Blacks and the U.S. Constitution

[Manji2012]

I am very confused because of my lack of understanding U.S. history.

I have friend that always goes against the usefulness of the Constitution every time I bring it up.

He points out that originally the U.S. Constitution was never intended for Black People. All men are created equal has nothing to with Black people so, why should Black people support something that was never intended for them or "us" because, i'm Black.

The last thing he said to me was something about, "The words in the Constitution needs to be redefined."

That I am thinking, "Hasn't it already. Aren't we Black People acknowledged as human beings?"

He told me that I am regarded as a human being because I am Black. Is this true?

When Ron Paul looks at me, a Black Man, does he think that I am not a human being and not at all worthy of rights underneath the Constitution?

I am the type of person that thinks that more people were more free after the United States Constitution was established. Woman had to fight to be more free and so did Black People.

Just because it was not intended for my people, I do not reject it. I accept it. It works. Let freedom ring!

[Flash]

I think Ron Paul even admits the Constitution is just a peice of paper that is suppose to reinforce God-given natural rights. It's true the original Constitution was made for White men and some here would argue the Constitution isn't the most Libertarian document.

[TinCanToNA]

Indeed, the Constitution has what we consider today to be severe flaws. "Three-fifths of all other persons" comes to mind. At the time, though, and through many Amendments, it is just about the best there is.

The primary problem now is that the creep away from not just the wording but the intent of the Constitution has crept so far that people are starting to feel it. Not just the strict Constitutionalists, but everyone.

[CitizenPlain]

...

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well, I can understand why black folks might think that...they did get a bad rap. Actually, the only ones back then who had voting rights were property owners. Over time, the US Constitution has been amended to include ALL Americans ...and it is much better for us to stand shoulder to shoulder under the umbrella of the Constitution which binds the hands of government than to live as slaves/serfs under tyranny...and of all the people who have struggled to be free, the black folks should never want the government to have their foot on their necks again. I'm glad you're here. Tones

[Kludge]

The Constitution should not be supported just because it's "The Law". If your friend opposes the government and ideas in the Constitution, I think it would only be rational that he oppose it. I think the Framers were arrogant in believing the laws they made should have special protections, and I do doubt the usefulness of the Constitution, but the Bill of Rights has been essential in securing civil liberties while "representatives" continue to try stretching definitions as far as they can to infringe on our liberties. I support the Bill of Rights only because it supports me, but that is an individual choice for every person to make, individually.

History is irrelevant: the Constitution (Bill of Rights) now protects everyone.

[Jason T]

The early civil rights movement wasn't nearly as politicized as it is now. Many of the leaders of the early civil rights movement (1860s-1930s) were (what we'd consider) libertarians, and believed the constitution to their advantage.

It wasn't until the 1960s that the civil rights movement turned into a big government movement. Not only did they find an ally in LBJ, but the Dixiecrats left the part for the republicans.

-----------

I'm honestly not too well read on this subject. I watched the video of Andrew Napolitano speaking about his book "Dred Scott's Revenge" at Cato, and they discussed the history of the civil rights movement.

I suggest looking at Cato.org, I would assume they have papers about the 'libertarian streak' of the early civil rights movement.

[mport1]

It is best to disregard the Constitution in favor of complete liberty (http://www.completeliberty.com). The Constitution is full of contradictions and supports immoral actions.

[LibertyEagle]

I think Ron Paul even admits the Constitution is just a peice of paper that is suppose to reinforce God-given natural rights. It's true the original Constitution was made for White men and some here would argue the Constitution isn't the most Libertarian document.

And that would be primarily the anarchists who believe that. Ron Paul however, is all about reinstating the Constitution and the rule of law. Interestingly, that is also depicted in the Mission Statement of this forum.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=206519

Manji, yes, the Constitution applies to all Americans. Nice to have you here, by the way. :)

[Cowlesy]

Let freedom ring!

Let freedom ring, friend!

