Was Frederick Douglass Just, Too Stupid To Understand?

[dmcoco84 4]

For on July 5th, 1852; he said:

“In that instrument I hold there is neither warrant, license, nor sanction of the hateful thing; but, interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT. Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? Is it at the gateway? or is it in the temple?
It is neither.”

“Now, take the constitution according to its plain reading, and I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it. On the other hand it will be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery.”



But how could Douglass say such things... when just recently on Stossel, (after John said that he wanted to return to the Constitution) Charlie Rangel replied, “No, no, no, that government will throw me back in slavery. You don’t want that. You don’t want that government. Come on now, they weren’t thinking about me when they wrote that book, I wasn’t even 3/5ths of a guy. So lets pass that book and say that it was a good beginning.”

It’s because Charlie Rangel, is lying... and he should be ashamed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wdmqtpvleko -- 26:00 to 27:30


Frederick Douglass... was also being lied to.

At first he criticized the Constitution... because of what he was, TOLD, about it.

“But it is answered in reply to all this, that precisely what I have now denounced is, in fact, guaranteed and sanctioned by the Constitution of the United States; that the right to hold and to hunt slaves is a part of that Constitution framed by the illustrious Fathers of this Republic.

Then, I dare to affirm, notwithstanding all I have said before, your fathers stooped, basely stooped “To palter with us in a double sense: And keep the word of promise to the ear, But break it to the heart."

And instead of being the honest men I have before declared them to be, they were the veriest imposters that ever practiced on mankind. This is the inevitable conclusion, and from it there is no escape. But I differ from those who charge this baseness on the framers of the Constitution of the United States. It is a slander upon their memory, at least, so I believe."

History does speak for itself... when history is told, honestly.

But history is not being told honestly. Some is revised... but most is simply, Omitted.

This omission can easily be seen upon comparisons:

The Freeman Institute
http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm

Stops after, “America reigns without a rival.”

MIT.edu
http://www.mit.edu/~thistle/v12/2/douglass.html

Also stops after, “America reigns without a rival.”

PBS - A reliable source?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2927.html

The first page is a joke. And the historical document... a blatant omission.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2927t.html

“America reigns without a rival.... ” “...Allow me to say, in conclusion,”

Gotta love the “...” Why even give the conclusion paragraph?



How about a resource that gives, the Entire Speech:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=162

THE CONSTITUTION

But it is answered in reply to all this, that precisely what I have now denounced is, in fact, guaranteed and sanctioned by the Constitution of the United States; that the right to hold and to hunt slaves is a part of that Constitution framed by the illustrious Fathers of this Republic.

Then, I dare to affirm, notwithstanding all I have said before, your fathers stooped, basely stooped "To palter with us in a double sense: And keep the word of promise to the ear, But break it to the heart."

And instead of being the honest men I have before declared them to be, they were the veriest imposters that ever practiced on mankind. This is the inevitable conclusion, and from it there is no escape. But I differ from those who charge this baseness on the framers of the Constitution of the United States. It is a slander upon their memory, at least, so I believe. There is not time now to argue the constitutional question at length - nor have I the ability to discuss it as it ought to be discussed. The subject has been handled with masterly power by Lysander Spooner, Esq., by William Goodell, by Samuel E. Sewall, Esq., and last, though not least, by Gerritt Smith, Esq. These gentlemen have, as I think, fully and clearly vindicated the Constitution from any design to support slavery for an hour.


