George Orwell wisely noted in 1984, that he who controls the past controls the future and he who controls the present controls the past.

compiled & edited by Daniel Hagadorn

BOB MARLEY
SOURCE: www.kumbaya.com

“But the whole thing, after all, may be put very simply. I believe that it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is better to know than to be ignorant.”[1] —H. L. Mencken (1880-1956)

It is no secret that America’s public school system is failing—badly. Learning “how to think” has been replaced by “what to think.” Education has been replaced by indoctrination and the freedom to discuss important issues of our time has become increasingly restricted. Education bureaucrats (“educrats”) continue to force-feed American students a steady diet of political correctness and trendy multiculturalism—for our own good of course. It would seem that our public high schools and universities have now adopted the motto: “We support your constitutional right to free thinking—as long as you agree with us.”

Consider for a moment, how difficult it is to even discuss an issue like slavery or race without being immediately labeled a “racist” or dismissed as someone who, “just wouldn’t understand.” Rather than engage in honest academic inquiry, educrats are so emotionally attached to their sacred agendas that they become completely unhinged whenever someone suggests that they actually examine such unfamiliar concepts as facts, evidence, or logic. Consequently, today’s politically correct, multicultural climate has caused far too many teachers to believe they are doing minority students “a favor” by cultivating past grievances and telling them how oppressed they are in the present—and how their future will be obstructed by racism. These are the sorts of “friends” who do far more damage than enemies.

In fact, these same “friends” have forced minority public school students to ask themselves a simple question: “Why endure all the hard work, self-discipline, and self-denial required by a first-rate education if ‘The Man’ is going to prevent me from getting anywhere anyway?” Those who have been pushing this myth for years are now suddenly surprised and dismayed to discover that large numbers of minority students across the country regard academic striving as “acting white.” A phenomenon that became a sadly familiar pattern at the public high school where I taught for three years.

On several occasions in the classroom, I noticed that minority students considered speaking correct English, or even observing basic rules of polite society, as “acting white.” Shockingly, white faculty members often cheered them on in their self-destructive behavior or at least “understood” them and defended their actions. In a supreme act of condescension, minorities have been essentially adopted as mascots by the educational establishment. Although mascots serve to symbolize something for others, the actual well-being of the mascot himself is seldom—if ever—a major concern.

Rather than empowering these students with knowledge of the truth, they are often forced to embrace the debilitating and degrading lessons of victimization. Tragically, since “victims” are—by definition—powerless, there is no hope for overcoming such a cruel lie. Gradually, these “victims” are drained of hope and initiative until they lack the confidence to pursue loftier endeavors.

BOOKER T. WASHINGTON

FREDERICK DOUGLASS

LOUIS W. SULLIVAN

THOMAS SOWELL

Booker T. Washington, himself a former slave, repudiated such victimhood. He refused to allow himself to be crushed under the oppressive weight of racism and actually drew strength from the obstacles in his path. Truly, Booker T. Washington is an inspiration for ALL Americans irrespective of skin color:

“I have learned that success is to be measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life as by the obstacles which he has overcome while trying to succeed. Out of the hard and unusual struggle through which he is compelled to pass, he gets a strength, a confidence, that one misses whose pathway is comparatively smooth by reason of birth and race.”[2]

The true story—the largely untold story—is the inspiring history of blacks that overcame seemingly insurmountable odds to enjoy the opportunities provided by our incomparable (if flawed) United States of America. These individuals serve as an inspiration for ALL Americans because they embody OUR shared hopes and dreams. It is tragic that advocates of victimhood negate the astonishing achievements of blacks who managed to thrive DESPITE slavery, discrimination, and prejudice. It is likewise unfortunate that those suffering from “white guilt” have formed an unholy alliance with race-baiters to perpetuate their agendas of grievance. In the end, the price of victimhood has proven extraordinarily steep, as our minority students find themselves imprisoned in an educational system that does little or nothing to explore and develop their vast, unfulfilled potential.

Several great Americans—whose insights remain shamefully forgotten—held views widely divergent from those advanced by today’s politically correct elites.

