally, serves to criticize and investigate the government, and inform the people about what’s going on with their government, among other things. Read this freedom of the press article.
- Freedom to assemble — The people have the right to assemble privately with whomever they choose, with very few exceptions. We have a right to form political groups and meet with others for purposes of political action. We can form private clubs that exclude certain people for any reason. If someone wants to invite only blacks to join his private organization, he has a guaranteed right to do so. If a golf club wants to admit only men and exclude women, a million camera-hogging Jesse Jacksons and irate feminists can’t do a thing about it.
- Freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances — This clause gives us the right sue the government, lobby the government, and to march on Capitol Hill and call our leaders fascists. I found an article that explains this clause pretty well.
Know and understand why you’re free, people, even it means turning off the idiot box while you educate yourselves. In the words of General Douglas MacArthur:
“No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation.”
Bloggers:
- DJ Drummond at Polipundit goes off on imbecilic commenters in a very polite way. He’s a better man than I am.
- Karen Braun at Spunky Homeschool blogs about freedom of choice.
Sources:
- What are your rights? ‘D’oh’
- The National Archives
- Primary Documents in American History
- Rights of the People
- Department of State publications
- First Amendment Center
Update II: One of the issues raised when blogging about the law or detailed subjects is that a post is not a classroom. It’s also not a semester-length course, nor is it meant to be all-inclusive. Reading First Amendment cases would help you understand the law and why courts came to certain conclusions, but I certainly don’t expect busy readers to do that. It would be nice, though. 
In the meantime, I think this outline would be helpful. A commenter mentioned Sharia law, and I think it’s important for people to know that your free exercise of religion stops if it poses a danger to others. No freedom is absolute. See the outline for details.
{ 6 trackbacks }
{ 58 comments }
And what’s unfortunate is the public message war that goes on, duping people to buy into the lie that believing in Jesus and proclaiming it publically is un-American.
La Shawn:
The fifth freedom - to petition the Government - is the one politicians fear the most.
McCain - Feingold undermines this freedom head-on. Likewise, assaults on Internet speech do the same.
Awesome, La Shawn. I wrote about this yesterday on my blog. I would trackback, but I used some unsavory language in the post’s heading! The Simpsons over the First Amendment? We’re a screwed up bunch of morons!
Re: Freedom of Religion
Your discussion focuses on the Establishment Clause, but there are actually TWO religious clauses in the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause is one of them.
The second one, which you give short shrift to, is the Free Exercise Clause.
The Establishment Clause says that government cannot establish a religion. You’ve covered that.
The Free Exercise Clause allows you to worship the religion of your choice freely.
Obviously, the two are related, but the second one (Free Exercise) has a broader impact.
Let me give an example. Suppose the government mandated that students learn the tenets of Catholicism in public schools. This does not violate the Establishment Clause (after all, Catholicism is already established, so the government is not creating it). But it does violate the Free Exercise Clause, since it effectively prohibits parents from raising their kids in the religion of their choice.
So there really is a freedom from religion, and it is protected by the Free Exercise Clause.
Many (including me) would say that this “freedom from religion” can be taken too far, i.e., removing “God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, and so on. So the problem becomes this: where do you draw the line between X’s freedom from religion (or a particular religion) and Y’s freedom to exercise religion (or a particular religion)?
Fortunately, this problem has been dealt with by the Supreme Court over the years. You write that the Supreme Court decided that religion and government must be “entirely separate and untangled”. That’s not true. “The wall” language actually comes from Jefferson. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, says that there must not be “excessive entanglement” between government and religion. It’s a middle road.
The real-world impact means that students can pray in public schools — not only have the courts consistently said this, but even the ACLU takes on cases where religious freedom is denied in schools.
But public schools cannot lead students in prayer, or promote it. In other words, they can neither encourage, nor discourage worship.
And all that relates to the Free Exercise Clause.
It’s a subtle but important distinction, and I think there’s a lot of misinformation about this.
Anyway, thank you for writing this post. I think education on basic rights is important, and that’s why I wanted to add this critical clarification.
