| To the Editor: Special interest groups influenced Constitution |
| Written by Jack Taylor |
| Wednesday, 27 June 2012 11:37 |
|
I am writing in response to Mr. Herbert Detmer’s opinion essay which was published in the June 20 edition of the Sentinel-Tribune. Although there are several statements and claims that he makes which are with inaccurate or specious, I will address only one. I strongly disagree with Mr. Detmer’s opinion that, “When our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution ... There is nothing about special interest groups, corporations or loud, aggressive protesters of anything and everything.” The historical record informs us that the southern planter class was indeed a special interest group whose slave-holding interests were embedded in the Constitution. Most likely, the Founding Fathers from the southern states protested loudly and aggressively about how to count their “slaves” when it came to determining the number of representatives they could send to Congress. As a result of their protestations, we have the infamous 3/5ths of a person clause in Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution. It reads as follows: Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among several states ... 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. Also, Article 2, Section 9 of the Constitution maintained the interests of the planter class by allowing the importation of African slaves until the year 1808. Furthermore, Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution allowed for the return of the slave owners’ property by declaring, “No person held in 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 do.” Consequently, any enslaved African who was caught fleeing from the horrors of the peculiar institution in search of the freedom and independence for which our Founding Fathers pledged their lives, fortunes and honour could be returned to their master. In closing, readers beware, just because someone references the Constitution or uses patriotic terms such as freedom, independence and Founding Fathers does not mean that their opinion is true, that is, supported by facts. Jack Taylor Bowling Green |
Front Page Stories
| Local cities see growth 05/23/2013 | JAN LARSON McLAUGHLIN Sentinel County Editor  While many other cities in the region are watching their populations shrink, Wood Coun [ ... ] |
Perrysburg at odds on member for council 05/23/2013 | PETER KUEBECK Sentinel Staff Writer  PERRYSBURG - A tie vote derailed an expected appointment to an empty council seat Tues [ ... ] | Other Front Page Articles
| ||
Comments
The argument you frame is one made by modern Christians who are wanting to define the Founders backward according to their own image and attribute an evangelical agenda to them.
I've read tons of documents from these guys and the whole literature is rife with the ideals reflecting preservation of the white land-owning classes. This is not spin, it is the result of doing what you advise: reading source material. It certainly is eye-opening.
For example, read Jefferson's "Notes on the State of Virginia" to get a taste of the blatant racist elitism that was inherent to these rich men.
I don't need to spin anything when the obvious truth IS documented. I have profound disdain for these goons. Correction: they were not fascists per se, but proto-fascists who exacerbated the conditions of American-style slavery for decades to come.
Jefferson is a fascinating case. His philosophical training led him to be troubled about his slave-ownership, but the force of tradition and the life he was born to kept him wedded to the notion. But he was no fascist.
Sounds a lot like the white colonizers to me. They DID want (and got) total control of the land (and the people) after the British and Natives were dealt with. I do see your definitional, point, though. I'll just be using different vocabulary to express my disdain for their genocidal 'progress.'
RSS feed for comments to this post.