What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?
Elevate your Independence Day by reading this moving 1852 oration by Frederick Douglass in its entirety. There is so much to appreciate in this speech, it is difficult to select excerpts. But here is one passage I particularly like:
by James A. Colaiaco
For more on Spooner and Douglass's version of orginalism you can look at Was Slavery Unconstitutional Before the Thirteenth Amendment? Lysander Spooner's Theory of Interpretation
(Civil comments only.)
But, your fathers, who had not adopted the fashionable idea of this day, of the infallibility of government, and the absolute character of its acts, presumed to differ from the home government in respect to the wisdom and the justice of some of those burdens and restraints. They went so far in their excitement as to pronounce the measures of government unjust, unreasonable, and oppressive, and altogether such as ought not to be quietly submitted to. I scarcely need say, fellow-citizens, that my opinion of those measures fully accords with that of your fathers.Or this:
Must I undertake to prove that the slave is a man? That point is conceded already. . . . It is admitted in the fact that Southern statute books are covered with enactments forbidding, under severe fines and penalties, the teaching of the slave to read or to write. When you can point to any such laws, in reference to the beasts of the field, then I may consent to argue the manhood of the slave. When the dogs in your streets, when the fowls of the air, when the cattle on your hills, when the fish of the sea, and the reptiles that crawl, shall be unable to distinguish the slave from a brute, there will I argue with you that the slave is a man!Or this:
What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour. Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.But later he turns to the Constitution:
But it is answered in reply to all this, that precisely what I have now denounced is, in fact, guaranteed and sanctioned by the Constitution of the United States; that the right to hold and to hunt slaves is a part of that Constitution framed by the illustrious Fathers of this Republic.He then concludes with what could have been a paean to the Internet and other liberating technologies:
Then, I dare to affirm, notwithstanding all I have said before, your fathers stooped, basely stooped"To palter with us in a double sense:And instead of being the honest men I have before declared them to be, they were the veriest imposters that ever practised on mankind. This is the inevitable conclusion, and from it there is no escape. 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.
And keep the word of promise to the ear,
But break it to the heart.""[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."
Fellow-citizens! there is no matter in respect to which, the people of the North have allowed themselves to be so ruinously imposed upon, as that of the pro-slavery character of the Constitution. In that instrument I hold there is neither warrant, license, nor sanction of the hateful thing; but, interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT. Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? Is it at the gateway? or is it in the temple? It is neither. While I do not intend to argue this question on the present occasion, let 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. What would be thought of an instrument, drawn up, legally drawn up, for the purpose of entitling the city of Rochester to a tract of land, in which no mention of land was made? Now, there are certain rules of interpretation, for the proper understanding of all legal instruments. These rules are well established. They are plain, common-sense rules, such as you and I, and all of us, can understand and apply, without having passed years in the study of law. I scout the idea that the question of the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of slavery is not a question for the people. I hold that every American citizen has a right to form an opinion of the constitution, and to propagate that opinion, and to use all honorable means to make his opinion the prevailing one. Without this right, the liberty of an American citizen would be as insecure as that of a Frenchman. . . .
Now, take the constitution according to its plain reading, and I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it. On the other hand it will be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery.
I have detained my audience entirely too long already. At some future period I will gladly avail myself of an opportunity to give this subject a full and fair discussion. [Which he does in his 1860 Speech in Glasgow that borrows much from the writers he cites above but with substantial additional argumentation of his own. If someone has a good link, please post it in comments.]
Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country. There are forces in operation, which must inevitably work The downfall of slavery. "The arm of the Lord is not shortened," and the doom of slavery is certain. I, therefore, leave off where I began, with hope. While drawing encouragement from the Declaration of Independence, the great principles it contains, and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age. Nations do not now stand in the same relation to each other that they did ages ago. No nation can now shut itself up from the surrounding world, and trot round in the same old path of its fathers without interference. The time was when such could be done. Long established customs of hurtful character could formerly fence themselves in, and do their evil work with social impunity. Knowledge was then confined and enjoyed by the privileged few, and the multitude walked on in mental darkness. But a change has now come over the affairs of mankind. Walled cities and empires have become unfashionable. The arm of commerce has borne away the gates of the strong city. Intelligence is penetrating the darkest corners of the globe. It makes its pathway over and under the sea, as well as on the earth. Wind, steam, and lightning are its chartered agents. Oceans no longer divide, but link nations together. From Boston to London is now a holiday excursion. Space is comparatively annihilated. Thoughts expressed on one side of the Atlantic are, distinctly heard on the other. The far off and almost fabulous Pacific rolls in grandeur at our feet. The Celestial Empire, the mystery of ages, is being solved. The fiat of the Almighty, "Let there be Light," has not yet spent its force. No abuse, no outrage whether in taste, sport or avarice, can now hide itself from the all-pervading light. The iron shoe, and crippled foot of China must be seen, in contrast with nature. Africa must rise and put on her yet unwoven garment. "Ethiopia shall stretch out her hand unto God." In the fervent aspirations of William Lloyd Garrison, I say, and let every heart join in saying it:For more on Douglass and this speech see. Frederick Douglass and the Fourth of July (Hardcover)
God speed the year of jubilee
The wide world o'er!
