Origins of the US Constitution: The Reconstruction Amendments

Dr. Todd Arrington from James A. Garfield National Historic Site and our own Dr. John Foster discuss how the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments shaped our nation's past and inform its present. They also explain why the amendments were necessary during (in the case of the 13th amendment) and after the Civil War. Finally, Dr. Foster provides examples of how the amendments have been subverted by narrow readings from the Supreme Court.

[@mcfontaine]

John and Todd are the dream team.

[@gandydancer9710]

Contra the lecture, the primary way in which the original Constitution was "pro-slavery" is not the recognition of the existence of the "institution" in the 3/5th clause, or even the unmentioned explicit provision requiring allowing the continuation of African slave imports for a period of time, but the also unmentioned provision in Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution that "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." Taney's opinion decided Dredd Scott's case on other grounds, but that provision seems to me anyway dispositive of the case. And, contra one lecturer, the laws against speaking in favor of abolition were NOT in violation of the First Amendment, which at the time -- the 14th Amendment not yet being in effect -- did not apply to the States. The South was of course quite correct to regard Lincoln as a great liar who would abolish slavery in the slave states if he acquired the ability to do so despite his protestations that the design of the Federal government prohibited such an act, because that's what he did. Slavery was anyway doomed to come to an end because of the progress of industry dooming the employment of the population in agriculture, still less slave-suitable agriculture, to become as reduced as it has and because free labor requires less investment and is thus more profitable, IMHO. That it was worth a war costing about a million American deaths to end it by force seems dubious to me. I don't have a dog in that fight, none of my ancestors having been resident in the US of A at the time as far as I know. But facts is facts.

[@TheMilitiaGuy]

The slave ships were owned by Judaics. All part of the Luciferian Conspiracy for the genocide of the white, European race. England and Spain knew what do about the tribe.

[@dpg227]

I thank you for an interesting post that made me think. A few counterpoints. (1) The fugitive slave clause basically says no slave shall be freed by moving from a slave state to a free state. But Scott was also moved to the federal Louisiana territory, which was free soil under federal law. So the fugitive slave clause would not be dispositive of the case. (2) I think the lecturer may have been pointing out that speech against slavery that was criminalized in southern states back then would be protected by the first amendment today. (3) Lincoln abolished slavery only in the states that were in rebellion and left it alone in the 4 border states that remained in the union. So Lincoln did respect constitutional limitations concerning abolishing slavery. (4) Industrial progress did not doom slavery because slaves, in addition to working in agriculture of all kinds, could be used to work in mines, on railroads, and in factories and trades. Any kind of work almost, really. Investing in slaves and hiring them out as laborers was a lucrative business. (4) They didn't know in the beginning that the war was going to go on that long or kill that many people.

[@gandydancer9710]

@@dpg227 (1) There only provision in the US Constitution for "federal... territory" was Washington DC, and no one who wrote the Constitution imagined that the Federal government could free slaves taken to Washington DC. So you have to ignore the intention of the founders to imagine that the Federal government could even DECLARE the Louisiana Territory (acquired without any Constitional provision for doing it) to be "free soil". It also falls afoul of the intentions of the Takings Clause. (2) I'd need to see it again to judge that, but I didn't understand it that way. Timestamp? (3) Lincoln had no more Constitutional power to free slaves without compensation in areas of rebellion than anywhere else. (4) You ignored my point about investment in slaves. Sharecroppers and other free labor are virtually free to the land owner or mine owner or railroad owner. Recovering escaped slaves is expensive. Dangerous occupations are expensive in the loss of capital invested in expensive slaves which couldn't be other than expensive give the lack of cheap newly imported ones. The class of people who could profitably operate slaves was simply to small to keep it legal in the face of its inherent unpleasantness, IMHO. (4) How is this relevant to anything I said? Hitler didn't know that invading Poland would prove as expensive as it proved to be. So what? Does that make it wiser?

[@dpg227]

@@gandydancer9710 I think said Louisiana territory, which was wrong and I apologize. It was actually the Northwest Territory, which was created by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the same year the Constitution was signed. It prohibited slavery in the territory and set the precedent of federal authority over western lands and territories. All 5 of the states which came out of it also prohibited slavery in their state constitutions. The fugitive slave clause and the northwest ordinance guaranteed slaveowners the right to recover runaway slaves in the new states and northwest territory, respectively. But Scott was not an escaped slave. He sued after the fact in Missouri state court claiming that he should be free because he was taken onto free soil. The Takings Clause wouldn't apply because no private property was being taken by the government for public use.

[@gandydancer9710]

@@dpg227 I disagree. Takings clause: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The public use was. to rid the territory of slaves and slavery. The government isn't free to take your property without compensation by a decision to not subsequently take title to it. The ratification of the Constitution was not a retroactive decision to declare pre-Constitutional acts of Congress Constitutional in case of future repetition.