BOOKER T. WASHINGTON (1856-1915)…influential educator, author, orator, political leader, and former slave:

• “There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs—partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs… There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don’t want the patient to get well because as long as the disease holds out they not only have an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public.”[3]

FREDERICK DOUGLASS (1818-1895)…prominent social reformer, orator, writer, statesman, and former slave:

• “Everybody has asked the question, ‘What shall we do with the Negro?’ I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten 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! Let him alone!”[4]

LOUIS W. SULLIVAN, M.D. (1933- )…chairman of the board of the National Health Museum in Atlanta, GA… chairman of the Sullivan Alliance to Transform America’s Health Professions…  founding dean and President Emeritus of Morehouse School of Medicine… chairman of the President’s Commission on Historically Black Colleges and Universities (2002-2009)… co-chairman of the President’s Commission on HIV and AIDS (2001-2006):

• “The tragic truth is that the language of ‘victimization’ is the true victimizer—a great crippler of young minds and spirits. To teach young people that their lives are governed—not by their own actions, but by socio-economic forces or government budgets or other mysterious and fiendish sources beyond their control—is to teach our children negativism, resignation, passivity, and despair.”[5]

THOMAS SOWELL (1930- )…influential author… Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution (Stanford University)… Professor of Economics at UCLA (1974-1980) and Amherst College (1977)… Project Director at The Urban Institute (1972-1974)… Associate Professor of Economics at Brandeis University (1969-1970)… Assistant Professor of Economics at Cornell University (1965- 1969)… Economic Analyst at AT&T (1964-1965)… Lecturer in Economics at Howard University (1963-1964)… Instructor in Economics at Douglass College, Rutgers University (1962-1963)… Labor Economist, U.S. Department of Labor (1961-1962):

“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were necessary for some people in some places. But making these things the cause of the rise of most blacks only betrays an ignorance of history.

“The most dramatic rise of blacks out of poverty occurred before the civil rights movement of the 1960s.[6] That’s right—before. But politicians, activists and the intelligentsia have spread so much propaganda that many Americans, black and white, are unaware of the facts.

“There is a lot of political mileage to be gotten by convincing blacks that they owe everything to the government and could not make it in this world otherwise. Dependency plus paranoia equals votes. But blacks made it in this world before the government paid them any attention.

“Nor has the economic rise of blacks been sped up by civil rights legislation. More blacks rose into professional ranks in the five years preceding passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than in the five years after its passage.[7]

“What moved blacks up was a rapid increase in education. There was certainly discrimination but, in many fields that demanded higher levels of education, there were not that many blacks to discriminate against in the first place.”[8]

Slavery has always been among the most abhorrent and self-evident evils ever perpetrated in the annals of recorded human history. However, it is interesting to note that while slavery was common to ALL cultures, both civilized and uncivilized, only ONE civilization developed a moral revulsion against it—Western Civilization.

This fact begs several questions:

• What explains the tenacity with which educational elites indoctrinate captive student audiences into the modern, politically correct view of slavery?
• Since slavery is a worldwide evil, why do these same elites maintain such a rigidly narrow view on the scope of its history?
• Why do so many elites use this evil—which has plagued mankind for thousands of years—to focus so completely upon the present-day uses of that historic evil?

Thomas Sowell notes that ironically, it is often those most critical of a “Eurocentric” worldview who are themselves the most Eurocentric when it comes to assigning blame for the evils and failings of the human race. Clearly, scoring ideological points against Western civilization, or inducing guilt to coerce benefits from the white population today, are greatly enhanced by making enslavement appear to be a peculiarly white, or at least American, crime.

Before examining the relationship between American slavery and the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, it would be instructive to briefly review the history of the institution itself.

• During the Middle Ages, Slavs (Eastern Europeans) were so widely used as slaves in both Europe and the Islamic world that the actual word for “slave” derived from the word for Slav—not only in English, but also in other European languages, as well as Arabic.[9]
• The people of the Balkans were enslaved by fellow Europeans, as well as by the peoples of the Middle East, for at least six centuries before the first Africans were brought to the Western Hemisphere.[10]
• At least one million Europeans were enslaved by Muslim pirates in North Africa from 1500 to 1800.[11]
• China, in centuries past, was described as “one of the most comprehensive markets for humans beings in the world.”[12]
• There were more slaves in India than in the entire Western Hemisphere.[13]
• More Africans were enslaved in the Islamic countries of the Middle East, Europe, and North Africa than in North America.[14]
• Even at the peak of Atlantic slave trade, Africans retained more slaves for themselves than they sent to the Western Hemisphere.[15]

For centuries—since the spread of slavery was limited by geography—people were enslaved because they were vulnerable and NOT because they belonged to a particular race. In other words, Europeans enslaved Europeans, Africans enslaved Africans, Asians enslaved Asians, etc. Therefore, to make racism the driving force behind slavery is to make a historically recent factor the cause of an institution that originated thousands of years earlier. This enshrinement of racism as an over-arching causal factor aligns far more closely with current agenda of multiculturalism than with the historical record.[16]