When from their galling chains set free,
Th' oppress'd shall vilely bend the knee,
And wear the yoke of tyranny
Like brutes no more.
That year will come, and freedom's reign,
To man his plundered rights again
Restore. . . .
by James A. Colaiaco
For more on Spooner and Douglass's version of orginalism you can look at Was Slavery Unconstitutional Before the Thirteenth Amendment? Lysander Spooner's Theory of Interpretation
(Civil comments only.)
Jefferson would have been more believable if he did not condone the same things he has condemned in the above draft. Many of the founders showed a curious and schizophrenic personality on the question of slavery. However, as far as the constitution goes, they left most of this schizophrenic personality behind, and showed true wisdom and a measure of greatness. And to the credit of the British, they got rid of slavery a fair bit before the Americans did.
I do remember, however, a certain episode in the West Wing which referred to one of the amendments to the constitution counting a black person to be 3/5'ths of a white person.
It is quite telling, in terms of what the Founders recognized regarding the implications of their principles, that "slavery" and "slave" do NOT appear in the Constitution. Neither does the 14th amendment mention slavery.
Bottom line: best not to get lessons in constitutional interpretation from The West Wing...
"Other persons" aren't free persons, bondservants, or Indians, so the only group it can refer to is slaves. It does not mean "black persons"; there were free blacks in every state in the Revolutionary War period, and "free persons" obviously included them. Slavery was a reality, and at that time the economic basis of several states, but the writers preferred to use a complex circumlocution rather than directly recognizing it in the Constitution.
This clause in section 9 affected the slave trade among other issues:
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
IIRC, Congress forbade the importation of slaves in 1808, as soon as this clause allowed.
-Throw the kids in jail to protect them.
-If it doesn't work, try the same thing, harder.
-They're disrepecting authority! Throw them in prison forever!
Gross overgeneralization. Given Douglass's life experience, education, etc. he was in no position to make this statement with accuracy. To say that being a slave in a country supposedly designed to protect human liberty is bad and hypocritical is nothing less than the truth, but to make it the worst in the world, no, I don't think so. I daresay that place would have been his families' continent of origin, in Africa, where slaves were still being taken by their neighbors and sold by Arab traders.
Wickard v. Filburn
How, exactly, can you be free when the government can make growing food illegal?
With the exception of a few things (writing utensils, religious icons, etc.) the govt can make anything that is bought and sold, or anything that may be bought and sold, illegal.
Still think you are free?
Enjoy your license, lament your lost freedon.
I need only remind people that it just a few years ago, it was illegal to for gay people do what straight people do -- engage in consensual sexual relations. And we still don't have the same rights to job protection that straights do.
Krish: The schizophrenia of Southern thought relative to Slavery is evident in many writings leading up to the Civil War, and even beyond. I cited Jefferson's DoI draft as one of the most prominent. This dovetails with Douglass' citation of "bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy."
RKV: I would agree that Douglass was engaging in a flight of demagoguery in equating slavery in the US to the rest of the world. I don't know about Africa (although Thomas Sowell has opined that, for all the injustice heaped upon them in the US, blacks here have still had it better than their cousins in their native continent), but in general, the plight of the slave in the Caribbean and South America was far worse than even the Deep South.
My thoughts today are for that man who stands in the path of a bullet intended for me.
He was doing well until he got to this part. The Constitution is a lot of things, but a glorious liberty document it is not.
- Josh
The Supreme Court has twice since Dred Scott reaffirmed its power to pronounce which subclasses of human beings fall within and without the capacity personhood and for having legal rights. It do so half a century agor, in Johnson v. Eisentrager, when it declared that the Bill of Rights lacks "extraterritorial application", and again two decades later, in Roe v. Wade, when it declared it to lack "prenatal application."
The 13th Amendment, however, represents an intentional if very partial check on the power of the Supreme Court to declare whole classes of human beings to be entirely beyond the powere of law. It was specifically and intentionally designed to apply to precisely those classes of human beings to which the Supreme Court had specifically declared the Bill of Rights otherwise did not apply. Exactly and precisely those classes. If it did not apply to such classes, it would never have had any application.