[@in.der.welt.sein.]

It's strange: the constitution is praised for limiting the power of the government to the laws that the government itself comes up with, but simultaneously it is also praised as being a "living, growing document". Both limited and growing.

[@charleshinesjr.2360]

The first "black codes" did not originate in the South. While a Congressman, Abraham Lincoln signed a bill in his home state of Illinois making it illegal for any freed slave to settle there. Similar laws were enacted throughout the other northern states. They sought to keep the black man contained to the South. As president, Lincoln had championed the American Colonization Society created to rid the country of the black race by returning them to Africa and later to South America. (See his famous "You cannot llive among us" speech to black leaders). Lincoln had long campaigned on the popular northern position of keeping the newly minted states west of the Mississippi "white only" enclaves devoid of competing "cheap black labor".

[@kisha1682]

Right! So they thought they were going to move 4 million people back to the land they took them from when they depended on slaves for every aspect of their lives

[@GeorgeMcintyre-q7d]

All the wars we have been in was over money

[@charleshinesjr.2360]

And political power., and land.

[@catalinamarquez6937]

Very important question 🙂⁉️ speciality for you juramentation 👍🇺🇸🌎

[@Hojiii]

Holy tangents! Couldn't make it through the entire lecture.

[@chairmanofthebored8684]

10:25 Passed the buck.

[@chrisolmsted5678]

The founding definition of citizen was the same as eligible to vote aka participate in government. This was the same as the roman Republic and greek city states. Coverture provided the use of citizen rights for children and spouse. Birthright citizenship breaks that definition because the right to participate in government is withheld until the person reaches adulthood. The definition of "the people" was those persons eligible to participate in governance of the jurisdiction acting as a group.

[@ngeorgalis1]

There is no birthright citizenship except for the former slaves who were property and therefore subject to US jurisdiction. 8 USC 1401 enacted in 1952 establishes Jus sanguinis citizenship which means through the citizenship of the parents.

[@WhatsThat-x1f]

I'm not tracking your train of thought

[@ngeorgalis1]

@@WhatsThat-x1f Read 8 USC 1401.

[@j.pocket]

The Judiciary at the federal level is actually "running" on the _Doctrine_ of _Constitutional Avoidance_ , thanks to it's self-adjudicated option to do so. It has also fabricated the necessary rulings to give birth to such lucrative endeavors as sustaining the legislative authority to form and delegate _Agency Authority_, even through federal grant programs to private for-profit companies with limited liability and incentivized, salary dependent tools to violate individual rights. This was necessary to assist the legislature to find a commercial, compelling public interest in nearly every single interaction between individuals and legal persons. Sure, it is kind of audacious for a country that's been bankrupt since 1933, which gives away billions in grants purportedly from its own collected tax money, to its citizens to fund technology, long arm jurisdiction, federal supremacy and administrative rule. Gawd shave the Queen.

[@rafaelespinoza6530]

Correct

[@jamesjeffcoat5491]

This guy

[@nlew8995]

Turned off at the beginning. The main person speaking is wrong in saying the Constitution is pro slavery. The 3/5 statement meant that slave owners had less power, not that blacks were less. Also, "men" at that time meant human.

[@in.der.welt.sein.]

"Men" may have meant human, but it's also clear in the historical context that by "men", the founders meant property owning males of European descent. This was slowly revised as more and more struggles broke out demanding others be given full civil rights.

[@markadams2907]

Exactly!!! Which is why it took so long for the Emancipation of the slaves to occur AFTER the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution were written.

[@in.der.welt.sein.]

@@markadams2907 even then, this debate about the institution of slavery happened a bit differently than many think. Ultimately it was a debate between two factions of the ruling classes in America about whether free wage labor or slavery was more profitable. The founders themselves decided to support the institution of slavery and write it into the laws that the debate would be put off for a few more decades.

[@devos3212]

Of course it was pro slavery dont be ridiculous

[@Stratmanable]

Our country was founded by slavers yearning for freedom.

[@ntchurchoffreethought6163]

No scientific basis for "race" but this was not shown until the 20th Century and, especially, the Human Genome Project.

[@TheMilitiaGuy]

Sounds like it was the fake "Jews" who came up with the "race" card thing.

[@martin2289]

Gee, it's almost like you're providing an *excuse* for slavery.

