Originally Posted by Pturner

I don't comment on political opinions here, but occasionally will clarify any apparent misstatement of facts.

• The word "slavery" is never used in the constitution.

• The 3/5 designation was in U.S. Contitution and was not, that I know of, mentioned in the Dred Scott Decision. It was, as Richie stated, a compromise between northern and southern states. It did not confer "benefit to the enslaved people". Depending on which side you were on at the time, it either gave the southern states more representation in the U. S. House by allowing them to count slaves as partial people; or it denied southern states some representation in the U.S. House by not allowing them to count slaves as whole people. It also affected how much tax the federal government collected from the southern states.

U.S. Contitution Article 1, Section 2: 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.

• Though the word is not used, the issue of slavery was alluded to in the Constitution in two other places:

Article 1, Section 9: 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.

Article 4, Section 2: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

• The U.S. Constitution did not specifically prohibit women from voting. Nor did it require land ownership for voting. Qualifications for voting were left to the states. So, in effect, women and most non-land owners could not vote.
  
  According to Wikipedia: "At the time of ratification of the Constitution, most states used property qualifications to restrict the franchise; the exact amount varied by state, but by some estimates, over half of white men were barred from voting. [14] In some states, free men of color (though the property requirement in New York was eventually dropped for whites but not for blacks) also possessed the vote."

So, opinions may vary, but these are some of the facts related to the discussion.

WOW....very informative and well researched post.

Nice job, PTurner!

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Don't spin the Constitution, please. Your post is a little deceitful. The Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing. The Founding Fathers said "all men are created equal, with rights endowed by the Creator"; they didn't exclude blacks or women. They knew, in time, that equality would catch up because it was mandated into the Constitution.

Now you can say; oooooooohhhhhhhhhhh, of course.

Right on!!!!

as you can all see no rebuttal for pturner post just more blah,blah,blah.

Originally Posted by waynet

as you can all see no rebuttal for pturner post just more blah,blah,blah.

More blah,blah, blah? Interesting.

Thanks for the clarifications PTurner. I haven't been in an American History class since 1966, so I'm a little rusty, but I remember the basics and what was important; most times anyway.

I not sure what Waynet want's a rebuttal for. It seems you clarified, but did not disagree with my important conclusions of cause and effect of these constitutional issues. Unless I'm missing something here.