Levin Corrects John Kerry: Slavery Was Not Written Into the Constitution

[rangerrebew]

Levin Corrects John Kerry: Slavery Was Not Written Into the Constitution

On his nationally syndicated radio talk show [1], host Mark Levin corrected Secretary of State John Kerry for stating that the Constitution we are living by here in the U.S. “first wrote slavery into the Constitution before it wrote slavery out.”

“You know,” said Mark Levin, “the Constitution does not write slavery into it, or it wasn’t written out.”

Levin’s comments reference U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s speech in Brussels [2], where Secretary of State Kerry spoke on the importance of transatlantic relations during an event hosted by the German Marshall Fund of the United States and the United States Mission to the European Union on October 4, 2016.

 
    DONATE [3]

Source URL: http://cnsnews.com/blog/michael-morris/levin-corrects-john-kerry-slavery-was-not-written-constitution

[HonestJohn]

So the 3/5th Compromise wasn't found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution?

 

[ABX]

So the 3/5th Compromise wasn't found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution?

I would suggest going over to the Library of Congress' website. You'll find the diaries of the founders during the first Constitutional convention. Most people don't even know this, but the 3/5ths clause wasn't to dehumanize slaves (and Native Americans), it was to take power away from slave owning states until they freed them.

Most of the founders were actually abolitionist, but in order to get the Republic, they had to have the slave owning states go along. The slave owning states wanted to have full representation based on their entire population, including slaves and Native Americans. This would give those states far greater representative power than the other states and they could vote slavery in perpetuity. The solution the abolitionists of the time came up with was the 3/5ths clause. They said outright that until they freed their slaves, they would not give them representative power based on the population count that included the slaves.

So they weren't dehumanizing slaves, they were taking power away from the slave holders.

[HonestJohn]

I would suggest going over to the Library of Congress' website. You'll find the diaries of the founders during the first Constitutional convention. Most people don't even know this, but the 3/5ths clause wasn't to dehumanize slaves (and Native Americans), it was to take power away from slave owning states until they freed them.

Most of the founders were actually abolitionist, but in order to get the Republic, they had to have the slave owning states go along. The slave owning states wanted to have full representation based on their entire population, including slaves and Native Americans. This would give those states far greater representative power than the other states and they could vote slavery in perpetuity. The solution the abolitionists of the time came up with was the 3/5ths clause. They said outright that until they freed their slaves, they would not give them representative power based on the population count that included the slaves.

So they weren't dehumanizing slaves, they were taking power away from the slave holders.

Yes, but the point isn't that.  It was that Levin said that slavery wasn't written in the Constitution.  Positive or negative intent doesn't matter.

[jmyrlefuller]

So the 3/5th Compromise wasn't found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution?

The 3/5th Compromise does not mention slavery. It only mentions "other persons." So unequal protection, yes, but not the actual institution of slavery.

[dfwgator]

The 3/5th Compromise does not mention slavery. It only mentions "other persons." So unequal protection, yes, but not the actual institution of slavery.

Idiots forget that the purpose of the 3/5ths Compromise was to lessen the power of the slave states.