Ian, The Const. did not count Black people as 3/5's of a person

[lspooner]

Ian,

The Constitution did not authorize slavery or count Black people as 3/5 of a person.  I do, however, agree with Lysander Spooner and you that it authorized the gov't we have or was powerless to stop it.

[Kevin Freeheart]

It didn't count black people as 3/5ths of a person... It counted SLAVES as 3/5ths of a person.

Blacks who owned themselves in the legal sense WERE counted as full people, yet free Indians were not counted at all.

That distinction is largely irrelevant because the point is "it didn't treat all men equally" as the supposed intent was.

[lspooner]

It didn't count black people as 3/5ths of a person... It counted SLAVES as 3/5ths of a person.

Blacks who owned themselves in the legal sense WERE counted as full people, yet free Indians were not counted at all.

That distinction is largely irrelevant because the point is "it didn't treat all men equally" as the supposed intent was.

Agreed.  But I think Ian meant slaves and I was working off that.

From Article I, Section 2:

"...Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

While Lysander Spooner explained it better, this clause creates two classes of people:  full units and 3/5 units.  If "other persons" refers to slaves (the opposite of free), this would mean that Indians not taxed would be in the slave category.  Spooner's point was that "free" in this context did not mean an opposite of slave.  I think it meant more or less full citizen.

On top of all of this, the word slavery is never mentioned in the US Constitution.

The Unconstitutionality of Slavery http://files.libertyfund.org/files/2206/Spooner_1487_EBk_v4.pdf

[mikehz]

At the time of the Constitution, Indians were not citizens, but were considered members of their particular tribes.

[lspooner]

At the time of the Constitution, Indians were not citizens, but were considered members of their particular tribes.

Doesn't "excluding Indians not taxed" imply that there were Indians who were taxed and therefore citizens of their respective states.