Moreover, until the Revolutionary Era, no serious effort had EVER been undertaken to dismantle the vile institution of slavery. Consider the following:

JOHN JAY (1745-1829)… Founding Father… President of Continental Congress (1778-1779)… U.S. Ambassador to Spain (1779-1782)… Co-author of the Federalist Papers (1788)… Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court [1st] (1789-1795)… Governor [NY] (1795-1801):

• “Prior to the great Revolution, the great majority…of our people had been so long accustomed to the practice and convenience of having slaves that very few among them even doubted the propriety and rectitude of it.”[17]

• “It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused.”[18]

• “That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent, as well as unjust and perhaps impious, part.”[19]

Contrary to what is commonly taught in public high school and college classrooms, most of the Framers despised slavery and actively sought its demise. The Revolution represented a turning point in colonial attitudes—and it was the Framers who contributed significantly to that shift. Indeed, several of the Framers vigorously railed against England’s forceful imposition of slavery upon the original 13 colonies. In fact, Thomas Jefferson was among the most vehement critics of the British system of slavery during the pre-Revolutionary War era.[20]

THOMAS JEFFERSON (1743-1826)… Founding Father… Author of the Declaration of Independence… Delegate to 2nd Continental Congress [VA] (1775-1776)… Governor [VA] (1779-1781)… Delegate to Congress of the Confederation [VA] (1783-1784)… U.S. Ambassador to France (1785-1789)… U.S. Secretary of State [1st] (1790-1793)… U.S. Vice President [2nd] (1797-1801)… U.S. President [3rd] (1801-1809):

• “He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither… Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce [King George III opposed efforts to prohibit the slave trade].”[21]

Jefferson’s opposition to the institution of slavery remained steadfast after America won her freedom from England:

• “The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other… And with what execration [curse] should the statesman be loaded, who permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other… And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.”[22]

HENRY LAURENS (1724-1792)… Founding Father… Signatory Articles of Confederation… Delegate to 2nd Continental Congress [SC] (1776)… President of 2nd Continental Congress (1777)… U.S. Ambassador to Holland (1779-1780)… Delegate to Constitutional Convention [SC] (1788):

• “I abhor slavery. I was born in a country where slavery had been established by British Kings and Parliaments as well as by the laws of the country ages before my existence… In former days there was no combating the prejudices of men supported by interest; the day, I hope, is approaching when, from principles of gratitude as well as justice, every man will strive to be foremost in showing his readiness to comply with the Golden Rule.”[23]

In fact, several colonial attempts to thwart slavery had met with determined resistance from the British Parliament:

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN (1706-1790)… Founding Father… Signatory Declaration of Independence & U.S. Constitution… U.S. Postmaster General [1st] (1775-1776)… U.S. Ambassador to France (1778-1785)… U.S. Ambassador to Sweden (1782-1783)… Governor [PA] (1785-1788):

• “…a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even he Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed.”[24]

Even before the Continental Congress (1774-1789) was convened, Pennsylvania Quakers became the first whites to condemn slavery in either the American colonies or Europe, and later played a crucial role in the abolitionist movement. Quakers denounced slavery as early as 1688, when four German Quakers organized a protest in Pennsylvania. Influential leaders John Woolman and Anthony Benezet likewise protested against slavery and demanded that Quaker society sever ties with the slave trade.[25]

In 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America’s first antislavery society, while John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. When William Livingston heard of Jay’s society, he promptly wrote them expressing his support and requesting membership in their organization.

WILLIAM LIVINGSTON (1723-1790)… Founding Father… Signatory U.S. Constitution… Delegate to Continental Congress [NJ] (1774-1776)… Governor [NJ] (1776-1790)… Delegate to Constitutional Convention [NJ] (1787):

• “I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the society in New York] and… I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity… May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke.”[26]

In a separate correspondence to his friend James Pemberton, Livingston added these sentiments:

• “I hope we shall at last, and if it so please God I hope it may be during my life time, see this cursed thing [slavery] taken out… For my part, whether in a public station or a private capacity, I shall always be prompt to contribute my assistance towards effecting so desirable an event.”[27]

Several of the Framers who owned slaves as British citizens released them in the years following the separation of the 13 colonies from England (e.g., George Washington, John Dickinson, Caesar Rodney, William Livingston, George Wythe, John Randolph of Roanoke, et. al.). Furthermore, a number of Framers never owned ANY slaves. One of these men was John Adams.

