SLAVERY AND THE CONSTITUTION

I was surprised to read in Michael I. Niman’s recent article (“Getting a Grip,” Artvoice v5n6) that “Slavery…was always unconstitutional.”

Article I, Section 2, provides that, in counting population for determining the number of Representatives in the House, three fifths of the slave population would be used to compute the total count. This gave more political power to slave states than their actual number of citizens would otherwise have given them.

Article I Section 9(1) provides that the importation of slaves could continue until 1808. Buying and selling of slaves domestically could continue and did continue even in the nation’s capital.

Article IV, Section 2(3) provides that a slave escaping from the state in which he resides to another state is still a slave and that the state into which he goes has an obligation to return him. The fugitive slave law was a codification of this provision.

Slavery was built into the Constitution and was not eliminated except by a bloody civil war and the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Even after the amendment was enacted, it was not discovered by the Supreme Court (except for corporations) until well into the 20th century.

Although I agree with the general thrust of Niman’s article, I think we should get our history right.

Charles P. Jamieson

Buffalo

Michael I. Niman responds:

Obviously the U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is open to interpretation.

As I see it, slavery violated the First (freedom of speech and right to peaceably assemble), Fourth (unreasonable searches and seizures) and the Fifth (protecting rights to life, liberty and property as well as the right to trial before punishment) Amendments. Since slaves were arbitrarily punished, slavery also violated the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments guaranteeing rights to confront accusers, right to a speedy trial and right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers. These amendments were all ratified in 1791 but were in effect nullified by a white supremacist judiciary that ruled they did not apply to slaves.

LIFE, LIBERTARIAN, JUSTICE

I just want to be brief on a couple of things mentioned recently in your paper:

Regarding the diaspora of Hurricane Katrina evacuees being put “into the streets” because there is no more money to fund their lodging, etc. (“Getting a Grip,” Artvoice v5n7), I believe six months is more than enough time for a good many of these people to have found jobs anyplace. If they couldn’t bring themselves to get anything worthwhile done during their six months of eating, drinking and sleeping at our expense, too bad. They should have tried harder, even if it meant moving elsewhere, or working in the hotels…work is work. And this will be all I say on the Hurricane Katrina people.

As for the Seneca casino in Buffalo (“The Casino Chronicles,” Artvoice v5n3-5), a few questions:

Where were the opponents of the casino before the Senecas started ripping down the H-O Oats building? Did they not have anything themselves they wanted to build there?

Some religious groups are joining this anti-casino lawsuit. Why do some churches hold “bingo nights”? Is that not a hypocritical stand?

When this was mentioned in the Niagara Falls Reporter some time back, one person was quoted as saying, “silver bullets don’t work; hard work and industiousness do.” Why, then, do some members of the area electorate continue to vote for those who enact policies that are diametrically opposite to this ideal? Why continue to vote for people who only know this formula: “Raise taxes, spend more, create more programs”?

If this plastic bubble known as New York State is to get back in step with mainstream America, we will have to start embracing the “red-state” worldview…Less taxes. Less government regulation. Less union dominance. Less government programs. More personal responsibility. More allowing people and families to take care of their own affairs. More emphasis on the work ethic. Creating a business-friendly environment. Otherwise, we will continue to bite the dust while everyone else pushed onward and forward.

Lloyd A. Marshall, Jr.

Lockport

PLAYING AGAINST TYPE

I am so glad that the appreciative audience which viewed Christmas in the Clouds with me on Saturday afternoon, and waited until all the end credits had rolled to leave, had not been frightened off by your review (“Definitely Not the Senecas,” Artvoice v5n7). I think we were all reluctant to leave a movie that had transported us to a locale with gorgeous scenery, believable characters that we came to care about and a witty script that kept us entertained.

Graham Greene’s role as a vegetarian chef was hilarious. The various sub-plots were deftly handled and passed on a few home truths without being preachy.

The review’s dismay at “neither of the two leads suggest[ing] an Indian heritage” and “this un-named tribe be[ing] one of the very few…that neither has nor wants to establish a casino” is uninformed as well as on the way to asking for casting according to stereotype.

This movie was certainly light entertainment a la Sleepless in Seattle and the like. Is this not allowed when Native Americans are involved in the story line? I am surprised at the reviewer’s irrelevant comments and glad that a bingo game was thrown in so he could keep his bearings.

Terry McFarland

East Amherst