P.S. And thank you thank you thank you for pointing out that the First Amendment doesn’t limit you from restricting speech on your blog. Why do people constantly think otherwise?
I didn’t flesh out the free exercise clause, but I did make reference to it: “…but individuals are free to practice their religion without government persecution.” - Admin
Wow! Thanks LaShawn for the condensed lesson on our constitution. I hate to admit it but count me as one of the 999 that would’ve NOT been able to name those freedoms. D’oh!
But thanks to you, I can now.
Thanks La Shawn for the being the teacher for the day for my children. That’s the wonderful thing about homeschooling you can learn from the best!
Thanks for the excellent clarification Kman. It’s definitely sad that most Americans don’t know the very freedoms they enjoy.
And private, independent, and church schools…
Probably approaching 25% and growing. We will soon reach a tipping point.
Actually LaShawn, some of the founding Forefathers tried to abolish slavery with the Declaration of Independence.
Those most noted for it would be Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams.
Do tell! Give us a mini-civics lesson. - Admin
The free exercise clause is a tad misrepresented here and needs a bit of clarification.
There is no right to commit crimes or general abuses under the cover of religion.
This is not a minor point as wife beating under Sharia law has already caused major problems in other Western countries. I am not so certain that the Supreme Court would approve Sharia law in the United States on the basis of the establishment clause.
You’re right, Helio, but I don’t think many people understand that. I’ve had the benefit of reading First Amendment cases. There are certain standards the courts must use to make determinations about the Establisment and Free Exercise Clauses:
http://www.sfasu.edu/polisci/Abel/ConstitutionalLawII/FREEDOMOFRELIGION.htm
It is official, I am a freak. I could name all five.
Thank you La Shawn and others for the education it is important that we understand and protect our Rights that come from God, not the State, “… you have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.” John Adams, Second President of the United States. Thank you all. Bear
I’ll add my thanks as well, LaShawn, not only for the content of the post, but for the heart and soul of the post. You reminded me in a special way what an honor it is to be an American.
I agree with most of what you write, except for this:
“It doesn’t mean that the government is forbidden to mention the word “God†or that children in government schools can’t pray or that government schools can’t conduct Bible studies.”
Now, by “Bible Studies,” I truly hope you mean irreligious, secular studies of the Bible as a cultural and literary document. Because, quite frankly, government funded school cannot be allowed to have religious studies of the Bible as classes. That would not be fair to those of other faiths. If you have studies of the Bible as a religious work, then why not have like studies of the Qur’an, the Hindu Vedas, e.t.c.? Public schools must not incorporate religious classes, and to say that they must is a clear attempt to bring Christianity into the public schools.
If you have studies of the Bible as a religious work, then why not have like studies of the Qur’an, the Hindu Vedas, e.t.c.? Public schools must not incorporate religious classes, and to say that they must is a clear attempt to bring Christianity into the public schools.
Actually, the public schools in several districts do study the Quran and Vedas. In fact, a few years ago, UNC Chapel Hill ((a public, state run school)) required incoming freshmen to read the Quran over the summer and write an essay on it in spite of protests by Christian students. I find it fascinating that these same schools draw the line at similar studies of the Bible.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with state run schools requiring students to read the Bible or the Qur’an or the Vedas as preparation for comparative religion classes, but I do think that they must not run classes which explicitly train students in the religion (religious classes), or encourage the understanding of the Bible/Qur’an/Vedas as divine (which would be based solely on one’s creed.).
I think both Ari and Kman have gone too far in the constitutional limits regarding religion. If students want to have bible studies then certainly are allowed to have them. Students can even have religious clubs.
The limits would be on teachers leading the activities, not the location of the activities.
“Let me give an example. Suppose the government mandated that students learn the tenets of Catholicism in public schools. This does not violate the Establishment Clause (after all, Catholicism is already established, so the government is not creating it). But it does violate the Free Exercise Clause, since it effectively prohibits parents from raising their kids in the religion of their choice.” Comment by Kman — 03.02.06 @ 11:35 am
I would have to disagree with your example, to establish does not mean create. At our founding Massachusetts had a state church, if the government chooses to make it or any other church such as, Baptist or United Methodist the national church that would have violated the establishment clause. They would not have to event the church of the Green Soup goddess to violate the establishment clause.
