Is the Constitution Racist?
By clrumfelt
@clrumfelt (5597)
Tennessee Ridge, Tennessee
June 10, 2011 12:21pm CST
It was an issue at the beginning of the term of our newly elected Congress when they took their seats and began their session by reading the Constitution. The issue was "which version of the Constitution will we read, the original (racist) version or the modified one?"
I personally have never viewed the Constitution as a racist document and still don't believe it it one, but I wonder how many people listening to the news at that time accepted that characterization without question.
What are your thoughts on this issue?
1 person likes this
3 responses
@clrumfelt (5597)
• Tennessee Ridge, Tennessee
10 Jun 11
I agree. The people who have villified the Constitution as being racist are themselves racists. The Constitution was framed during a time when slavery was an accepted norm in much of the world, but the Constution is abolitionist in nature.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
11 Jun 11
The responders here have said it all, nothing to add but cheers for real patriots!
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
11 Jun 11
There has never, I will repeat, never been any portion of of the constitution that advocated slavery. The "racist" version they refer to was the 3/5ths law. It was not (again I repeat) not a pro slavery amendment. It was written to reduce the amount of representation slave holding states had in the congress. The southern states wanted to be able to count their slaves in the census in order to gain more representation in the congress, even though they had previously argued that slaves weren't human, but instead were property. The 3/5ths compromise was proposed and the southern states fell for it hook line and sinker.