JOHN ADAMS (1735-1826)… Founding Father… Signatory Declaration of Independence… Delegate to 1st Continental Congress [MA] (1774)… Delegate to 2nd Continental Congress [MA] (1775-1778)… U.S. Ambassador to Holland (1782-1788)… U.S. Ambassador to England (1785-1788)… U.S. Vice President [1st] (1789-1797)… U.S. President [2nd] (1797-1801):

• “[M]y opinion against it [slavery] has always been known… [N]ever in my life did I own a slave.”[28]

Further confirmation that the Virginia Framers attempted to dismantle the foul institution of slavery was provided by John Quincy Adams (known as the “hell-hound of abolition” for his tireless crusade against slavery).

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS (1767-1848)… U.S. Ambassador to Holland (1794-1797)… U.S. Ambassador to Prussia (1797-1801)… U.S. Senator [MA] (1803-1808)… U.S. Ambassador to Russia (1809-1814)… U.S. Ambassador to England (1814-1817)… U.S. Secretary of State [8th] (1817-1825)… U.S. President [6th] (1825-1829)… U.S. Representative [MA] (1831-1848):

• “The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself [Jefferson]. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country [England] and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves.”[29]

Although Jefferson personally introduced a bill designed to abolish slavery[30], it is important to note that opposition to the institution was not unanimous among the Southern Framers. According to testimony from Virginians James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Rutledge, it was the Framers from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia who were the strongest proponents of slavery.[31]

However, despite the pro-slavery sentiments of those States, the clear majority of Framers detested the evil institution. For instance, on one occasion, several Southern pro-slavery advocates invoked the Bible in support of slavery, which prompted a forceful response from Elias Boudinot.

ELIAS BOUDINOT (1740-1821)… Founding Father… State Assemblyman [NJ] (1775)… Delegate to 2nd Continental Congress (1777-1778, 1781-1783)… President of Continental Congress (1782-1783)… U.S. Representative [NJ] (1789-1795)… Director of U.S. Mint (1795-1805):

• “[E]ven the sacred Scriptures had been quoted to justify this iniquitous traffic [slavery]. It is true that the Egyptians held the Israelites in bondage for four hundred years…but…gentlemen cannot forget the consequences that followed: they were delivered by a strong hand and stretched-out arm and it ought to be remembered that the Almighty Power that accomplished their deliverance is the same yesterday, today, and for ever.”[32]

Note these additional examples of the anti-slavery positions uncompromisingly embraced by several influential American figures:

JOHN WITHERSPOON (1723-1794)… Founding Father… Signatory Declaration of Independence & Articles of Confederation… President of Princeton University [6th] (1768-1794)… Delegate to Continental Congress [NJ] (1776-1782):

• “[I]t is certainly unlawful to make inroads upon others [slaves]…and take away their liberty by no better right than superior force.”[33]

GEORGE MASON (1725-1792)… Founding Father… “Co-Father of the Bill of Rights”… Delegate to Constitutional Convention of 1787 [VA]:

• “As much as I value a union of all the States, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade [slavery].”[34]

JOHN DICKINSON (1732-1808)… Founding Father… Signatory Articles of Confederation & U.S. Constitution… Delegate to Continental Congress [PA] (1774-1776)… Delegate to Continental Congress [DE] (1779-1781)… Governor [DE] (1781-1782)… Governor [PA] (1782-1785)… Delegate to Constitutional Convention of 1787 [PA]:

• “As Congress is now to legislate for our extensive territory lately acquired, I pray to Heaven that they may build up the system of the government on the broad, strong, and sound principles of freedom. Curse not the inhabitants of those regions, and of the United States in general, with a permission to introduce bondage [slavery].”[35]

RICHARD HENRY LEE (1732-1794)… Founding Father… Signatory Declaration of Independence & Articles of Confederation… President of Continental Congress [12th] (1784-1785)… U.S. Senator [VA] (1789-1792):

• “Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us who profess the same religion practice its precepts…by agreeing to this duty.”[36]

PATRICK HENRY (1736-1799)… Founding Father… Governor [VA] [1st & 6th] (1776-1779) (1784-1786)… Delegate to Constitutional Convention [VA] (1788):

• “I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil. Everything we do is to improve it, if it happens in our day; if not, let us transmit to our descendants, together with our slaves, a pity for their unhappy lot and an abhorrence of slavery.”[37]

CHARLES CARROLL of CARROLLTON (1737-1832)… Founding Father… Signatory Declaration of Independence… U.S. Senator [MD] (1789-1792):

• “[W]hy keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil.”[38]

JOSEPH REED (1741-1785)… Founding Father… Signatory Articles of Confederation… Adjutant-General Continental Army… Delegate to Continental Congress [PA] (1778)… Governor [PA] (1778-1781):

