# US Constitution - racist? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 29, 2010, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-constitution-racist/534206 "2010-03-29T13:39:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Laudenum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7993a0/32.png) [@Laudenum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Laudenum)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-constitution-racist/534206/1 "2010-03-29T13:39:14Z")
I just saw a claim on another site that the US Constitution is explicitly racist against black people but it gave no more detail then that. Any ideas as to what was meant? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-constitution-racist/534206/2 "2010-03-29T13:41:24Z")
Probably the sections mentioning slavery and counting black people as 3/5 of a person. Of course, the original document has been extensively amended, in part to remedy some of these past flaws. ---
**Author:** ![Laudenum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7993a0/32.png) [@Laudenum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Laudenum)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-constitution-racist/534206/3 "2010-03-29T13:43:34Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Probably the sections mentioning slavery and counting black people as 3/5 of a person. > > Of course, the original document has been extensively amended, in part to remedy some of these past flaws. So these clauses are no longer present? He was speaking in the present tense. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-constitution-racist/534206/4 "2010-03-29T13:50:51Z")
> [@Laudenum](#): > > So these clauses are no longer present? > He was speaking in the present tense. Nothing in the Constitution is ever removed, per se. It has been removed as a legal rule. Secondly, the purpose of these clauses is, as usual, misinterpreted by modern idiots trying to prove that people back then were racist. They probably were, but the 3/5 Compromise represented a substantial _weakening_ of the slave interests, as it drastically reduced their representation in Congress. ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-constitution-racist/534206/5 "2010-03-29T13:52:10Z")
> [@Laudenum](#): > > So these clauses are no longer present? > He was speaking in the present tense. Well you won’t find the term “Negro” or “black” or even “slave” in the original, unamended text - the most damning phrase in in Article 1, section 2: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, 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.” “other Persons” being slaves. Slavery is specifically outlawed in the 13th amendment, and the 14th amendment overrules the above phrase, but the text remains in the constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-constitution-racist/534206/6 "2010-03-29T14:01:31Z")
No clauses have ever been removed from the document known as the US Constitution. They are still present in each and every copy made. The amendments, however, mean those clauses are no longer in effect. It is a little disturbing to actually _read_ the original (something surprisingly few people seem to have done) and see those phrases. Particularly, I’m sure, if you’re a person of color who back in those days would have been directly affected by them. On the other hand, removing those clauses would be re-writing history - even though it is now embarrassing/shameful, I think the truth should be maintained. The US Constitution is, yes, a racist document in modern terms. The 3/5 clause is in Article 1 Section 3 and reads: > [@](#): > > Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, 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. So it doesn’t specifically say “black” but it’s pretty clear the reference is to black slaves. I don’t recall the exact place in the constitution where the slave trade was discussed, but it was, if I recall, written into the document that the external slave trade would not be eliminated until after 1808. There might be other examples, but those two stand out in my mind. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-constitution-racist/534206/7 "2010-03-29T14:08:43Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > … the purpose of these clauses is, as usual, misinterpreted by modern idiots trying to prove that people back then were racist. They probably were, but the 3/5 Compromise represented a substantial _weakening_ of the slave interests, as it drastically reduced their representation in Congress. Well, 3/5 is less than 1, but it’s greater than zero, which might seem the fair count for slaves, since they couldn’t vote or receive benefit from government. As for “idiots misinterpreting the Constitution”, there are some Dopers who seem to believe that document to be divinely inspired, just like Moses’ Ten Commandments. It might be interesting to hear their take on the “3/5” clause. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-constitution-racist/534206/8 "2010-03-29T14:21:15Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Secondly, the purpose of these clauses is, as usual, misinterpreted by modern idiots trying to prove that people back then were racist. Some of them owned slaves, so it’s pretty easy to prove. > [@](#): > > They probably were, but the 3/5 Compromise represented a substantial _weakening_ of the slave interests, as it drastically reduced their representation in Congress. That’s wrong. As the name suggests, The 3/5 Compromise was a compromise. Slaves couldn’t vote and were not considered people in other legal respects, so there was an argument to be made that they should not be counted in the census at all. That would have tilted Congressional power strongly to states that had few slaves. On the other hand, counting them as a full person would have given a large advantage to states with big slave populations. I think there were actually more black slaves than white people in some of the Southern colonies. Ignoring slaves was unacceptable to the Southern colonies, counting them as a full person was unacceptable to the Northern colonies. They split the problem almost down the middle. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-constitution-racist/534206/9 "2010-03-29T15:27:39Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Some of them owned slaves, so it’s pretty easy to prove. Exactly. That they were far in advance of their time is often forgotten. > [@](#): > > That’s wrong. As the name suggests, The 3/5 Compromise was a compromise. Slaves couldn’t vote and were not considered people in other legal respects, so there was an argument to be made that they should not be counted in the census at all. Yes and no. Slaves didn’t have all the legal rights and protections they should have had, but they had some (however rarely they were able to excercise them). They were defintiely considered _people_ in the legal sense. Thus, it wasn’t a split down the middle, though. The basic idea was that the House would represent the people at large, and the “Compromise” substantially weakened the heavy slaveholding states. In fact, the entire ntoion of it is rather odd and sets out a special case. Regardless of what it looks like today, it represented a huge victory over slavery (and at the time, it was not clear that the the country would seperate into sectionalism over it). ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-constitution-racist/534206/10 "2010-03-29T15:43:22Z")
Indeed, the point is not that “persons of color” are sub-human to the tune of 3/5 of a person. But a Southern congressman who owes his seat to the lage numbers of slaves in his state will nevertheless probably vote _against_ their interests and for those of their oppressors. > [@septimus](#): > > As for “idiots misinterpreting the Constitution”, there are some Dopers who seem to believe that document to be divinely inspired, just like Moses’ Ten Commandments. It might be interesting to hear their take on the “3/5” clause. :rolleyes: Actually, religious conservatives are more obsessed with the Declaraton of Independence as though it were divinely inspired. It contains a couple passing references to God, so that magically establishes the US as a Christian nation. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-constitution-racist/534206/11 "2010-03-29T15:52:09Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Well, 3/5 is less than 1, but it’s greater than zero, which might seem the fair count for slaves, since they couldn’t vote or receive benefit from government. > > As for “idiots misinterpreting the Constitution”, there are some Dopers who seem to believe that document to be divinely inspired, just like Moses’ Ten Commandments. It might be interesting to hear their take on the “3/5” clause. :rolleyes: The Constitution was a product of its time, so in that context it was definitely inspired. That the wrongs of the time were later remedied through the amendment process changes that not a whit. In fact, it confirms its genius because the authors left a way out, that egregious oversights could be remedied when it became necessary. Looking at the Constitution with the 20/20 hindsight of over 200 years of history is not fair. Should the constitution not have been ratified 200 years ago because of portions that offend you now, portions that are no longer applicable in this era? I think not. All in all I’d say the Constitution has held up exceptionally well under the circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-constitution-racist/534206/12 "2010-03-29T15:55:57Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Yes and no. Slaves didn’t have all the legal rights and protections they should have had, but they had some (however rarely they were able to excercise them). They did have some legal protections, but if you’re not able to exercise a right, then for practical purposes you don’t have it. > [@](#): > > They were defintiely considered _people_ in the legal sense. I’ll defer to you on that point. The Constitution says “all other persons,” which suggests slaves were considered people. > [@](#): > > Thus, it wasn’t a split down the middle, though. The basic idea was that the House would represent the people at large, and the “Compromise” substantially weakened the heavy slaveholding states. In fact, the entire ntoion of it is rather odd and sets out a special case. Regardless of what it looks like today, it represented a huge victory over slavery (and at the time, it was not clear that the the country would seperate into sectionalism over it). Again, I’m not convinced here it was a victory or that it weakened them. Slaveholding states got a weaker outcome than they would have if slaves had been counted as entire persons, yes. But if you say it weakened them, you’re implying they were in a stronger position before the compromise. I don’t think that’s correct. I think you’re assuming that they would have been counted as entire persons if not for this compromise. And the whole point is that the delegates did not agree on that issue. Under the Articles of Confederation, I’m reading that slaves were not counted at all, although that for tax purposes rather than representation. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-constitution-racist/534206/13 "2010-03-29T16:35:14Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > They did have some legal protections, but if you’re not able to exercise a right, then for practical purposes you don’t have it. I’m not going to get into legal theory, but let’s not pretend that a subversion of the law’s practice is the same as not having rule of law. > [@](#): > > I think you’re assuming that they would have been counted as entire persons if not for this compromise. And the whole point is that the delegates did not agree on that issue. Under the Articles of Confederation, I’m reading that slaves were not counted at all, although that for tax purposes rather than representation. Yes, but they were not “counted” for something exceedingly unimportant (or outright bad), whereas Congressional representation was hugely important (and in which case slaves were taxed anyhow). In fact, I’d say the Articles are irrelevant, because the entire point was to _change_ them. Counting them was the default _for the Constitution_. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-constitution-racist/534206/14 "2010-03-29T16:41:12Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Under the Articles of Confederation, I’m reading that slaves were not counted at all, although that for tax purposes rather than representation. There was an unsuccessful attempt to amend the Articles in 1783 to count slaves, and that was where the 3/5s number first originated. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-constitution-racist/534206/15 "2010-03-29T16:41:20Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Yes and no. Slaves didn’t have all the legal rights and protections they should have had, but they had some (however rarely they were able to excercise them). They were defintiely considered _people_ in the legal sense. This isn’t true. The Dred Scott decision decisively declared that slaves were property and were not people in the eyes of the law. It was the subject of much debate earlier, both in the Constitutional Convention and for the entire history of the country before the Civil War. Few people thought that even free blacks were or could be citizens. Few thought that even free blacks were equal in their basic humanity. Most considered slaves to be property because that was the natural order that God has designated. There was no body of law that I’m familiar with that considered slaves anything other than property in South, and Dred Scott extended that to the nation as a whole. > [@](#): > > Thus, it wasn’t a split down the middle, though. The basic idea was that the House would represent the people at large, and the “Compromise” substantially weakened the heavy slaveholding states. In fact, the entire ntoion of it is rather odd and sets out a special case. Regardless of what it looks like today, it represented a huge victory over slavery (and at the time, it was not clear that the the country would seperate into sectionalism over it). It was not a huge victory. In fact, the 3/5 compromise had existed earlier in the Articles of Confederation to determine how state levies should be apportioned. (See _Decision in Philadelphia_, by Christopher Collier and James Lincoln Collier). Why? Remember that the Constitution allowed the government only to allot direct taxes according to population. Therefore there were two issues that counting slaves as part of the population affected. (The Articles of Confederation gave one vote to each state, so only the tax issue was considered then.) The North had a larger population than the South if slaves were not included, and there were more northern states as well. (You can’t use use states vs. non-slave states, because slavery was legal in most of the northern states. Their economic system wasn’t dependent on slaves and so they had so few that counting them made no difference.) The South knew that getting equal representation in Congress was far more important than winning on the tax issue, because Congress would write the tax laws. Both sides, however, had reason to consider slaves as property rather than people at various times for various reasons and did so in so many words. Nor is it a special case. Most of the Constitution involves compromises that gave the South what it wanted because it declared that it simply would not enter into the compact if slavery and its interests were slighted. The Constitution is heavily weighted toward the South. In fact, the Convention flatly voted down giving slaves any value at all on July 11. And then reversed itself on July 12. Again, why? Enormous back room deals were struck. It’s hard to boil them down (the Colliers use two full chapters on this) but essentially the deal was that slavery would be prohibited in the states that would form from the Northwest Territory but in return the South got all the states south of that. The colonies had claims to much western land and the wealthiest men in the South had speculated heavily in land. They stood to lose everything if the territories were given to the government to hand out as in the North. So they took the 3/5th deal on representation in return for a land grab and the knowledge that they would get slave states to balance off free states. And they compromised on a range of tax and excise issues that the North wanted but had to bend to the South to get through. The trade-offs are much more complicated than anything we remember today, mostly because they involved issues that were of huge importance then and meaningless now. But that leads to the point that it’s a fallacy to label the players with terms that would have made no sense to any of the sides at that time. By our standards, everybody was racist because the basic belief structures of society were so different. It’s more important to understand those differences and try to see them in terms of their era. The Founders felt it was much more important to have a Constitution than not have one, even if that Constitution was deeply flawed. And it’s biased against women too. Argue that one for a while. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-constitution-racist/534206/16 "2010-03-29T17:00:31Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > This isn’t true. The Dred Scott decision decisively declared that slaves were property and were not people in the eyes of the law. No it didn’t. The Dred Scott decision recognized slave personhood, while at the same time saying that slaves were property. > [@](#): > > The only two clauses in the Constitution which point to this race treat them as persons whom it was morally lawfully to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves.. . . > > This court has heretofore decided that the status or condition of a person of African descent depended on the laws of the State in which he resided. . . . > > It will be observed that the plea applies to that class of persons only whose ancestors were negroes of the African race, and imported into this country and sold and held as slaves. . . . > > The question before us is whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? There are earlier cases, in both state and federal law, that specifically define slaves as a class of persons. Look at Thomas Morris’s “Southern Slavery and the Law 1619-1860”, which, among other things, looks at the question of slave personhood. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-constitution-racist/534206/17 "2010-03-29T18:15:50Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > No it didn’t. The Dred Scott decision recognized slave personhood, while at the same time saying that slaves were property. In case people don’t recognize it, that quote is from [the Dred Scott decision](http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/scott/). That link gives the full text. Here are some other quotes from Taney: > [@](#): > > The language of the Declaration of Independence is equally conclusive: > > It begins by declaring that, ‘when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.’ > > It then proceeds to say: ‘We hold these truths to be selfevident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.’ > > The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood. But it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration; for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted; and instead of the sympathy of mankind, to which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation. > > Yet the men who framed this declaration were great men high in literary acquirements, high in their sense of honor, and incapable of asserting principles inconsistent with those on which they were acting. They perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used, and how it would be understood by others; and they knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the negro race, which, by common consent, had been excluded from civilized Governments and the family of nations, and doomed to slavery. They spoke and acted according to the then established doctrines and principles, and in the ordinary language of the day, and no one misunderstood them. The unhappy black race were separated from the white by indelible marks, and laws long before established, and were never thought of or spoken of except as property, and when the claims of the owner or the profit of the trader were supposed to need protection. > > … > > What the construction was at that time, we think can hardly admit of doubt. We have the language of the Declaration of Independence and of the Articles of Confederation, in addition to the plain words of the Constitution itself; we have the legislation of the different States, before, about the time, and since, the Constitution was adopted; we have the legislation of Congress, from the time of its adoption to a recent period; and we have the constant and uniform action of the Executive Department, all concurring together, and leading to the same result. And if anything in relation to the construction of the Constitution can be regarded as settled, it is that which we now give to the word ‘citizen’ and the word ‘people.’ > > And upon a full and careful consideration of the subject, the court is of opinion, that, upon the facts stated in the plea in abatement, Dred Scott was not a citizen of Missouri within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and not entitled as such to sue in its courts; and, consequently, that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction of the case, and that the judgment on the plea in abatement is erroneous. > > … > > It seems, however, to be supposed, that there is a difference between property in a slave and other property, and that different rules may be applied to it in expounding the Constitution of the United States. And the laws and usages of nations, and the writings of eminent jurists upon the relation of master and slave and their mutual rights and duties, and the powers which Governments may exercise over it, have been dwelt upon in the argument. > > But in considering the question before us, it must be borne in mind that there is no law of nations standing between the people of the United States and their Government, and interfering with their relation to each other. The powers of the Government, and the rights of the citizen under it, are positive and practical regulations plainly written down. The people of the United States have delegated to it certain enumerated powers, and forbidden it to exercise others. It has no power over the person or property of a citizen but what the citizens of the United States have granted. And no laws or usages of other nations, or reasoning of statesmen or jurists upon the relations of master and slave, can enlarge the powers of the Government, or take from the citizens the rights they have reserved. And if the Constitution recognises the right of property of the master in a slave, and makes no distinction between that description of property and other property owned by a citizen, no tribunal, acting under the authority of the United States, whether it be legislative, executive, or judicial, has a right to draw such a distinction, or deny to it the benefit of the provisions and guarantees which have been provided for the protection of private property against the encroachments of the Government. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-constitution-racist/534206/18 "2010-03-29T18:34:13Z")