[@GeorgeMcintyre-q7d]

That is why we have jobs we our slaves

[@joshschaufele208]

No your not ! your just a victim of your own choices that's all

[@UntouchableLivingone-ji4un]

And the law of one over all true and just born and you not even close to understand

[@jackymarcel4108]

Martinez Charles Harris Timothy Gonzalez Gary

[@catalinamarquez6937]

Bohemian Grove Town road hello

[@Insighttogether]

Here's the thing. And I knew this when I was a young lad in school. All history that you're teaching in that you have learned is missing part of Here's the thing. And I knew this when I was a young lad in school. All history that you're teaching in that you have learned is missing part of the Equation an until you understand what that part is. You were only teaching and learning half truths. Now I know you're gonna say oh, this is way out of the ordinary and disguised. Aint nut job wrong. Answer all the people or at least half or more. If I did my homework. I would say about 75% that route. These documents were indeed free masons. And until you understand with the Freemasons are about. And you understand their philosophy. Then you will not have the accurate or true. Answer that you are indeed searching for so do some other homework. Now that you have mastered this part of your accomplishment, then you may see the truth finally after a 150 years or 200 years. But like what you're saying and how good you are at saying it from your. Studies make sure a brilliant person. But you do not have the answer kill. You look into The Other part of the equation. Thank you. And I hope someone gets this information that is willing to sacrifice part of their life to find The Truth. And tell it the way it should be told

[@ngeorgalis1]

Slavery was not the main reason the South seceded. The main reason was the imposition of tariffs on imported manufactured goods. These tariffs were imposed by the populous North on the South since the early 1800s. At the same time the price of cotton was falling. The Morill Tariff was proposed under Buchanan and Lincoln supported it. This tariff significantly increased tariffs on manufactured goods and this was intolerable to the South. Lincoln did not support abolition but his support of the Morill Tariff is what triggered the secession. So the notion that the issue of slavery precipitated the war between the states is absurd in light of the facts.

[@kisha1682]

It was the reason😁 read South Carolina declaration of why they left the union

[@ngeorgalis1]

@@kisha1682 The elimination of slavery was not why Lincoln was elected. Lincoln campaign did not include freeing the slaves but it did include support for the Morril Tariff. This is the real reason the South seceded and any statement to the contrary notwithstanding.

[@mns8732]

Slavery was not the main issue. ?? You don't understand slavery.

[@ngeorgalis1]

@@mns8732 You don’t understand the South.

[@rachelraccoon5565]

THE DOCUMENTS OF SECESSION TOLD YOU THE ENTIRE THING WAS ABOUT SLAVERY. THE PEOPLE WHO SECEDED, THE ONES WHO WENT TO WAR, TOLD YOU IT WAS ABOUT SLAVERY. None of that other shit is the reason. Slavery was the reason.

[@edwardsalacuse1332]

The comprimise was established to get the Southern states to ratify the Constitution! Jefferson was skeptical when he wrote "All men are created equal".

[@catalinamarquez6937]

Call you people supreme Court hello if you stronger 💪👁️👁️👁️👁️👁️👁️ if you Respect you nation let mske action reactions action's reflection actions of the universe humanos history lawyers 🌹

[@GeorgeMcintyre-q7d]

None we our all slaves

[@catalinamarquez6937]

He's trying to omg😮

[@SalamiCheeks]

What about the black slave owners?

[@TheGamedogg81]

What about them?

[@catalinamarquez6937]

Not 🚫 l i love it my I respect for you I think you are amazing my respect for you and just try to find more information about you 😂❤

[@TheMilitiaGuy]

I heard all the Reconstruction Amendments - 13, 14, 15 - were not legally ratified and therefore are UN-Constitutonal.

[@rachelraccoon5565]

You heard that from someone with an agenda.

[@catalinamarquez6937]

When you really people start to hide in documents and treasure for or really you know colonies when when when Hillary hilarious 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@rachelraccoon5565]

What the actual fuck???

[@khakiclay7995]

You obviously didn't center your studies on america and its development (as you mention, you are eurocentric) You have little understanding of the constitution and sound like a newly introduced student. Keep studying and you will get better, you aren't close right now.

[@catalinamarquez6937]

That why Kennedy died 😮

[@catalinamarquez6937]

Bog games

[@44hawk28]

The Constitution is not pro-slavery unless of course you have no idea how it should be interpreted especially in light of the other two legal documents that it is to be placed with which is the Declaration of Independence and the Northwest Ordinance. You also would be well served to read the Paris treaty which ended the Revolutionary war. The United States federal government had declared that slavery was not to be supported by the federal government before almost any other country on the planet. The problem is is that the constitution does not give the federal government specific authorities to tell the states how they are to behave. That was a flaw yes but it's a loophole about the size of Montana. You ought to read the setup of the Confederate Constitution which actually a lot of the things in the Confederate Constitution really should be adopted into the United States Constitution

[@preshisify]

😷 ☕ 🇺🇸

[@catalinamarquez6937]

Hello egipcian 😂amazyng documents evidence

[@jamesjeffcoat5491]

This guy is so wrong. He has no clue about the Philadelphia constitution. Slavey was a huge issue and this guys interpretation is just wrong