• “Honored will that State be in the annals of history which shall first abolish this violation of the rights of mankind [slavery].”[39]

JAMES WILSON (1742-1798)… Founding Father… Signatory Declaration of Independence & U.S. Constitution… Delegate to Continental Congress [PA] (1776-1777)… Delegate to Constitutional Convention of 1787 [PA]… Associate Justice of U.S. Supreme Court (1789-1798):

• “Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over the life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law… The reasons which we sometimes see assigned for the origin and the continuance of slavery appear, when examined to the bottom, to be built upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment of their persons and of their property, the common law protects all.”[40]

OLIVER ELLSWORTH (1745-1807)… U.S. Senator [CT] (1789-1796)… Delegate to Constitutional Convention of 1787 [CT]… Chief Justice of U.S. Supreme Court [3rd] (1796-1800):

• “All good men wish the entire abolition of slavery, as soon as it can take place with safety to the public, and for the lasting good of the present wretched race of slaves.”[41]

BENJAMIN RUSH (1746-1813)… Founding Father… Signatory Declaration of Independence… Delegate to 1st Continental Congress [PA] (1774)… Treasurer of U.S. Mint (1797-1813)… Delegate to Constitutional Convention [PA]:

• “Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity… It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is a usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men.”[42]

LUTHER MARTIN (1748-1826)… Founding Father… Delegate to Constitutional Convention of 1787 [MD]… State Attorney General [MD] (1818-1822):

• “[I]t ought to be considered that national crimes can only be and frequently are punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave-trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master.” [10]

NOAH WEBSTER (1758-1843)… “Father of American Scholarship and Education”… Founder Connecticut Society for the Abolition of Slavery (1791)… Published An American Dictionary of the English Language (1828):

• “Justice and humanity require it [the end of slavery]—Christianity commands it. Let every benevolent…pray for the glorious period when the last slave who fights for freedom shall be restored to the possession of that inestimable right.”[43]

Frederick Douglass, former slave and arguably America’s most important abolitionist, clearly believed that the Framers opposed slavery when he asserted:

• “But I differ from those who charge this baseness on the framers of the Constitution of the United States. It is a slander upon their memory, at least, so I believe. There is not time now to argue the constitutional question at length—nor have I the ability to discuss it as it ought to be discussed. The subject has been handled with masterly power by Lysander Spooner, Esq., by William Goodell, by Samuel E. Sewall, Esq., and last, though not least, by Gerritt Smith, Esq. These gentlemen have, as I think, fully and clearly vindicated the Constitution from any design to support slavery for an hour… [L]et me ask, if it be not somewhat singular that, if the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slave-holding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it.”[44]

Douglass makes a persuasive point since the Articles of Confederation (our nation’s first constitution) also made no mention of slavery. Under the Articles, congressional representation was organized with each state responsible for selecting its own representatives. For that reason, state population—which later became a critical issue for the future House of Representatives—was irrelevant. Furthermore, because the question of fugitive slaves and the idea of an abolitionist movement were issues almost unheard of as late as the 1780s, there is no mention of them in the Articles. The Fugitive Clause in Article 4 comes closest, but even that brief reference related to convicts not slaves.

Moreover, the Framers scrupulously avoided the words “slave” and “slavery” in the text of the U.S. Constitution. Instead, they used phrases like “importation of Persons” in Article 1, Section 9 for the slave trade, “other persons” in Article 1, Section 2, and “person held to service or labor” in Article 4, Section 2 for slaves. Not until the 13th Amendment (adopted 6 December 1865) was slavery specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The amendment employed the term to avoid any ambiguity as to exactly what the words were eliminating. Later, the 14th Amendment (adopted 9 July 1868) eliminated the euphemisms “other persons” and “three-fifths clause”.

Nevertheless, slavery remained a contentious issue for Congress to address. For that reason, a compromise was reached in Article 1, Section 9, which expressly limited Congress from prohibiting the “Importation” of slaves before 1808. However, after 1808 Congress immediately passed a law abolishing the slave trade, effective 1 January 1808.