Forcing students to learn the tenets of Catholicism does not violate the free exercise, by prohibiting parents from raising their kids in the religion of their choice. It merely exposes children to a different religion. Depending on how the class was taught, it might be perfectly acceptable. For example if was offered as an elective and it was covering in a religious survey class most people would not object.
Your term mandate comes closer to a violation of the establishment clause then free exercise, but I do not think it is either. That is probably why judges gave us separation of church and state when they could not find the bright line that prohibited school prayer, and learning to read from the bible, (the it was done for over 100 years.)
The only thing this is solidifying is…
man can not rule man
I HEARD ABOUT YOUR WEBSITE TODAY ON 1380 WAOK TALK RADIO…I’M GLAD I DID!!! TODAY MY BROTHER, YOU’RE TAKING THE WORDS RIGHT OUT OF MY MOUTH AND BROADCASTING THEM FOR ME…FOR THAT, I THANK YOU. THE TIME HAS COME AND GONE FOR ‘US’ TO STOP POINTING THE FINGER!
Actually, I’m a “sister.”
Thanks for stopping by. - Admin
>>THE TIME HAS COME AND GONE FOR ‘US’ TO STOP POINTING THE FINGER!>>
I don’t know where you are, but check out whether Larry Elder is carried on a station in your area…if you like La Shawn, you’ll love Larry! (http://www.larryelder.com)
Life is a classroom, and we all sleep through some of the lessons.
>>The Supreme Court, on the other hand, says that there must not be “excessive entanglement†between government and religion.>>
My understanding is that originally the States were not prohibited from establishing a religion, although the Federal Government was. The Supreme Court apparently found that the prohibition on the Feds extended to the states in about 1948, though I’m not positive about that.
A number of states established religions early on, but I don’t think the change was made as late as 1948. I wish some of my readers were Con law scholars or otherwise knowledgeable about these issues. And comment. I know they’re reading.
“I think both Ari and Kman have gone too far in the constitutional limits regarding religion. If students want to have bible studies then certainly are allowed to have them. Students can even have religious clubs.”
Students may have religious clubs/soceities in schools or Bible studies after school in public schools. That’s fine. What I’d have a major problem with is schools, using taxpayers money, ran explicitly religious classes (You know, stuff like “Holy Bible 101″).
I think that your analysis was a bit off, La Shawn. Here is the First Amendment in the Living Constitution, the true law of the land:
Congress shall make no law respecting Christianity, or allowing the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech of the American Civil Liberties Union, or of the NAACP, or of the National Organization of Women, or NARAL, or al Qaeda, or the Taliban, or the Main-Stream Media; or the right of Code Pink, Mother Sheehan, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton, and anti-globalization forces to assemble (peaceably or otherwise); or the right to count hanging chads in Florida in order to ascend to authority in the Government and avoid a redress of the grievances of the Radical Right.
It’s hard to tell, though. The Living Constitution seems to be a kind of legal Jell-O - all shimmer and no substance.
The founding fathers, wish that we knew more of the founding mothers. The constitution might be one of the greatest human achievements not written by prophets (or apostles), its only real competition would be in Rome when the plebes forced the elites to write the law down in a place where all could read it.
England took the lead in the fight against slavery. A great power spent its blood and treasure against a condition that every corner of the world accepted as normal. The United States was the second most important part of the struggle, second but most uncomfortably a distant second. How interesting that the second most important power in the fight against slavery is mostly given credit as the cause of slavery.
Everyone has different favorites, but one of my favorite (and most telling) of Lincoln’s speeches was the one he gave when he lost the election for senator. I love lawyer jokes, and Abe gave the best one, (am glad we have lawyers, but wish we had 98 % less) except it was not a joke.
The first American Civil war built to its violent clash over a long period of time, will we someday look back to these days as part of the prelude of the second American Civil War?
