Slave Owner Full Constitutional Rights example essay topic

Liberty, as defined by the Oxford dictionary, is explained as the "condition of being free from restriction or control; the right and power to act, believe or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing". Liberty is a word familiar to most Americans, since the fundamentals of the country is based on freedom and independence. Symbolism of liberty (such as the national's flag, statue of liberty, the liberty bell, Uncle Sam, the bald eagle) can be seen throughout the United States as a reminder of the freedom in which this nation has achieved for over the past two hundred years. Perhaps one of the greatest achievement of liberty by the Americans in the past two hundred years has been the founding of the United States Constitution. Not only does the constitution deal with the distribution of government powers, but it proclaims the freedom of all individuals, abolishing slavery. Although freedom is technically set to the slaves by the constitution, but it did not fully fulfilled the description of "liberty" for the slaves.

In this essay, I will begin by demonstrating how the US Constitution not only did not fully provide the freedom of the slaves, but how the document itself is not as "liberating" as it seems. I will also briefly discuss exactly how much "liberty" contemporary America has politically and the level of racial inequality that continues to exist in this "democratic" country. Before explaining how the US Constitution has contributed to the complexity of slavery, we must first understand the development of the constitution itself. The development of the constitution goes back to when the democratic government was on trial in the early makings America during 1775.

The thirteen British colonies then, had challenged the form of government they live under, claiming the conditions in which they lived in has hindered their rights, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. These thirteen colonies disabled themselves from the British Government and joined together to give birth to a union known as "The United States of America". Although, they were a whole, each state had established their own form of government. Alone, as individual states, their own form of government had proven to be successful, however, as a whole; the union had many internal problems. These problems were enforcing law and order, dealing with taxes, debts, regulating trade between the states, dealing with the first nations and governments from Britain.

As the self-centered ness of the states slowly prevail, the union, "The United States of America" begun to weaken; especially due to Shay's rebellion, where the farmers refused to pay taxes and secured themselves with artillery to protect their rights. Although federal armed force were sent to cease the rebellion, but the rebellion had already challenged and undermined the authority of the individual states, proving how necessary it is for them to form a stronger government. Since the Article of Confederation allowed independence to each state, there was no main authority that binds the states together as one to solve national problems. It is then, when George Washington and Alexander Hamilton began writing the new constitution, in hopes to form a stable unified national government. The Constitution is without a doubt, the backbone of the United States.

It sets forth fundamentals of governments, rights, and freedom. With such a sacred document that such a powerful nation today still follows, the constitution seems flawless as it has been successfully been the main influence in American politics, then, and now. Since the constitution provided liberty and rights for all individuals, then why does inequality and racial discrimination still exist today even after the constitution has been established? The constitution is supposed to provide every individual with their rights and freedom, but yet, the constitution itself has flaws in its content for freedom and equality. By carefully examining the contradictions in the constitution and its claims of liberty for all, the constitution seems to provide collective liberty, as oppose to for all. First, let's examine the contents of the United States Constitution.

The opening line of the constitution states as follows, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America". This simple introduction to the constitution holds many proposition of the "union"; it claims that the states are joined together in unity and that no, one state is independent from another. It is true that the beginning line already brings the nation together as one, but by saying "We the people" it is empowering the people of the United States as a source of power for ruling, not the authorities of the state. However, the people of the United States had no say in many aspects of politics in the past and even in the present day.

A perfect example can be seen in the "Gore / Bush election", where Gore had the majority of the people's vote for presidency, but through discrimination, corruption, and internal affairs, Bush proceeded to be President. Another contradiction in that opening statement is. ".. establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of LIBERTY to ourselves and our Posterity... ". This states that the constitution secures the "blessing of liberty", which literally means that the United States is a country with individual freedom, empowering the "freedom and equal rights for every person to participate in a system of government". However, the United States is a Republic, a political system or a form of government in which people elect representatives to exercise power FOR them. As liberating as the constitution claims, it leaves a very limited form of political liberty for the American people, as they only have the freedom to vote for their preference of representative (which is also questionable in contemporary America), but cannot fully participate in the political regime.

I do not doubt the fact the constitution did help free slavery eventually, but in the constitution itself, it fails to mention anything about slavery. In fact, the Fifth Amendment promises that no one would "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". But slaves were considered property, which means that it entitles the slave owner full constitutional rights to allow them to take their property (slaves) with them to where ever states or territories they prefer. Although the constitution was the groundwork for the release of slavery, there are other articles, like the one previously mentioned, that not only degrades black slaves, but also prolonging the notion of slavery in order for the constitution to be ratified. In Section 2 of Article I of the United States Constitution, it states; "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". In the article, "all other persons" meaning slaves, are to be counted as three fifths of a white person.