[Galileo Galilei]

I am very confused because of my lack of understanding U.S. history.

I have friend that always goes against the usefulness of the Constitution every time I bring it up.

He points out that originally the U.S. Constitution was never intended for Black People. All men are created equal has nothing to with Black people so, why should Black people support something that was never intended for them or "us" because, i'm Black.

The last thing he said to me was something about, "The words in the Constitution needs to be redefined."

That I am thinking, "Hasn't it already. Aren't we Black People acknowledged as human beings?"

He told me that I am regarded as a human being because I am Black. Is this true?

When Ron Paul looks at me, a Black Man, does he think that I am not a human being and not at all worthy of rights underneath the Constitution?

I am the type of person that thinks that more people were more free after the United States Constitution was established. Woman had to fight to be more free and so did Black People.

Just because it was not intended for my people, I do not reject it. I accept it. It works. Let freedom ring!

This is a good issue to bring up. I, as a white person, always have to remind myself that 200 years ago, issues regarding race were much different and more unjust than today.

But the U.S. Constitution does not take any power away from black people. The injustices against black people were found in the state laws and state constitutions, not in the US Constitution.

The Constitution even contained an incentive to get rid of slavery, the 3/5th rule.

The 3/5th rule reduced the representation of the slave-holding states in congress and in the Electoral College.

By getting rid of slavery, any state would increase their representation.

For example, suppose a southern state had 500,000 white people and 500,000 black slaves.

They would get House representation proportional to 800,000.

But if they banned slavery, they would get representaion proportional to 1,000,000.

Since a 50-50 split was common in the South, getting rid of slavery would jump House representation by 25% and Electoral College representation by almost as much.

[paulitics]

I am very confused because of my lack of understanding U.S. history.

I have friend that always goes against the usefulness of the Constitution every time I bring it up.

He points out that originally the U.S. Constitution was never intended for Black People. All men are created equal has nothing to with Black people so, why should Black people support something that was never intended for them or "us" because, i'm Black.

The last thing he said to me was something about, "The words in the Constitution needs to be redefined."

That I am thinking, "Hasn't it already. Aren't we Black People acknowledged as human beings?"

He told me that I am regarded as a human being because I am Black. Is this true?

When Ron Paul looks at me, a Black Man, does he think that I am not a human being and not at all worthy of rights underneath the Constitution?

I am the type of person that thinks that more people were more free after the United States Constitution was established. Woman had to fight to be more free and so did Black People.

Just because it was not intended for my people, I do not reject it. I accept it. It works. Let freedom ring!

The so called intellectuals, otherwise known as propagandists and liars created this myth that blacks were subhuman; that they couldn't think the same, or even feel pain the same way. This was ingrained in people's culture for generations before the constitution was ever made. As you know, they created this myth for purposes primarely for $$$$, but the sheeple bought this myth back then because of ignorance, and selfishness. This just goes to show you that people will buy anything if those with power beat it into your skull enough times.

Anyway, about the constitution and declaration of independence. Many of the founders wanted to eliminate slavery, esp Jefferson who called it a "moral depravity" and an "abominable sin". But, there were problems. The slave trade originating from Africa, and Muslim states, was in full effect across the world. From a financial standpoint, many industries were dependent on it and would fight against it. And people were taught to be racists towards blacks from generations before, which became ingrained in the culture.

Again, this is a complex issue, but the elite professors love to denigrate the constitution and the founding fathers by making a moral argument that there was no other purpose to the experiment, other than protecting white, property owning males. Since they hate the constitution, they try and attach something heinous to something good, in order to cloud people's judgement, and negate everything good that came out of a revolutionary idea.

Through shear logic, one should understand the constitution had nothing to do with slavery, and the issue is much more complex than this. From the inception of this country's independence, the movement was to END slavery, and each new state introduced into the union was banned from introducing slavery. This was progressive. Getting rid of an established tradition that existed hudreds of years where $$$ was involved, proved harder.