The tree of Liberty needs to be nourished with the blood of patriots from time to time. I hope that is referring to us.
Amen La Shawn!! its about time American’s realized what their freedoms are!
Its amazing what people thought the first amendment entailed, we REALLY need a history lesson. I believe that it is extremely important for an American to know what our rights are and what they entail.
If we as citizens knew our freedoms, followed the news, and realized that our freedoms are being taken away by the Supreme court would we let things like Eminent Domain and Roe V. wade get through?
I wouldn’t think so.
Ditto!
-KP
“I realized early in my blogging adventure how woefully ignorant some were about this freedom. When I deleted vile comments, for example, I was accused of being against “freedom of speech.†Clever types would argue that by deleting their droppings, I was stifling discourse and the free exchange of diverse ideas. So what? The First Amendment doesn’t limit me from restricting speech, as commenters have no such right on this blog. For details, read the comment policy.”
You speak truth to idiocy.
Thank you, La shawn-it was refreshing to see the the Freedoms clarified. I also appreciate Kman’s clarification. Though I’m not too far into it yet, I picked up “The Federalist” awhile back-very enlightening, and it’s amazing to me that the Constitution which is the backbone of our Country at one time needed to be midwifed by Hamilton, Madison and John Jay. Their persuasive arguments rallied support for it’s acceptance. That it’s acceptance was in danger from partisan states who wanted to create their own individual fiefdoms seems so alien to us now. Thanks again, La Shawn-I’m also proud to be an American.
Slavery is still practiced in 2006. Millions of young people, mostly girls and women, are sold into sexual slavery and many of them living lives of coersion and intimidation and rape and abuse in Western countries, including, yes, the United States. Among the organizations working on this are the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women: http://www.catwinternational.org/ and Amnesty International: http://www.amnesty.org/ . These are not necessarily the organizations doing the most or best work.
A ‘first class’ citizen, does not have to deal with a voting rights act, which is up for renewal. Whether it will pass or not, is not the issue, the issue is that there is no need for such a vote, if all people were indeed looked upon as first class citizens. There is a reason why the institution of slavery, as practiced in america, was referred to as the ‘peculiar institution’ it is vastly different from slavery in ‘ancient’ times. Were africans at war with either america or england to provoke the capture of their people? This was the impetus for many captured in ancient times, although africans may have been in tribal war with one and other, you can not show me an act of aggression from the africans, upon the soil of america or england, that would warrant the wholesale kidnapping of a people. Do your homework people. “blacks” are still considered 3/5ths of a human being in this constitution, is anyone else reffered to as such in that document? And as a show of enlightment and good faith, should that not be stricken from the most ‘beautiful’ of documents? Before any emotional responses, just think if jews or christians, or irish people were referred to in that manner in the u.s constitution, 3/5ths of a human. If it is so antiquated, and does not reflect how ‘americans’ think now, then it sould be reviewed and forever changed to reflect this thinking. This will never happen.
Thank you for printing these exceptions to our rights. Maybe we can rewrite some of these Amendments to incorporate them and make them less vague. We might also rename them after Simpsons characters so that more young people will pay attention to them.
Nice synopsis La Shawn. Thanks!
In addition to the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, which most people cannot recall, there are additional “rights” that are being advocated, that in some cases are held to trump First Amendment rights:
1. The right not to be offended,
2. The right not to be disrespected,
3. The right not to be made uncomfortable in ones workplace,
4. The right not to have the objects of ones religious veneration disrespected,
5. The right to a living wage, with vacations and no excessive overtime,
6. The right not to be unjustly terminated from ones job,
7. The right to vocational training.
Rights 1,2,and 3 are the “PC Rights.” People are being killed over Right #4. Rights 5,6,and 7 are found in the EU Constitution. None of these rights take the form of a “Congress shall make no law” formulation, instead, they all impose obligations or duties on others.
I fear that some of the above rights, particularly the right not to be offended, may find a place alongside the Right to Privacy, under “penumbra” interpretations of a “Living Constitution.” I hope I’m wrong.