In addition to fighting these political battles, several prominent Framers were also members of anti-slavery societies and included: Richard Bassett, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, and Zephaniah Swift, et. al. Furthermore, based in part on the efforts of these Framers, the constitutions of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts expressly abolished slavery in 1780[45]; Connecticut and Rhode Island followed in 1784[46]; Vermont in 1786[47]; New Hampshire in 1792[48]; New York in 1799[49]; and finally, New Jersey in 1804[50]

Moreover, the reason that Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery vis-à-vis congressional mandate (Northwest Ordinance of 1787), was largely due to the efforts of Constitutional Convention delegate, Rufus King.[51] The Ordinance, signed into law by President George Washington[52], prohibited slavery in those territories.[53] Unsurprisingly, Washington signed the law and subsequently declared:

• “I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].”[54]

The Framers planted and nurtured these early abolitionist seeds from which the recognition of black equality and the eventual end of slavery would later blossom. This fact was further clarified by Bishop Richard Allen, a former slave from Pennsylvania who was later freed after converting his master to Christianity. Allen, a close friend of Benjamin Rush and several other anti-slavery Framers, later founded the first fully independent black denomination in the United States, the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church in 1816.

In an early address “To the People of Color,” he explained:

RICHARD ALLEN (1764-1831)… Founder of the AME Church (1816)… “Conductor” of the Underground Railroad (1797-1831)

• “Many of the white people have been instruments in the hands of God for our good, even such as have held us in captivity, [and] are now pleading our cause [emancipation] with earnestness and zeal.”[55]

While the Framers made great strides towards ending the institution of slavery, their efforts would not reach fruition until generations later. Yet, somehow in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, charges persist that the Framers failed to practically recognize that “all men are created equal.”[56]

In fact, politically correct revisionists have even claimed that the U.S. Constitution proves the Framers considered blacks to be “only three-fifths of a person.” This assertion is yet another blatant falsehood. The three-fifths clause was NOT a measurement of human worth; rather, it was an anti-slavery provision designed to limit the political power of Southern slaveholders by denying them additional representatives in Congress. Moreover, it also provided the South with a significant incentive to emancipate their slaves, since these Freedmen would then count as “five-fifths” of a person (for the purposes of representation).

Once emancipated, these former slaves would have given the South additional representation and greater legislative power. Consequently, (since Freedmen often outnumbered whites in the southern states) their presence would cripple any attempts by “pro-slaveryites” to regain political power. (NOTE: Free blacks already had the right to vote in several northern states and were not affected by the three-fifths compromise).

As the always eloquent Gouverneur Morris sarcastically inquired of the Southern delegates:

GOUVERNEUR MORRIS (1752-1816)… Founding Father… Signatory Articles of Confederation & U.S. Constitution… Delegate to Continental Congress [NY] (1778)… Delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 [PA]… U.S. Minister to France (1792-1794)… U.S. Senator [NY] (1800-1803):

• “Are they [slaves] admitted as citizens? Then why are they not admitted on an equality with White Citizens? Are they admitted as property? Then why is not other property admitted to the computation?”[57]

Elbridge Gerry added his own biting retort to the Southerners:

ELBRIDGE GERRY (1744-1814)… Founding Father… Signatory Declaration of Independence & Articles of Confederation… Delegate to Continental Congress [MA] (1776-1780, 1783-1785)… Delegate to Constitutional Convention of 1787 [MA]… U.S. Representative [MA] (1789-1793)… Governor [MA] (1810-1812)… U.S. Vice President [5th] (1813-1814):

• “If Georgians can count their slaves, can New Englanders count their cattle?”[58]

Based on James Madison’s meticulous notes of the Constitutional Convention, two prominent professors offer further clarification on the true meaning of the three-fifths clause:

DR. THOMAS G. WEST

DR. THOMAS G. WEST (1945- )…Professor of Politics at Hillsdale College (2011- )… Professor of Politics at the University of Dallas (1974-2011)… Director & Senior Fellow of the Claremont Institute… B.A. Cornell University (1967)… U.S. Army Lieutenant (1969-1970)… Ph.D. Claremont Graduate University (1974)… Author of Vindicating the Founders: Race, Sex, Class, and Justice in the Origins of America (1997)

“[T]he Constitution allowed Southern States to count three-fifths of their slaves toward the population that would determine numbers of representatives in the federal legislature. This clause is often singled out today as a sign of black dehumanization: they are only three-fifths human. But the provision applied to slaves, not blacks. That meant that free blacks—and there were many, North as well as South—counted the same as whites.”[59]

[In the interest of full disclosure to Republican and Democrat readers, both Drs. Walter E. Williams and Thomas Sowell are Libertarians].