The 13th Amendment holds that so long as it is in our "jurisdiction", a human being -- any human being, whether or not a "person" -- has some modicum of rights, including a penumbra of Congresionally determinable and enforcable rights under the Enforcement Clause -- that the Supreme Court was under instructions not to take away. And it does not matter that the Supreme Court might have found that citizens constitutional rights require denying such recognition. The Supreme Court had precisely so held in Dred Scott. And the very purpose of the 13th Amendmnent was to overturn that holding and restrain the Supreme Court from repeating it.
But people like Frederick Douglas, Martin Luther King, and Thurgood Marshall had the vision to see the potential greatness in this country despite the evil of their times. They were patriots when being a patriot was hard.
I am constantly amzed at the misinterpretation of the historical basis for this rule. THe positions of the two sides were as follows:
Slave States We deserve proportional representation in COngress based upon all the humans in our state
Free States If they aren't free you can't count them.
The no-weight for slaves position, then, was to limit the legislative power of the slave states. The compromise of 3/5ths did not leave either side happy. But it was anti-slavery forces who were arguing for less than 100%...
Do you also agree with Spooner's argument in "No Treason - The Constitution of No Authority" that the Federal Government is illegal and immoral?
Take the leap into anarcho-capitalism!
You weren't asking me, of course, but I think the answer is quite clearly "no." I'm no fan of drug prohibition, but I think you would have to put (1) decades of Jim Crow/segregation/institutional racism and, of course, (2) the WWII imprisonment of Japanese Americans well ahead of drug prohibition.
Considering that Professor Barnett owns and operates LysanderSpooner.org, I am sure he is at least sympathetic.
In any case, you should note that slavery was mostly a state and not a federal responsibility.
Drug laws and firearm restrictions most certainly have damaged liberties. Firearm restrictions were nearly all related to fears about freed slaves and came in advance of drug prohibitions, which were not prohibitions at all in the beginning but taxes, a fairly obvious admission that government had no right to prohibit them constitutionally.
Technology did not directly end slavery, however change in technology is a significant driving force in social change, often in ways that may not be immediately apparent. Advances in agriculural technology have over time rendered the slave laborer obsolete. The end of slavery was sparked by a dramatic event (the civil war), but the social factors relating to changing technology played a role in the change coming to pass at all.
A similar example is the rise of the female workforce. Similarly, it was driven by a dramatic event (WWII), but it was made possible by technology-driven changes in the nature of labor and child-rearing. Namely, in modern societies not dependant upon farming, there is considerably less of an economic benefit to having children. Thus, women of the society spent much less time pregnant, and had more time to engage in other activities. Additionally, with machines slowly taking over the physical aspects of labor, it became easier for women to take over jobs traditionally reserved for men. The war provided an impetus for the change to take place, but technology made the change viable in the first place.
I'd agree that taking a view that new technology will automatically solve all problems rather than proactively trying to solve them is foolish. However, don't discount technology's role completely.
Even when that "proactivity" costs almost 620,000 lives, and the destruction of an entire society?
It's the same problem as representation, but with the interests reversed because a penalty is involved rather than a benefit.
Randy R,
Gay people have all the same rights that everyone else does, including job protection. In fact gay people have more job protection then straights do.
Do you also agree with Spooner's argument in "No Treason - The Constitution of No Authority" that the Federal Government is illegal and immoral?
He did for many years, but he recently repudiated that view in Reclaiming the Lost Constitution (for very spurious reasons, IMHO). If you were more familiar with anarchism, you would know that Prof. Barnett wrote one of the seminal works on anarcho-capitalism: The Structure of Liberty.
- Josh
RKV’s point logically followed from mine--it’s hard to be a patriot when your country treats you like dirt. People like Frederick Douglas, MLK, and Thurgood Marshall had to be visionary to see the greatness of this country through the smog of slavery and Jim Crow.
I won’t re-fight the swift boat/draft dodging wars here, but as to "denigrating" the service of our current president, he chose to run for the highest office in this county. People have the right to judge his record. That’s a lot different than spitting on someone who just came back from a combat tour.
You'll have to enlighten me about which "proactive" solution you're talking about. The civil war was certainly about much more than slavery. Similarly, I don't think the aim of declaring war on Germany was to encourage women to join the workplace. Also, neither of those wars destroyed any societies that I'm aware of.
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/dougorat.htm
Where, in public life today, are such men and women of honor with the integrity of honesty, compassion, courage,and justice? Perhaps only on the battlefields, defending the most innocent and helpless.