Hi La Shawn, I still very much like your blog. But you’re wrong about why the civil war was fought. The south left the union maybe because they didn’t like the north imposing their will on them regarding the economy or slavery. But the war was actually fought because the north attacked to keep the south from leaving. The war was fought to preserve the union. Even Lincoln said he’d be happy if the union was preserved even if it didn’t free a single slave (paraphrased). Anyway, I thought you’d like to know.
I agree with you. Thank God for your commentary.
Because of that Constitution, blacks used it to hold the feet to the fire of those who did not work on our behalf and won, for those who are against the Iraqi war, the Civil War that ended slavery in America lasted 5 years or more yet I have yet to hear any blacks do a body count of those who fought it, yet they count bodies of the Vietnam war. Slavery in America existed because African Kings who blacks like to glorify allowed Europeans to build forts up and down the coast which they themselves held the notes on to profit from while they provided human capital in exchange for inanimate objects; beads, cloth,etc for decades to Europe long before selling our ancestors to America. Yes our ancestors were sold for things because they were undervalued, underestimated, and marginalized. Purchase Orders and inventories were submitted and some of those Kings filled the orders. I know because I read them. You talk about a Katrina video, I would like to see a video on the conversations with the king of Whadah and the like. Though a lot of black so-called leaders, your leaders, don’t teach this part of the history, I had to learn it from a white woman after being loud and wrong about the slave trade, (in essence I was allowed to go into the world angry and ignorant about my history due to cultural conditioning) In-house fighting allowed for a lot of africans to sell their sisters, children, and brothers for THINGS. funny coming from a continent sitting on gold and all the resources one would need. Then here a ficticious “Willie Lynch” letter was created with bogus historical information because the king or queen noted did not reign during that time, not to mention some of the words, there meanings, and terminology had not existed yet. I believe it was concocted like a lot of urban myths to continue the coverup in the contribution africans made to the devastation of the continent being depleted, and the dislocation of families around the globe which is terrible because blacks in America are repeating the same pattern of in-house fighting, division; to conquer and sell whether thru sex trafficking, drug trafficking, splitting up of families to the point too many of our women and children are in shelteers from fleeing abuse, incest, rape, you name it we’ve got the purpetrators of all of them. So for those who have a problem with this country, its laws eventhough there is still work to do, laws have even made it possible for you to go back to africa if you want. But to live here and whine and complain and not thank God for the blessings that have been bestowed upon you is a crime in and of itself. The no. two thing blacks should be doing now is teaching morals to our children God’s Way so they can stop doing what those africans did to devalue one another that made human capital available for the slave trade in the beginning. People of color are not the author of good morals so stop fooling yourselves. My money is on God because the black man has let me down more ways than one. He made it possible for the white man to capitalize off our people. He caused the continent to be in the position it is in today. And I believe it keeps him from acknowledging that by continuing to race-bait everything. And when blacks start using terms like injustice, civil-rights violations, and human-rights violations when it is black on black crime via rapes, incest, murders, etc.; maybe I will think about taking them serious when you scream about a “civil rights violation because the biggest one started on the continent by people of color on people of color. And it continues in Iraq, africa etc. You don’t like this country? Bye, I can get my blessings here as long as I know who my covenant is supposed to be made with GOD. After all, he says “TRUST NO MAN” So before blacks can scream INJUSTICE, look around in your neighborhood and call the injustices out the way you do when you call it out for none blacks doing something to blacks. Because God placed you in one of the most vastly resourceful beautiful continents on the plant and you RUINED it, and now you get to suffer for it. And your children are suffering, and you still don’t have a CLUE WHY. God bless you La Shawn. It’s time our people get some real tough love, they’ve been pimped by their own with too much fiction.
m.g.
I admit I didn’t read all of your post. When you lead with an urban legend, many folks assume the whole thing is misinformed.
