Equality for people was the purpose of America becoming an independent nation, and the constitution disregards that in the case of slavery. The framers of the Constitution refer to slaves as "persons" or "persons held to labor or service. " The language use in the document implies an attempt to mask the actual cruelty/brutality of slavery. Not only were they attempting to hide the true conditions of slavery, they protected slavery by the taxed importation of slaves, as well. The framers of the constituion saw slavery as something positive in the economy, without seeing it as morally wrong.
However, the overwhelming realities of the Black American experience disallow any optimism to truly shine. Not only does Sinha discuss the lack of a specific definition of what it means to be an American citizen in the Declaration, but also that it allowed for a sense of White nationalism to take place due to the absence of the Black community being mentioned. Seventeen years after the Revolutionary War ended, the 1790 Naturalization Act was passed to only allow White immigrants into the US (Sinha, 1). Shortly after, a slew of laws were passed aiming to disenfranchise Black people and support the view that Black people were property rather than citizens with legislature like the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 (Sinha, 1). The Declaration of Independence is a document that to Allen fights for equality and freedom, with the potential to answer the question of who is a citizen and finally include those unmentioned in the document itself.
When the Constitution was first drafted in Philadelphia, 1787, there was strong opposition to it from the supporters of the Articles of Confederation, America’s first governing document. One of the starkest Anti-Federalists, Patrick Henry, believed the Constitution was a gateway to power for tyrants, similarly, Thomas Jefferson strongly opposed the Constitution’s ratification, believing the Constitution would strip Americans of their freedoms and liberties. Despite their efforts, the Constitution was signed into law, and is now contrarily viewed as that which protects Americans’ rights. The US Constitution is a more democratic document than the Articles of Confederation because under the Articles there was no proportional representation, Americans did not directly vote for any representatives in Congress under the Articles, and the Constitution implemented federal income taxes were able to fund a government that could effectively protect the rights of American citizens.
Long have the arguments on whether or not to ratify the Constitution been going on and it is most certainly right to agree. The Framers decided to give more power to the federal government than to the people for an abundant amount of reasons. The Constitution is completely necessary because there are so many problems with the old system: the Articles of Confederation and we need trained people to do important work for the country. The Anti-Federalists are clearly incorrect for bountiful reasons. There are just so many ways that the Articles of Confederation wasn’t working out for us, so we must move on with our plans for the Constitution.
The question of why Americans supported or feared the Constitution of 1787 is imperative for it provides further insight into the founding of the United States. The young republic of America had several reasons to strongly support or fear the Constitution of 1787. To many, it would provide stability, but to others, it would take away their individual rights. Those who supported the Constitution (generally the Federalists) felt it was enough—no need for a Bill of Rights. Those who feared the Constitution (generally the Antifederalists) demanded a Bill of Rights to protect citizens.
After writing the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the journey to ratification began; however, not all states were eager to ratify it due to fear of a strong central government. In order to better convince each state to ratify the Constitution in place of the Articles of Confederation, the Bill of Rights was added as a barrier against the tyranny of a strong central government. The First Amendment includes protection of many civil liberties including freedom of speech, assembly, petition, religion, and the press. The Founding Fathers included the right of freedom of the press so as to ensure the spread of intellectual, and typically liberal, ideas among the citizens, just as was done in order to inspire the revolution.
Never directly mentioned in the Constitution, and commonly refereed to as “others”, African Americans were often denied existence in the Constitutional Conventions. James Madison embodied the complacency of the average white American man. Ellis describes his thinking as “a kind of mysterious region where ideas entered going in one direction but then emerged headed the opposite way.” (114). The Southern founding fathers, Madison included, acknowledged the moral evils of the slave trade but many of them slave owners themselves, did not desire an end to it, admittedly for their own profit.
There were a lot of people who were not allowed the right or be apart of the creating the constitution because of their color, gender,
The Constitution of the United States created in 1787 provided the framework for an egalitarian society where every free white male had equal representation and therefore promoted social happiness. However, in 1787 there were many groups of people in the newly formed United States of America that were not addressed, or even disenfranchised by the new Constitution. This included slaves, free women, and American Indians. Whereas free white males had their liberties fully expressed by the constitution including fair and equal representation, social happiness should include every group within the United States as every person in the States should have a say in government.
The thirteenth amendment freed African American people from slavery, and the nineteenth amendment gave women the right to vote; but that doesn’t mean these people still have the same amount of freedom as others. However free some may seem, every race and gender is still restrained by the same discriminatory shackles that held back their ancestors many years ago. Contrary to popular belief, the civil liberties of the United States have not been solved; and although some citizens would disagree, the act of forgetting previous experiences on how the nation was built, misusing the rights people are given, and treating other ethnicities or genders as inferiors, would prove otherwise. Although America has highly improved on civil liberties by imposing amendments such as the 13th and the 19th;
When the colonies split from Britain they created a government plan called the articles of confederation. This gave power to the individual states rather than a central power. This proved to not be effective so a rewrite was called. Eventually with help from the Constitutional Convention the Constitution was ratified. This was good, the Articles of Confederation were full of problems and a new document needed to be ratified.
A: Yes, Natural Rights are defined on Dictionary.com as, “A political theory that individuals have basic rights given to them by nature or God that no individual or government can deny.” By allowing slavery, the framers of the Constitution are regarding the slaves as less than human. Natural Rights support the equality of all individuals, therefore the framers of the Constitution do not possess a right
The American nation today is known for the free rights and power it equally gives citizens, the capability it gives the government. It wasn’t always like that though. Under the Articles Of Confederation many rights were not granted, and many powers were limited to the government. Writing the Constitution helped to establish our country, and was very necessary in the steps to forming a successful nation. When the national government was first established it had little to no control over economic problems they were facing.
However there is no doubt that there are still problems associated with it. It never explicitly addresses the rights of all the people including slaves, or of women. It’s problematic that the constitution is so highly regarded and followed even when these groups of people are left out, due to the fact that it divides the society by race and sex, and if you were apart of the persecution, it was because you were seen to be inferior, and should not have the same rights of white men. All throughout history we have become keenly familiar with some of the costs of this problem such as how african americans have been persecuted for generations even after the end of slavery. Women weren’t treated any better when you look at how they couldn’t vote until the 1930’s.
I agree with you that the main concerns of the editor was to address the people and bring the myth forward. I too found it hard at first to understand the real meaning of myth in this context. Every time I read the word myth I thought of it as being a story that was not true. I found myself having to review Frigge’s explanation of myth in chapter 4. Frigge describes myth as having a structure of a story and a purpose “to explain why things the way they are” (Frigge, 55).