Fellow-citizens! there is no matter in respect to which, the people of the North have allowed themselves to be so ruinously imposed upon, as that of the pro-slavery character of the Constitution. In that instrument I hold there is neither warrant, license, nor sanction of the hateful thing; but, interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT. Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? Is it at the gateway? or is it in the temple? It is neither. While I do not intend to argue this question on the present occasion, let me ask, if it be not somewhat singular that, if the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slave-holding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it. What would be thought of an instrument, drawn up, legally drawn up, for the purpose of entitling the city of Rochester to a track of land, in which no mention of land was made? Now, there are certain rules of interpretation, for the proper understanding of all legal instruments. These rules are well established. They are plain, common-sense rules, such as you and I, and all of us, can understand and apply, without having passed years in the study of law. I scout the idea that the question of the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of slavery is not a question for the people. I hold that every American citizen has a fight to form an opinion of the constitution, and to propagate that opinion, and to use all honorable means to make his opinion the prevailing one. Without this fight, the liberty of an American citizen would be as insecure as that of a Frenchman. Ex-Vice-President Dallas tells us that the constitution is an object to which no American mind can be too attentive, and no American heart too devoted. He further says, the constitution, in its words, is plain and intelligible, and is meant for the home-bred, unsophisticated understandings of our fellow-citizens. Senator Berrien tell us that the Constitution is the fundamental law, that which controls all others. The charter of our liberties, which every citizen has a personal interest in understanding thoroughly. The testimony of Senator Breese, Lewis Cass, and many others that might be named, who are everywhere esteemed as sound lawyers, so regard the constitution. I take it, therefore, that it is not presumption in a private citizen to form an opinion of that instrument.

Now, take the constitution according to its plain reading, and I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it. On the other hand it will be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery.

I have detained my audience entirely too long already. At some future period I will gladly avail myself of an opportunity to give this subject a full and fair discussion.

Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country. There are forces in operation, which must inevitably work The downfall of slavery. "The arm of the Lord is not shortened," and the doom of slavery is certain. I, therefore, leave off where I began, with hope. While drawing encouragement from the Declaration of Independence, the great principles it contains, and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age. Nations do not now stand in the same relation to each other that they did ages ago. No nation can now shut itself up from the surrounding world, and trot round in the same old path of its fathers without interference. The time was when such could be done. Long established customs of hurtful character could formerly fence themselves in, and do their evil work with social impunity. Knowledge was then confined and enjoyed by the privileged few, and the multitude walked on in mental darkness. But a change has now come over the affairs of mankind. Walled cities and empires have become unfashionable. The arm of commerce has borne away the gates of the strong city. Intelligence is penetrating the darkest corners of the globe. It makes its pathway over and under the sea, as well as on the earth. Wind, steam, and lightning are its chartered agents. Oceans no longer divide, but link nations together. From Boston to London is now a holiday excursion. Space is comparatively annihilated. Thoughts expressed on one side of the Atlantic are, distinctly heard on the other. The far off and almost fabulous Pacific rolls in grandeur at our feet. The Celestial Empire, the mystery of ages, is being solved. The fiat of the Almighty, "Let there be Light," has not yet spent its force. No abuse, no outrage whether in taste, sport or avarice, can now hide itself from the all-pervading light. The iron shoe, and crippled foot of China must be seen, in contrast with nature. Africa must rise and put on her yet unwoven garment. "Ethiopia shall stretch out her hand unto God." In the fervent aspirations of William Lloyd Garrison, I say, and let every heart join in saying it:

“...” (Prayer Omitted - refer to website)



Congress read the Constitution... but they omitted the 3/5ths clause, so as not to offend anyone.

Well... I was offended, that it was not read.

For such actions are, “A slander upon their memory.”



The truth will set you free... but first will make you miserable.

[muff528 3]

Yes, as early as 1852! even a former slave, who had every right to despise the country, "got it". The enlightened message that Douglass was trying to deliver in that speech requires that it be taken in it's entirety. Taking it apart for "sound bites" and out-of-context quotes is a "slander upon the memory" of Frederick Douglass. People who omit or try to twist parts of speeches or writings to support their own ideologies or political agendas are themselves "the veriest impostors that ever practiced on mankind".

[dmcoco84 4]

Would be great if you would elaborate...

I keep reading your post... and the more I read it, the less sense it makes.

[DanG 1]

Quote

I keep reading your post... and the more I read it, the less sense it makes.

Now you know how we feel.

- Dan G

[muff528 3]

Quote

Would be great if you would elaborate...

I keep reading your post... and the more I read it, the less sense it makes.