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/pending/voting.htm
>>A number of states established religions early on, but I don’t think the change was made as late as 1948. I wish some of my readers were Con law scholars or otherwise knowledgeable about these issues. And comment. I know they’re reading.>>
Not a Con law scholar, but Google works! Found this along with some interesting odd sites… This is about what is supposedly the first case determined by the SC to limit the right of States to establish - or even support - religion in schools. The limitation based on schools seems to be extrapolated to government as a whole. I haven’t read the whole thing…so I’m not positive about all applications.
http://tinyurl.com/olxs7
Went back and reviewed the url I posted. It doesn’t really cover the specific info we’re discussing. Looked elsewhere and found this:
“…In Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947), Justice Black stated:
The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church-attendance or non-attendance. No tax, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or what ever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause … was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State.’ ”
This seems more pertinent… Same decision, just more info.
Here is an article about how the Patriot Act passed with a bipartisan 89-11 vote in teh Senate, yet anti-Americans insist that it is a bad thing.
Read how to expose them in quick debate, here.
http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/03/patriot_act_ren.html
Do your homework people. “blacks†are still considered 3/5ths of a human being in this constitution
M.G.
Yes, I agree you need to do some homework on the reason blacks were considered 3/5ths of a human. It had nothing to do with us not being considered humans and everything to do with the fact that ours was a REPRESENTATIONAL government.
The number of seats a state has to REPRESENT them in Congress and the Senate is proportional to the size of the state’s population.
Because the South had a large slave population, some compromise had to be reached so that the states felt they had equitable representation.
Had the south been allowed to count the slaves as one person, they would have had the majority representation in the congress and senate. Therefore a compromise was met, since the slaves were non-voting citizens.
So, the 3/5ths was not about us being human beings but about POLITICAL POWER distribution between the northern and southern states.
But you’re wrong about why the civil war was fought. The south left the union maybe because they didn’t like the north imposing their will on them regarding the economy or slavery. But the war was actually fought because the north attacked to keep the south from leaving. The war was fought to preserve the union. Even Lincoln said he’d be happy if the union was preserved even if it didn’t free a single slave (paraphrased). Anyway, I thought you’d like to know
Rich, I thought you would like to know that in the articles of succession from the union that each state wrote, slavery is explicitly stated as the reason for their succession. Yes, slavery represented a free labor and therefore it was an economic reason. So slavery was indeed the reason the war was fought.
As the southerns were fond of saying ‘the abolition of slavery would change their entire way of life’…..and indeed it did.
And now the south tries to rewrite history, but the reasons for the war are clearly stated in those articles and if you read them, there is no doubt that slavery was the issue the war was fought and the reason Lincoln said if he could ’save the union’ without freeing the slaves he would.
Whiterosebud
You are argument would make more sense if slaves were not considered “chattle.” As you probably know, slaves were not insured as persons but as property. While your supposition may be plausible, I am not convinced that conveys the true story.
M.G., to say that the Constitution still refers to a black person as 3/5ths of a person is simply incorrect. The Constitution has been changed to reflect the equality of all people. Your assertion to the contrary is a bit curious, given the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, which are the law of the land and supercede any contrary language in the original document.
I might ask what possible good it would do to expunge the original wording from the body of the Constitution, even if such a thing were legally possible. To simply erase part of historical fact does no one any good.
Whiterosebud, maybe I didn’t express it very well. The south left the union for its reasons, slavery, economics, a combination or whatever. If the north had simply let them go, there would have been no war. There would have been two countries.
The reason the war was fought was to keep the south from seceding. It was very much like our war of independence from England. The US declared its independence and England went to war to try and prevent that. Same exact thing happened to start the civil war, just different reasons for declaring independence, that’s all.
Point is, the union didn’t go to war over slavery, ie to free the slaves. Even the Emancipation Proclamation was nothing more than a political ploy that didn’t work. Freeing the slaves was not a real issue during the war for most people, including Lincoln.
Excellent post! Very few people outside of the world of academia seem to understand slavery was worldwide. The United States was only the second country to ever voluntarily give up slavery following Great Britain in 1833. All nations go through stages of economic progress one of which is slavery in order reach our level of economic progress. I repeat, all nations go through slavery. Some you may respond and say that Russia did not have slaves which is pure semantics, a serf is a slave tied to the land.