DR. WALTER E. WILLIAMS (1936- )… B.A., M.A., & Ph.D. Economics UCLA… Doctor of Humane Letters Virginia Union University, Grove City

DR. WALTER E. WILLIAMS

College… Doctor of Laws from Washington & Jefferson College… John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics (1980- )… Author of over 150 publications which have been published journals Economic Inquiry, American Economic Review, Georgia Law Review, Journal of Labor Economics, Social Science Quarterly, Cornell Journal of Law & Public Policy, Newsweek, Ideas on Liberty, National Review, Reader’s Digest, Cato Journal, Policy Review… Author of America: A Minority Viewpoint; The State Against Blacks (PBS documentary “Good Intentions”); All It Takes Is Guts; South Africa’s War Against Capitalism; Do the Right Thing: The People’s Economist Speaks; More Liberty Means Less Government… Author of nationally syndicated weekly column published by 140 newspapers/web sites… Member of board of directors at Grove City College, Reason Foundation, Hoover Institution… Member of advisory boards at Cato Institute, Landmark Legal Foundation, Institute of Economic Affairs, Heritage Foundation… Fellowships and awards from Foundation for Economic Education Adam Smith Award, Hoover Institution National Fellow, Ford Foundation Fellow, Valley Forge Freedoms Foundation George Washington Medal of Honor, Veterans of Foreign Wars U.S. News Media Award, Adam Smith Award, California State University Distinguished Alumnus Award, George Mason University Faculty Member of the Year, Alpha Kappa Psi Award.

• “It was slavery’s opponents who succeeded in restricting the political power of the South by allowing them to count only three-fifths of their slave population in determining the number of congressional representatives. The three-fifths of a vote provision applied only to slaves, not to free blacks in either the North or South.”[60]

Why do revisionists so often and so broadly misrepresent the three-fifths clause? Dr. Williams continued:

• “Politicians, news media, college professors, and leftists of other stripes are selling us lies and propaganda. To lay the groundwork for their increasingly successful attack on our Constitution, they must demean and criticize its authors. As Senator Joe Biden [D-DE] demonstrated during the Clarence Thomas hearings, the framers’ ideas about natural law must be trivialized or they must be seen as racists.”[61]

Having grown up in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania’s Richard Allen housing projects (his neighbors included a young Bill Cosby), Dr. Williams developed an insightful perspective on these issues that present some troubling implications for our modern society. He further clarifies:[62]

“So many Americans graduate high school and college having learned what to think as opposed to acquiring the tools of critical, independent thinking. Likewise, they have learned little about our nation’s history. As such, they fall prey to the rhetoric of political charlatans and quacks.

“Now let’s turn to history. Dr. Condoleezza Rice said, in an October 2003 speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, ‘When the Founding Fathers said ‘We the People,’ they did not mean me. My ancestors were considered three-fifths of a person.’ Though not Dr. Rice’s intention, this common misunderstanding of history is often used to discredit the great men who founded our nation—without telling the whole story.

“The Founding Fathers struggled over the issue of slavery. George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, Patrick Henry and others were highly critical of slavery, describing it as a ‘lamentable evil,’ ‘disease of ignorance,’ ‘oppressive dominion’ and ‘an inconsistency not to be excused.’

“The delegates at the 1787 Philadelphia Constitutional Convention had to negotiate many contentious deal-breaking issues. Slavery was one of those issues. The Southern states made it clear that they wouldn’t vote to ratify the Constitution if it abolished slavery or ended the slave trade. Delegates from slave states wanted slaves counted as whole persons for the purposes of determining representation in Congress. That would have given the South greater political power.

“Delegate James Wilson offered a compromise whereby slaves would be counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of determining the number of representatives a state had in the House of Representatives. The corresponding compromise established 1808 as the year the international slave trade would be abolished.

“There’s little question that slavery is an abomination and a gross violation of human rights, but the Founders had to decide whether there’d be a Union. Had morality been their sole guide, the Constitution would have never been ratified and a Union would not have been created.

“One question we might ask those who condemn the Founders is whether black Americans would be better off or worse off today with the Northern states having gone their way and the Southern states having gone theirs, and as a consequence no U.S. Constitution and no Union.

“Americans’ ignorance of our history and inability to think critically has provided considerable ammunition for those who want to divide us in pursuit of their agenda. I don’t usually buy into conspiracy theories, but it’s tempting to think America’s charlatans, quacks, and demagogues are in cahoots with the teaching establishments at our government schools and colleges to dumb down the nation.”

