Paulsen rightly criticizes the original Constitution as a "pro-slavery" and "deeply flawed" constitution. (p. 73). It is difficult to disagree with that assessment. There is so much good written into that document, but it is certainly tainted by its "collusion" with slavery.
Paulsen recognizes that the Constitution contains "several compromises that affirmatively reached out to recognize, protect, and even promote the institution of slavery." (p. 740).
If the Northern states had stood strong against these compromises with the Southern states, what would have happened at the Constitutional convention? Would we have achieved a United States of America under a Constitution that could be amended from time to time to form a more perfect union?
Consider Article VII of the Constitution:
Article VII
"The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same."
What if the Southern states had refused to ratify the Constitution without the compromises Paulsen refers to?
Notice that 9 out of 13 states were required to ratify the Constitution in order for the Constitution to take effect. Moreover, even if at least 9 states ratified the Constitution, it would only bind "the states so ratifying
the same." So holdout states would not part of the "United States" nor bound by the Constitution.
What would have happened if we had ended up with the Northern United States and the Southern United States as two separate countries? I suppose someone could write a novel about this alternative universe, but it is difficult to speculate on how this would have impacted the history of the United States and of the World.
Are there any other Constitutional doctrines that involve a constitutional "collusion with evil?" Which doctrines?
No comments:
Post a Comment