Also, having so many people in the United States who do not know our fundamental rights is indeed troubling. Freedom requires an educated populace whom know how their rights are derived in order to keep them. In the words of Irving Dillard in “The Spirit of Libertyâ€: “I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, not constitution, no law, no court can save it.†We are in trouble if we as a nation do not wake up and realize that by not knowing our individual and corporate freedoms; our country, our freedoms, our very liberty is at stake. Again, good post.
La Shawn: “It matters little to me, in 2006, that some of the men who drafted the U.S. Constitution owned slaves or that none of them had people like me in mind when they drafted what is still and will always be the most astounding document ever conceived.”
I think this is an important observation. I look at it from a systems perspective.
Power was held primarily by white males. However, it doesn’t matter from a system standpoint. Our founding fathers stood on the shoulders of western thought, and formulated a system to keep power from dominating them.
The key here is that the SYSTEM they developed was designed to prevent tyranny from oppressing anyone in the power class.
As soon as women or minorities are redifined into the power the class, the system protects them through the same dynamics. Those dynamics are not perfect, and it has taken a lot of time and effort to get into the protected class, but that was inherent in the original design.
In my opinion, its the best design in the history of man. The key is making sure that the individual is the core definition of the protected class, regardless of membership in other classes.
La Shawn, excellent post, as usual!!!
And excellent commenting from the usual suspects.
Ciao
Just a thought:
Imagine what if indeed Blacks were considered 5/5ths for representational purposes, instead of the ‘diluted’ 3/5?
Methinks we’d be far behind from where we are today, racism & counter-racism notwithstanding.
Ciao
You are most likely right, Ciao. Just remember the northern states did not want to count slaves at all. So much for the thought that the 1860s south were the ones who were racist.
Chuck W,
When the Constitution was written (long before 1860s) the northern states didn’t want slaves to count for representation in the House, since they could not vote. They didn’t want the slave stated to have representation far beyond their free population. In the north, blacks voted, just like whites.
3/5s was the compromise that came about to keep the slave states from not joining the union, and forming their own country OR joining England again (which at the time, also allowed slavery).
Chuck, I think you missed my point. While each State gets two Senators, each State’s allotment of representatives is a proportion of the State’s population.
To wit, check this out: http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1790a-02.pdf
With my handy-dandy M$ Excel, I’ve extrapolated the following data (1790/91 US Census) based on total population counting the slaves as 5/5 & the # of congressional Representatives that each State would receive**, likewise @ 3/5 & 0/5. Of course, the only ones that get to vote are Free White Male — women, others & slaves need not vote.
==============================================
USA|5/5 REP | # | 3/5 REP | # | 0/0 REP| # |Slave % of Pop
ME | 96,540 | 4 | 96,540.0| 4 | 96,540 | 4 |0.00%
MA |378,787 | 13|378,787.0| 13|378,787 | 13|0.00%
VT | 85,539 | 3 | 85,532.6| 3 | 85,523 | 3 |0.02%
NH |141,885 | 5 |141,821.8| 5 |141,727 | 5 |0.11%
PA |434,373 | 15|432,878.2| 15|430,636 | 15|0.86%
NY |471,116 | 16|469,254.4| 16|466,462 | 16|0.99%
CT |237,946 | 8 |236,840.4| 8 |235,182 | 8 |1.16%
RI | 68,825 | 3 | 68,445.8| 3 | 67,877 | 3 |1.38%
NJ |184,139 | 7 |179,569.8| 6 |172,716 | 6 |6.20%
DE | 59,096 | 2 | 55,541.2| 2 | 50,209 | 2 |15.04%
KY | 73,677 | 3 | 68,705.0| 3 | 61,247 | 3 |16.87%
NC |393,751 | 14|353,522.2| 12|293,179 | 10|25.54%
MD |319,728 | 11|278,513.6| 10|216,692 | 8 |32.23%
GA | 82,548 | 3 | 70,842.4| 3 | 53,284 | 2 |35.45%
VA |747,610 | 25|630,559.2| 22|454,983 | 16|39.14%
SC |249,073 | 9 |206,235.4| 7 |141,979 | 5 |43.00%
Please recall that this census was taken less than 15 years after our Declaration of Independence. So who really had it in for the Slaves?
