[xxballinboi786]

i have a debate in class tomorrow, anyone wanna pitch in with their opinions? thanks

[SoYank]

Have you ever read the U.S. Constitution? In a matter of a couple of minutes I was able to find three clauses within the original (unamended) text that can be interpreted to support slavery.

[Taittinger]

Originally Posted by SoYank

Have you ever read the U.S. Constitution? In a matter of a couple of minutes I was able to find three clauses within the original (unamended) text that did support slavery.

Can you cite the references? Which Articles?

[SoYank]

Originally Posted by Taittinger

Can you cite the references? Which Articles?

Yes, I can. But does that really help the OP? To try to debate the U.S. Constitution without having read it is rather silly, wouldn't you agree?

But if it helps, Article I (2x) and Article IV (1x)

[xxballinboi786]

Originally Posted by SoYank

Have you ever read the U.S. Constitution? In a matter of a couple of minutes I was able to find three clauses within the original (unamended) text that can be interpreted to support slavery.

thanks for posting them...

[Taittinger]

Originally Posted by SoYank

Yes, I can. But does that really help the OP? To try to debate the U.S. Constitution without having read it is rather silly, wouldn't you agree?

But if it helps, Article I (2x) and Article IV (1x)

I would question whether Article I supports it or merely acknowledges it. Article IV does to a greater extent but, again, I would not define it as supporting the institution. It would depend on what the OP meant by supporting.

[SoYank]

Originally Posted by Taittinger

I would question whether Article I supports it or merely acknowledges it. Article IV does to a greater extent but, again, I would not define it as supporting the institution. It would depend on what the OP meant by supporting.

That is your prerogative and I can see your point. Here is how I interpret my references.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3:

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. <<SNIP>>

This considered non-slave women and children part of the "whole Number of free Persons" but for tax apportionment, slaves were counted but not to the same extent. They were merely property and not given what we currently call human rights; by extention they weren't truly considered even to be human beings and were treated much like draft animals and the like.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 1:

Clause 1: 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.

Importation implies property or articles to be bought or sold, something slaves were considered to be in 1789.

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3:

Clause 3: 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. (See Note 11)

This was used to legitimize returning escaped slaves to their servitude.

Each of the clauses cited were in the original text of the Constitution and ratified by the several states. All three of these were nullified in some manner by the Reconstruction Amendments, XIII-XV. Amendment XIII flat-out outlawed slavery. Amendment XIV gave former slaves citizenship. Amendment XV gave the male former slaves the right to vote. All women, regardless of their race, were given this right with the ratification of Amendment XIX.

By not explicitly prohibiting slavery within the several states the Constitution legitimized that practice. To me, this legitimization means the document "supported" it. Without slavery having this support and being permitted by the document there shouldn't have been a need for these three amendments to be proposed and ratified in the first place.

[Taittinger]

I agree that the Constitution lended legitimacy to slavery but I interpret the clauses as a means of limiting slavery, or at least attempting to avoid confrontation on the issue. It did not explicitly promote slavery. Indeed, if slavery were supported, and given that slaves were property, there would have been no need for the clauses. I do not think there is any mention of property law anywhere else in the Constitution except in the Fourth Amendment.