The constitution do not take in to account of racial equality, at the same time, claims to liberate every one that resided in the United States union. How can such an important "liberation" document that is suppose to over come the legacies of slavery and inequality, have such degrading comments towards the blacks. Since it is necessary to divide up congressional representative through the count of the population, by counting the blacks as three fifths of a white person, it does not take into consideration that the black slaves are people also. By classifying slaves as three fifths of a white person, it does not provide the blacks with any equality, which according to the constitution, every one shall receive. These contradictory article of the US constitution are not the only ones; in Section 2 of Article IV, it states; "No Person held to 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 due". In this article, "person held to service or labour" meaning slaves, while "escaping into another" meaning slaves on the run, a renegade.

The article continues to state that any slaves on the run will be return to their owners. The constitution claims liberation for all but yet, liberty seems to only exist collectively. Perhaps one of the most contradicting claims of constitution comes from Section 9 of Article I; "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person". This article states that slavery would be allowed until 1808. The constitution is supposed to provide liberty for all but instead, it has written evident that slavery would be permitted even after the constitution is ratified. Although by 1804, slavery in most northern states had ceased.

But this is only due to the fact that the governments in the northern states started offering slave owners some sort of financial incentive in exchange for their slaves to join the war to fight the British. But in the southern states, slavery grew, especially after the invention of cotton gin in 1793; where there were over a million slaves in the north. As you can see, the constitution contains many contradictory statements in regards to liberty. The reason for all these contradictions in the constitution can be clarified by looking at the event that was involved in dealing with the ratification of the constitution. Although the constitution was written for liberty, there was nothing democratic during the makings of the US constitution. During the convention of the constitution, there was no popular vote but instead, property qualifications were in affect.

The office holdings only take into account those who own property while excluding those who did own any. Around three fourths of the adult men were excluded from voting on the constitution, while it was ratified by not more than one sixth of the adult men in five states; there is a doubt as to whether a majority of the voters actually approved of the ratification. Another aspect we have to look at is that the constitution deals with government and government, is concerned with property and governs the process of the transfer and trades of economic goods. Since the constitution deals with primarily governmental makings, it is easy to see how it favors those with property due to economic interest. "Thus, constitutional history becomes the process by which various economic groups seek to protect their particular interests by making or altering the fundamental law of the land". The mentality of the constitution of liberty and rights was created not considering slaves as they were seen as a subservient race.

This can be proven by looking once again at Section 9 Article I of the constitution, where it permitted slavery until 1808. Because the conflict of interest between the northern and the southern states on the issue of slavery, where southern states wanted slavery to be unmoved; they came to an agreement of having slavery until 1808. But how can one act to instate a law in which it allows slavery especially if it was a liberation document. This just shows that the black slaves were not taken into consideration at all while the constitution favors those who are making the constitution (property owners). Now that I have shown the contradiction of liberty that lies in the United States constitution, let us jump to present day America. The political authority of contemporary America is perhaps at its worst when it comes to being "individualistic".

When it comes to political systems, many would say America's very democratic, while in reality it isn't. America is a republic, a political system in which the founding fathers decided to build the nation on. In the Constitution, Article IV of Section 4, it states; "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union, a REPUBLICAN form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence". In an absolute democratic society, the only rule of law would that be of the majority and nothing else. However, in a republic society, the citizens' vote in a representative that decides the type of action best suited for the citizens. That is which the American society was built on and still is today.

If America were a true democracy, it would have been mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and the allegiance to the United States of America would be different. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all". In today's American society, there is an overwhelming false sense of government power, as many find the government biased. For example in the 2000 presidential election, between Al Gore and George Bush, there was a huge controversy where voters in Florida were literally turned away because of their race. Hence, the false sense of equality in the American government by today's society. In conclusion, I believe that in order to build liberty one must take into account of every individual regardless of race, gender, or class.

In my eyes I do not think the constitution is the beginning of liberation, but more of a catalyst causing a reaction as a result, in this case, liberation, when the two are combined (society and constitution). It is very hard to create equality among a society based on strictly constitutions and other written document. It provides the technicality on paper, obliging the society to react a certain way. Take slavery for example, it is good that slavery was liberated but does it provide them with a true sense of freedom? Although the slaves may be free to live their lives; but in such an economical society where ownership of properties are a vital entity. How can a newly liberated slave with no ownership of anything, uneducated and un respected gain equality from the rest of society?

The slave would then have no choice to work for their former master in exchange for shelter, food, and a low salary. The cycle of slavery and inequality continues, but in a different form. By setting people "free" legally we must understand that it is hard to expect society to do the same on a person to person basis. In response to the contradictions in the United States constitution, the constitution is clearly not as liberating as it seems. It is made up by an undemocratic society with the mentality of providing rights to favored groups. In order to promote true liberation, a new constitution with a more solid foundation of equality, specific rights, one that fits the contemporary society and must be ratified democratically.

By forming a new constitution, it is setting an example to modern society that equality can exist. Since it would be ratified democratically, it would reassure its trust with society.