While it would seem that the Southern States gained much over the original allotment** from this census, it was only because no one really knew what the population was at the time of the constitution.
The 3/5 compromise turned out to be a Pyhrric victory for the Slave owners, as their political strength was indeed diluted over the years to come as that peculiar institution would grow rapidly at the turn of the century hence.
By the way, since women were excluded from voting, did that mean the founding fathers hated them? That they saw women as unsuitable to exercise political power did not necessarily mean that women were any less equal or deserving of the rights given by God that they claim for themselves?
Plus one must remember that even then, the early settlers came from all walks of life & all over Europe. It was not some monolithic migration of Brits. In fact, English barely made it as the official language by one vote over German.
Bottom-line, some saw no problem with holding slaves, some were middle-of-the-road and others were totally against it. If you thot journalism & political passions are red-hot today, try reading some of the ye olde heralds of the day.
The topic of slavery was as hot as abortion, hate crimes, PC or same-sex topics of our day. Look at how long Roe v Wad has been in the politic mix, where there is nominally 2 people (mother & baby) involved, compared to slavery where it could involve a owner and 10s or 100s of slaves.
In any case, those who were against slavery knew that sooner or later we would overcome, just as surely we today pray that we shall overcome our nasty ‘little’ habit of killing our babies.
As natural law would have it, that day will be sooner rather than later simply because of the Roe effect and for lack of a better term, the current conservative baby boom — conservatives tend to have 2+ kids while liberals content themselves with one, if any, ensuring their eventual extinction
**US Constitution, Article 1, Section 2:
Clause 3: 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 to 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. (See Note 2) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
You wrote, “I believe [slavery] was abolished on our own soil because to deprive a class of people their freedom, particularly based on the color of their skin, was inconsistent with the ideals upon which this nation rests. The inherent tension was bound to cause America to break the chains or collapse under the weight.” Jefferson would agree. He put it this way, “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between master and slave is despotism. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free.” (Taken from A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, 1777)
And yet there are those who spend vast amounts of energy petitioning to have the names of Jefferson and Washington removed from public schools, solely on the basis of one fact taken simplistically out of context, the fact they owned slaves.
Jefferson and Washington inherited an economic and social practice that was longstanding, legal and normal in the context of the times, but both men knew it was evil, and both men wanted it ended. Washington freed his slaves, something considered quite radical at the time. Jefferson, as Jim clearly showed above, detested slavery. He even tried to write a condemnation of slavery into the Declaration of Independence, but Congress edited his words out.
The ultimate solution to the issue was not easy, and war was the only thing that worked. 600,000 Americans died in the war that ended slavery. No political plan was ever produced by Congress or by the states which would have ended it. To suggest that these two great men could have somehow waved a magic wand and put an end to slavery, and that because they did not they were evil men, is simplistic beyond belief.
“Freedom is to be free of the need to be free.” quoted from George Clinton’s Free your mind and your a** will follow. Do we as Black people still suffer from the NEGRO FACTOR in 2006?
That is a potent and meaningful line, Ervin. The thought that occurred to me when I read it was the flipside, the fact that liberals today work overtime fighting against that very freedom.
As I understand it, Jefferson and others wanted to end slavery but could not figure out a way to do it that could be done peacefully and without destroying the fragile baby they’d created. The fact that slavery was abolished in the west (primarily by Christian influence) and still goes on in other parts of the world (such as Africa, which Miss Barber notes) is a telling point. We’ve learned from our mistakes and failures and moved on, which is what liberty and virtue allows.
Something important to think about when dealing with history or leaders: failure or being wrong in one area does not mean they are wrong in all areas or worthy of contempt. What they did right, praise, what they did wrong, condemn, and think wisely and rationally about it. I think the founding fathers of the USA did an awful, awful lot very right.
Comments on this entry are closed.