DR. THOMAS SOWELL (1930- ) B.A. Economics, magna cum laude Harvard College (1958), M.A. Economics Columbia University (1959), Ph.D. Economics University of Chicago (1968)… Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution (1980- )… Professor of Economics at UCLA (1974-1980), Visiting Professor of Economics at Amherst College (1977), Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (1976-1977), Project Director, The Urban Institute (1972-1974), Associate Professor of Economics at UCLA (1970-1972), Associate Professor of Economics at Brandeis University (1969-1970), Assistant Professor of Economics at Cornell University (1965-1969), Economic Analyst at AT&T (1964-1965), Lecturer in Economics at Howard University (1963-1964), Instructor in Economics at Rutgers University (1962-1963), Labor Economist at U.S. Department of Labor (1961-1962)… Author of On Classical Economics (2006); Black Rednecks and White Liberals (2005); The Quest for Cosmic Justice (1999); Conquests and Cultures (1998); Migrations and Cultures (1996); The Vision of the Anointed (1995); Race and Culture: A World View (1994); A Conflict of Visions (1987); Ethnic America (1981); Knowledge and Decisions (1980); Say’s Law: An Historical Analysis (1972).

Dr. Sowell—himself a product of Harlem, New York—expands on these modern suppositions and provides valuable insight into the factors destroying opportunities for black success, particularly in the inner cities:[63]

“If the share of the black vote that goes to the Democrats ever falls to 70 percent, it may be virtually impossible for the Democrats to win the White House or Congress, because they have long ago lost the white male vote and their support among other groups is eroding. Against that background, it becomes possible to understand their desperate efforts to keep blacks paranoid, not only about Republicans but about American society in general.

“Liberal Democrats, especially, must keep blacks fearful of racism everywhere, including in an administration [2005] whose Cabinet includes people of Chinese, Japanese, Hispanic, and Jewish ancestry, and two consecutive black Secretaries of State. Blacks must be kept believing that their only hope lies with liberals.

“Not only must the present be distorted, so must the past—and any alternative view of the future must be nipped in the bud. That is why prominent minority figures that stray from the liberal plantation must be discredited, debased and, above all, kept from becoming federal judges.

“A thoughtful and highly intelligent member of the California Supreme Court like Justice Janice Rogers Brown [a potential appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court] must be smeared as a right-wing extremist, even though she received 76 percent of the vote in California, hardly a right-wing extremist state. But desperate politicians cannot let facts stand in their way.

“Least of all could they afford to let Janice Rogers Brown become a national figure on the federal bench. The things she says and does could lead other blacks to begin to think independently—and that in turn threatens the whole liberal house of cards. If a smear is what it takes to stop her that is what liberal politicians and the liberal media will use.

“It’s ‘not personal’ as they say when they smear someone. It doesn’t matter how outstanding or upstanding Justice Brown is. She is a threat to the power that means everything to liberal politicians. The Democrats’ dependence on blacks for vote’s means that they must keep blacks dependent on them.

“Black self-reliance would be almost as bad as blacks becoming Republicans, as far as liberal Democrats are concerned. All black progress in the past must be depicted as the result of liberal government programs and all hope of future progress must be depicted as dependent on the same liberalism. In reality, reductions in poverty among blacks and the rise of blacks into higher level occupations were both more pronounced in the years leading up to the civil rights legislation and welfare state policies of the 1960s than in the years that followed.

“Moreover, contrary to political myth, a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But facts have never stopped politicians or ideologues before and show no signs of stopping them now.

“What blacks have achieved for themselves, without the help of liberals, is of no interest to liberals. Nothing illustrates this better than political reactions to academically successful black schools.

“Despite widespread concerns expressed about the abysmal educational performances of most black schools, there is remarkably little interest in those relatively few black schools which have met or exceeded national standards. Anyone who is serious about the advancement of blacks would want to know what is going on in those ghetto schools whose students have reading and math scores above the national average, when so many other ghetto schools are miles behind in both subjects. But virtually all the studies of such schools have been done by conservatives, while liberals have been strangely silent.

“Achievement is not what liberalism is about. Victimhood and dependency are.

“Black educational achievements are a special inconvenience for liberals because those achievements have usually been a result of methods and practices that go directly counter to prevailing theories in liberal educational circles and are anathema to the teachers’ unions that are key supporters of the Democratic Party.

“Many things that would advance blacks would not advance the liberal agenda. That is why the time is long overdue for the two to come to a parting of the ways.”

Our country desperately needs to dissolve the distinctions of race and remember that WE are ALL Americans. Principles must replace partisan talking-points and traditional right/left party alliances if we are to transcend the bigotry and discrimination fostered by political correctness, multiculturalism, and social[ized] justice.

At the end of the day, the most important question to answer is simply this: Has a sense of special grievance ever helped advance any people in any nation for any reason—or has what happened in centuries past been exploited by historical revisionists as a distraction to incite counterproductive divisiveness? The “elites” are relentless in their attempts to divide Americans against Americans using any available means, and one of their most effective weapons has been to play the victim card—any color will do.