What Did The Great Frederick Douglass Think Of The Constitution At The End Of His Life?

I know of no better means of thwarting a modern day hijacker of consciousness than to go back into history to make a reference upon an incontrovertible historical figure, forcing the modern day historical revisionists to substantiate their position or - perish the thought - attack the views of the historical great on their way to standing their ground.

Intentions, intentions, intentions.   What the great Abe Lincoln said about habeas corpus is also true about those who attempt to distinguish the actions of those they favor from the same actions of those they have contempt for:

Lincoln on habeas corpus rights afforded to those who wish to destroy the franchise that bestows such a right:

Must I have allowed them to finally fail of
execution, even had it been perfectly clear that by the use of the means necessary to their execution, some provision of one single law, made in such
extreme tenderness of the citizens liberty, that more rogues than honest men
practically more of the guilty than the innocent, find shelter under it, should, to a
very limited extent, be violated? some single law, made in such extreme
tenderness of the citizens liberty, that practically, it relieves more of the guilty,
than the innocent, should, to a very limited extent, be violated? To state the
question more directly, are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the
government itself go to pieces, lest that one law be violated? Even in such a case
I should consider my official oath broken if I should allow the government to be
overthrown, when I might think the disregarding the single law would tend to
preserve it--

 I must supplement Mr Lincolns observations and make note that in the modern day it is the interpretation of one's INTENTIONS for use in political mischief that is the cover that hides more rouge fellows than does the question of habeas corpus today.   Such an attacker respects the representation required in "habeas corpus".  Instead he makes use of "You Tube" or the various "Media Matters in Black face" outlets to defile the corpse of his enemy - in absentia.

The Struggle Over The Edit Of History

 The radicals among us today make use of the notions of "what they would do in rebellion if they were a slave", the bullet proof vest they now wear accompanying them on their journey in their time machine.  Their Snarling Fox White Liberal cohorts who stand beside them proclaim their revulsion to institution of slavery assuring us that the cotton garment upon their backs today is organic and the coffee that they sip upon from "fair trade".

In their firm entrenchment of today neither are mandated to consider the entrenchments that were held by those who came before them which rendered both a perfect solution and the presence of a man who has not compromised himself, falling short of Jesus, as a character who owes his greatness to the editing of history.  With a few more revisions of the same text one day Huck Finn will be recast as a "Freedom Rider" on his river raft.

In the grand game of "political gotcha" the mere mention of a historical event absent the expected dramatics opens the person up for political assassination.  No longer is the gun used in a duel.  A posting on their propaganda blog provides far more chum for their sharklette followers to feast upon.

Above all their antics prove that despite their frustrations about the doctoring of HISTORY - their own consumption of doctored facts tend to justify the edits that their ideological adversaries have done.  The major accomplishment then is that their enemies have gotten more of THEIR text books printed and inserted into the public schools.   The book "A People's History Of The United States" that sits right beside me as I type has millions of copies sold but unfortunately no educational content review panel as Texas does to insure that their version is allowed to indoctrinate the children in the classroom.  There is hope as the Kindle and the iPad afford more dynamic access to content.  I suspect that the next concern for the activists will be that these same children who are pawns in the struggle will choose to consume "Angry Birds" on their "electronic text books" and not obtain the enlightenment from their edit of history.

Why Did Frederick Douglass Come Around To Seeing The US Constitution As An Anti-Slavery Document Toward The End Of His Life?

Prior to the great Malcolm X's end of life conversion there was the change that happened upon Frederick Douglass.  At the end of his days he came around to believing that the US Constitution was an "Anti-Slavery Document".

Before I go into the actual words of the man I wanted to make mention that Douglass' "change" was little different than Abe Lincoln's reference about habeas corpus.  In both cases one would have to eat his own body for nutrition if the contrary position was taken.

What mandate could Douglass use for his argument in support of the equality of the African besides the channels of the government that were established from the foundational belief that "all men are created equal"?

These words found in the "Declaration Of Independence" were written by the same flawed me who later wrote the "US Constitution".   Clearly the best strategy for Douglass to use was to inquire of these men - "What exactly did you actually mean when you wrote these words?"

The Civil Rights Movement and the principles of non-violence were based upon the notion that a mirror held up to a nation for it to do introspection is more powerful than a brick thrown through a pane glass window that triggered men who had previously shown their violent streak to go after their guns in defense of their property - another tenant from these same founding documents.

The radical dispenses of pragmatism.  The offending system tramples his interests yet he is less prone to note how he will fare in the anarchy that will exist in the void.   I have made note of the importance of the INDICTMENT to those with an activist spirit.  They reference some more perfect world and make note that the present one falls miserably short of the model.  They too do as Frederick Douglass does - look to the entitlements that the system in question provides with great imbalance OR - create a new set of entitlements for this same system to bestow as a sign of its progression.

Destroy the system or judge it to be terminally flawed and the movement that they base their movement on loses its framework.

The Present And The Future Of The Colored Race In America
Frederick Douglass 1863

Let me tell you something. Do you know that you have been deceived and cheated? You have been told that this government was intended from the beginning for white men, and for white men exclusively; that the men who formed the Union and framed the Constitution designed the permanent exclusion of the colored people from the benefits of those institutions. Davis, Taney and Yancey, traitors at the south, have propagated this statement, while their copperhead echoes at the north have repeated the same. There never was a bolder or more wicked perversion of the truth of history. So far from this purpose was the mind and heart of your fathers, that they desired and expected the abolition of slavery. They framed the Constitution plainly with a view to the speedy downfall of slavery. They carefully excluded from the Constitution any and every word which could lead to the belief that they meant it for persons of only one complexion.

.The Constitution, in its language and in its spirit, welcomes the black man to all the rights which it was intended to guarantee to any class of the American people. Its preamble tells us for whom and for what it was made.

But I am told that the ruling class in America being white, it is impossible for men of color ever to become a part of the "body politic." With some men this seems a final statement, a final argument, which it is utterly impossible to answer. It conveys the idea that the body politic is a rather fastidious body, from which everything offensive is necessarily excluded. I, myself, once had some high notions about this body politic and its high requirements, and of the kind of men fit to enter it and share its privileges. But a day’s experience at the polls convinced me that the "body politic" is not more immaculate than many other bodies. That in fact it is a very mixed affair. I saw ignorance enter, unable to read the vote it cast. I saw the convicted swindler enter and deposit his vote. I saw the gambler, the horse jockey, the pugilist, the miserable drunkard just lifted from the gutter, covered with filth, enter and deposit his vote. I saw Pat, fresh from the Emerald Isle, requiring two sober men to keep him on his legs, enter and deposit his vote for the Democratic candidate amid the loud hurrahs of his fellow-citizens. The sight of these things went far to moderate my ideas about the exalted character of what is called the body politic, and convinced me that it could not suffer in its composition even should it admit a few sober, industrious and intelligent colored voters.

It is a fact, moreover, that colored men did at the beginning of our national history, form a part of the body politic, not only in what are now the free states, but also in the slave states. Mr. Wm. Goodell, to whom the cause of liberty in America is as much indebted as to any other one American citizen, has demonstrated that colored men formerly voted in eleven out of the thirteen original states.