Latest Breaking News On - Fugitive slave clause - Page 6 : comparemela.com

"The Second": Carol Anderson on the Racist History Behind the Constitutional Right to Bear Arms

Massachusetts Historical Society: The Diary Of William Logan Rodman, Part III

Slavery and the Constitution

Toggle open close Introduction The question of the hour is whether the Constitution is pro-slavery or anti-slavery. History has shown us that great leaders and reasonable men and women have changed their viewpoints on this question. Frederick Douglass, the foremost black abolitionist in the 1840s, called the Constitution a radically and essentially pro-slavery document, but by the 1850s, Douglass changed his mind, concluding, the Constitution, when construed in light of well-established rules of legal interpretation, “is a glorious liberty document.” As we war over America’s heart and soul, many are asking what convinced Douglass to change his viewpoint. Some declare it was what the Framers had hoped would preserve a legacy of freedom for generations to come: silence. Douglass asked, “If the Constitution were intended to be by its framers and adopters a slave-holding instrument, then why would neither ‘slavery,’ ‘slave-holding,’ nor ‘slave’ be anywhere found

BOOKS Racist legacy of the 'slave kidnappers'

by Jonathan Daniel Wells (Public Affairs Books, £25) SLAVERY was formally abolished in New York State in 1827 but the slave trade lived on in the city until the civil war and in this important book Jonathan Daniel Wells argues that the slave trade persisted in New York City in this period because it was the capital of the Southern slave economy. The city’s business community of major banks, insurance companies and the shipping industry financed and facilitated the cotton trade. Many of the leaders of this community played a decisive role in city social life and politics, including control over the powerful Democratic Party.

Detailed text transcripts for TV channel - CNN - 20110125:06:04:00

Paul begala and eddie glaude, jr. from princeton university. professor, what do you make of her comments. is this a whitewashing of history? in part i think it is. what it suggests is that she lacks a little nuance to put it gently. we do know that there was debate among the founding fathers about slavery. some opposed outright, others were indifferent. what happened as a result of the debate wasn t resolution, but as you mentioned at the top of the piece was compromise. the 3/5 compromise and also the fugitive slave clause, which allowed slave owners to retrieve their escaped property. what i think she would have been better equipped to do is appeal to a different tradition, a tradition of americans who