However, Exapno, there is a massive problem with your argument. First, Taney was full of it. Historians by the dozen have left his ass in ruins (metaphorically). He wrote the law more or less arbitrarily and probably with extremely immoral support fom the BUchanon administration. Second, regardless of his decisions as to slaves as property, he went further and claimed they were not, and could not be citizens. This was not only farcical under the befoer nthe time, at his time, and after his time, but has not been seriously held as a properm legal result of the law by, well, anyone! In fact, salves could and did use the courts to their advantage, and in fact frequently received legal remedies in such cases. The Dred Scott decision only happened because some southern courts (as well as society) had become infected by a rather virulent and iron-bound racism and itself a huge perversion of the law - a perversion that just a few years prior would have been recognized as vile extra-judicial abuse of the office. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-constitution-racist/534206/19 "2010-03-29T18:43:35Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > No it didn’t. The Dred Scott decision recognized slave personhood, while at the same time saying that slaves were property. > > There are earlier cases, in both state and federal law, that specifically define slaves as a class of persons. Look at Thomas Morris’s “Southern Slavery and the Law 1619-1860”, which, among other things, looks at the question of slave personhood. This is a bit of an anachronistic position–since “person” as we understand it today does not mean what “person” meant in the era of Dred Scott. The (relatively) short version is: Historically, a person’s status defined their legal rights. So while today, you have certain rights just because you are a “person,” the same was not true in the colonial era. Instead, only certain types of person were entitled to rights in the colonial era. Men had full rights. Women and children were under certain disabilities (and married women were, in large part, femmes couvert–considered to be literally “covered” by the personhood of the husband") What does this mean: It means that when we think of a “person,” we think of an empowered, legally capable entity. This just isn’t true in the colonial era. For example, (since we’re already on the topic of) slaves, the same isn’t true–as in Dred Scott, slaves, although “persons” were held not to be able to sue in court, did not have due process rights before being returned to their owners (in fact, the owners had due process rights not to be deprived of their slaves). One easy way to see this is in the 1776 declaration of rights of virginia (later enacted as part of its constitution). > [@](#): > > I That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. > … > XI That in controversies respecting property and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other and ought to be held sacred. So here we have statements that “all men” were free and independent, and have inherent rights, including life and liberty, and trial by jury. But it’s **VIRGINIA.** one of the biggest slave states there was. None of these “rights” applied to slaves. Not free, not independent, and not entitled to trial by jury if a dispute arose over their enslaved status. How do you combine these two concepts? Status. These were legal rights of “men”–full legal persons, not women, not children, not slaves. Women and children had some rights, slaves had none. The point is that saying dred scott said slaves were “persons” is more or less meaningless in terms of how we now understand “persons in the eyes of the law” as **Expano Mapcase** states. The full, right-bearing “person in the eyes of the law” was an adult white male. Slaves were, technically, “people”–but as the dred scott decision made quite clear, not “people” entitled to any protection of law against their owner. ETA: > [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Second, regardless of his decisions as to slaves as property, he went further and claimed they were not, and could not be citizens. This was not only farcical under the befoer nthe time, at his time, and after his time, but has not been seriously held as a properm legal result of the law by, well, anyone! Cite for those who held it farcical at the time? In a modern, post-13th and post-14th amendment context, it is farcical. In any era, Very, deeply, fundamentally wrong, immoral, and inhuman. From a colonial legal perspective consistent. It’s a perversion of the law in the context of the modern era–but in a colonial era, where rights were based on status, it wasn’t a farcical application of the then-current law. > [@](#): > > In fact, salves could and did use the courts to their advantage, and in fact frequently received legal remedies in such cases. The Dred Scott decision only happened because some southern courts (as well as society) had become infected by a rather virulent and iron-bound racism and itself a huge perversion of the law - a perversion that just a few years prior would have been recognized as vile extra-judicial abuse of the office. Slaves could, sometimes, use northern courts. Not southern, and (after dred scott), not federal. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-constitution-racist/534206/20 "2010-03-29T18:46:04Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > In case people don’t recognize it, that quote is from [the Dred Scott decision](http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/scott/). That link gives the full text. What quote is from the Dred Scott decision? “slaves were property and were not people in the eyes of the law.” I don’t see that quote in the decision. And nowhere in what you’ve quoted does it say that slaves aren’t to be considered people. It says they’re property. It says that the “enslaved African race” weren’t part of the American people, and it says that the negro race is excluded from civilized governments. But it doesn’t say that slaves aren’t people; just that they’re not Americans. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-constitution-racist/534206.md?page=2)