I am essentially agreeing with your point that the Freeman Institute, MIT and PBS (by quoting selected excerpts from Douglass's speech and, in this case, omitting other parts) have distorted his message to fit their social/political philosophy. I agree with Douglass's view that "...the people of the North have allowed themselves to be so ruinously imposed upon, as that of the pro-slavery character of the Constitution" and that "there is neither warrant, license, nor sanction of the hateful thing" (slavery) within that "GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT". I am suggesting that those organizations, and other's who distort and take other's words out of context, are also among "the veriest impostors that ever practiced on mankind". Your example of Charlie Rangel's misinterpretation (or, more likely, his misunderstanding) of the purpose for the "3/5 Compromise" is another great example of that "slander". I'm also saying that taking Douglass's words outside the context of his entire speech is a "slander upon his memory" just as it was his belief that it was a slander upon the memory of the founders by "those who charge this baseness on the framers of the Constitution of the United States".

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

I keep reading your post... and the more I read it, the less sense it makes.

Now you know how we feel.

It's only English.

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

Now you know how we feel.

Normally... I would laugh and say, "I walked into that one!"

But we've talked about this in PM, Dan.

I'm sorry, but I cannot compensate for your lack of proficiency in reading comprehension.

I'm not saying others wouldn't agree with you... because I, HAVE, been omitting information. But you stated that I was, "talking about Woodrow Wilson guiding the "Progresssive" movement from the grave."

If that's what you have attained from my posts... you have failed to comprehend them.

That is not what I have said... Shall I quote myself?

So, naturally, it doesn't bother me, that, "I pretty much don't agree with anything you write", because you don't seem to grasp what I am even talking about.

I have not been playing professor, nor do I believe that anyone is "ignorant, arrogant, or stupid."

Arrogance... Oh Yes. Fuck Yes! But, I only dish out what I am first served. And I was silently reading posts full of arrogance, long before I ever started posting.

I have also called myself an American Idiot, many times, on this board, because I didn't know squat about history 5 years ago. Not stupid... just wickedly uninformed.

Also... If you read his speech in its entirety... you will find that you are also wrong, in this point "I don't believe in God, but I believe very strongly in the Constitution. I also believe the Declaration is subserviant to the Constitution."

Even though... "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men."



And actually... Quade, Billvon... This speech alone, destroys your arguments, in each of the constitutional and DOI discussions we have had.

I love this speech!



P.S. Sorry I wasn't able to make it to the boogie, Dan. I'm honestly not sure if we have met before, better with faces than names. But I would have enjoyed an in person conversation, for sure.

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

I have not been playing professor, nor do I believe that anyone is "ignorant, arrogant, or stupid."

Now, there are certain rules of interpretation, for the proper understanding of all legal instruments. These rules are well established. They are plain, common-sense rules, such as you and I, and all of us, can understand and apply, without having passed years in the study of law. I scout the idea that the question of the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of slavery is not a question for the people. I hold that every American citizen has a fight to form an opinion of the constitution, and to propagate that opinion, and to use all honorable means to make his opinion the prevailing one. Without this fight, the liberty of an American citizen would be as insecure as that of a Frenchman.

French vs. American... Revolutions.

Hm...I've talked about that a few times.

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

Yes, as early as 1852! even a former slave, who had every right to despise the country, "got it". The enlightened message that Douglass was trying to deliver in that speech requires that it be taken in it's entirety. Taking it apart for "sound bites" and out-of-context quotes is a "slander upon the memory" of Frederick Douglass. People who omit or try to twist parts of speeches or writings to support their own ideologies or political agendas are themselves "the veriest impostors that ever practiced on mankind".

As far as this goes... I was confused for several reasons.

1) As early as 1852?

Well, we have Black Founders... and without one black man specifically... we would not have won the Revolutionary War.

2) who had every right to despise the country, "got it".

Well, not really... he has a right to despise the South. And if you read it in its entirety, he makes that clear.

My spirit wearies of such blasphemy; and how such men can be supported, as the "standing types and representatives of Jesus Christ," is a mystery which I leave others to penetrate. In speaking of the American church, however, let it be distinctly understood that I mean the great mass of the religious organizations of our land. There are exceptions, and I thank God that there are. Noble men may be found, scattered all over these Northern States, of whom Henry Ward Beecher of Brooklyn, Samuel J. May of Syracuse, and my esteemed friend on the platform, are shining examples; and let me say further, that upon these men lies the duty to inspire our ranks with high religious faith and zeal, and to cheer us on in the great mission of the slave’s redemption from his chains.

