slaves themselves and had the same beliefs as the majority of the country, that African Americans are not people. We cannot assume that when the constitution speaks of citizens or states, “We the people”, that this includes EVERYONE because it did not. The time in which the document was written cannot be ignored, it cannot be assumed that everyone was included. We see that even after the constitution was written, African Americans were still slaves. After the slave trade ended, slavery was not over. When african americans were
given the right to vote, laws were still being put in place to limit this and prohibit many from still voting. Even when the slaves were free they were not entitled to all the rights and liberties that are illustrated throughout the constitution. I disagree with the authors claim that the constitution is anti-slavery. I think at the time the writers were pro-slavery, therefore making the document itself pro-slavery and a tool to promote the institution of slavery. We have seen through many articles and through our class discussions that history is not as simple as we may believe. There were a lot of alternative motives between many laws and practices. One thing that really stood is that even though the civil law was fighting for the end of slavery and the freedom of all peoples, it was also a fight for a new economy. All in all the constitution can be interpreted in many ways and i believe that way is always changing. It's a good thing that our viewpoints change. Today all of the rights and liberties in this document apply to all U.S. citizens. However, when it was first written this was not the case. Many articles are pro-slavery and denying this is being ignorant to our history as a country and nation.
- Spring '14
- Atlantic Slave Trade, Slavery in the United States, American Civil War