RECEIVE FREE UPDATES
    Search this Site!
    Dedicated to the return to the constitution as written by our forefathers, The return of common sense in our laws, the return of morality in our
    Decisions, and the proliferation of environmental truth.

    Answering Questions

    Editor’s Comment

    On another site I belong to, they ask questions and I answer them. Some are asked of the entire membership and some are targeted to an individual like me. The following question and answer are a good example of a question I was asked.

     

    Is the underlying measure of racism in the US attributed to the Constitution and Bill of Rights not being equally observed for all in each and every community?

    Charles H Diaz, Author, Editor, Blog Owner Answered 6h ago

    If we view any part of history through a twenty-first-century prism, we are not treating history fairly. In fact, we would treat history unjustly by doing so. Should we blame humankind for not having invented the wheel until they did? Should we blame Caesar or Shaka Zulu for the thousands they murdered or enslaved?

    Have you ever heard of an explorer named Mungo Park?

    “Mungo Park (11 September 1771 – 1806) was a Scottish explorer of West Africa. He was the first Westerner known to have traveled to the central portion of the Niger River, and his account of his travels is still in print.” Wiki

    Mungo Park kept a diary of his daily experiences and wrote a very interesting little book titled “Travels in the Interior of Africa.” It was published in 1901 and I have an original copy.

    In it Mungo writes in December 1796, “I’ve learned more about the African life as in 75% lived in slavery among the tribes. Only 25% of tribesmen lived as free men.” That means the natural state of life for 75% of all Africans was to be a slave.

    So in 1796 there is written proof that 75% of the Africans in Western Africa were slaves. They were either born into slavery, sentenced to slavery or were captured in battles and made slaves. This was a way of life in Africa. Shall we condemn them for their acts of slavery? Who do
    you think the kings, princes and upper class free Africans sold to the slave traders?

    Will you ask if any rights were being equally observed for all in each community in Africa? Will
    you blame them for allowing slavery for centuries?

    Slaves are still traded in Africa. Christians are murdered by Muslims all over the world. In Darfur an estimated two million black Christians have been displaced or murdered by Muslims. People would be better served if they viewed our Constitution through the prism of the freedom it has created for the first time on earth instead of using it as a piece of evidence in the trial of America.

    Civilization has been on a journey for thousands of years and it has been a vicious ride. It started with kill or be killed and it took a long time for Kings and Queens to enter the history of the world. For centuries a country could only grow by conquest.

    The idea of America eventually stopped that.

    When it reached the eastern shores of North America, those who settled in Plymouth, Jamestown, and Connecticut did so with a complex mission, including bringing Christianity to savages. As in all things and all people, no one is perfect and to condemn the 1600s reality because of our 2018 reality would be a stupid misunderstanding of history. The condemnation would be better aimed at 1600s realities being practiced today.

    It is true our forefathers didn’t immediately free the slaves in America, but they planted the seed of freedom that would finally take root seventy-five years later as the slaves were emancipated.

    In comparison it took civilization thousands of years to remove the royal yoke of a feudalistic and peasant-like existence from around the neck of all people all around the world and there are still countries where people aren’t really free.

    What took civilization thousands of years to accomplish, took America relatively few while still in her infancy.

    When our Forefathers adopted the Constitution they laid the seed that would someday free the slaves because they knew they couldn’t do it at that time and be able to form a government. When they entered the three fifths language regarding slaves it wasn’t because they considered them 3/5 of a white man, it was to not give the South too many seats in the
    House and Electoral College.

    From Legal Information, Attorneys, Free Legal Forms, Statutes, Cases, Lawyers

    “For the most part, those who opposed slavery only wanted to consider the free people of a population, while those in favor wanted to include slaves in the population count. This would provide for slave holders to have many more seats in the House of Representatives and more
    representation in the Electoral College. Many ratios were considered, such as three-fourths, one-half, and one-quarter. After much debate, it would be James Madison that would suggest the Three-Fifths Compromise.”

    That 3/5ths language allowed the introduction to the end of slavery. In America, not Africa.

    I guess what I’m saying is, the question is an insult. It’s an insult to my country, It’s an insult to our Constitution and it’s an insult to the history of civilization.