"I will use the severest language I can command; and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a slaveholder, shall not confess to be right and just. "

3) The enlightened message that Douglass was trying to deliver in that speech requires that it be taken in it's entirety. Taking it apart for "sound bites" and out-of-context quotes is a "slander upon the memory" of Frederick Douglass.

With the beginning of the post... I was confused and wasn't sure, if that was direct at me, somehow.


But... all is well. We were on the same page.

[kallend 1,635]

I wonder if he was smart enough to use commas properly.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

Yes, as early as 1852! even a former slave, who had every right to despise the country, "got it". The enlightened message that Douglass was trying to deliver in that speech requires that it be taken in it's entirety. Taking it apart for "sound bites" and out-of-context quotes is a "slander upon the memory" of Frederick Douglass. People who omit or try to twist parts of speeches or writings to support their own ideologies or political agendas are themselves "the veriest impostors that ever practiced on mankind".

As far as this goes... I was confused for several reasons.

1) As early as 1852?

Well, we have Black Founders... and without one black man specifically... we would not have won the Revolutionary War.

2) who had every right to despise the country, "got it".

Well, not really... he has a right to despise the South. And if you read it in its entirety, he makes that clear.

My spirit wearies of such blasphemy; and how such men can be supported, as the "standing types and representatives of Jesus Christ," is a mystery which I leave others to penetrate. In speaking of the American church, however, let it be distinctly understood that I mean the great mass of the religious organizations of our land. There are exceptions, and I thank God that there are. Noble men may be found, scattered all over these Northern States, of whom Henry Ward Beecher of Brooklyn, Samuel J. May of Syracuse, and my esteemed friend on the platform, are shining examples; and let me say further, that upon these men lies the duty to inspire our ranks with high religious faith and zeal, and to cheer us on in the great mission of the slave’s redemption from his chains.

"I will use the severest language I can command; and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a slaveholder, shall not confess to be right and just. "

3) The enlightened message that Douglass was trying to deliver in that speech requires that it be taken in it's entirety. Taking it apart for "sound bites" and out-of-context quotes is a "slander upon the memory" of Frederick Douglass.

With the beginning of the post... I was confused and wasn't sure, if that was direct at me, somehow.


But... all is well. We were on the same page.

I think the initial "Yes" in my response may have been confusing. I meant that "Yes", I agree with your post. By the time I read your post and all the attachments and then posted my response I'd forgotten that the title of your thread asked a question and you may have taken that to be an answer to that question.

1852 (before the 13th Amendment was even imagined) ...when Douglass gave that speech he understood (in agreement with the abolitionists that he named) that the protections affirmed by the Constitution applied to everyone. (i.e., he "got it", IMO) As a former slave he did have a right to despise the US, south and north. But he defends the motives of the framers of the Constitution in that speech and accuses those who otherwise interpret the Constitution to be "slanderers" and "impostors". But one thing to consider is that he likely was trying to "will" or advocate an interpretation that opposed slavery which was in conflict with the "slavery-is-OK" interpretation of the day. He was trying to advance a case for abolition and the "unconstitutionality" of slavery. His description of life as a slave and the all-men-are-created-equal interpretation was a powerful message taken together. That argument, IMO, was the most important part of that speech and I believe it contained the main point of that address. I simply used his phrase to try to point out that the present-day institutions that published that speech and left out the main message (slavery is unconstitutional) are slandering Douglass's memory and are, themselves, impostors. Not directed at you at all.

I still maintain (in agreement with his argument) that the Constitution did not need to be amended to abolish slavery ...all it needed was an a enlightened and honorable Supreme Court and a will to enforce it. IMO the 13th Amendment is an erosion of the strength of the Constitution to provide a framework that ensures everyone's (including those who were enslaved) unalienable rights. I know the 13th (and other constitutional twists and kinks) are now part of the Constitution.