10 January. In the brief but intense pre-election day campaign, the pro-ratification groups’ major argument had an appeal that surprised even those who made it. Their message was straightforward:
The Framers intended America to be a white country. The evidence of their intentions is present in the original Constitution. After more than a hundred and thirtyseven years of good-faith efforts to build a healthy, stable interracial nation, we have concluded–as the Framers did in the beginning–that our survival today requires that we sacrifice the rights of blacks in order to protect and further the interests of whites. The Framers’ example must be our guide. Patriotism, and not pity, must govern our decision. We should ratify the amendment and accept the Space Traders‘ proposition.
In response, a coalition of liberal opponents to the Space Traders’ offer sought to combine pragmatism and principle in what they called their “slippery Trade slope” argument. First, they proclaimed the strong moral position that trading away a group of Americans identifiable by race is wrong and violates our basic principles.
The coalition aimed its major thrust, however, at the self-interest of white Americans: “Does not consigning blacks to an unknown fate set a dangerous precedent?” the liberals demanded. “Who will be next?”
In full-page ads, they pressed the point: “Are we cannibals ready to consume our own for profit? And if we are, the blacks may be only the first. If the Space Traders return with an irresistible offer for another group, the precedent will have been set, and none of us will be safe. Certainly not the minorities–Hispanics, Jews, Asians–and perhaps not even those of us identifiable by politics or religion or geographic location. Setting such a precedent of profit could consume us all.”
Astutely sidestepping the Trade precedent arguments, the pro-Trade response focused on the past sacrifices of blacks. “In each instance,” it went, “the sacrifice of black rights was absolutely necessary to accomplish an important government purpose. These decisions were neither arbitrary nor capricious. Without the compromises on slavery in the Constitution of 1787, there would be no America. Nor would there be any framework under which those opposed to slavery could continue the struggle that eventually led to the Civil War and emancipation.
“And where and how might slavery have ended had a new government not been formed? On what foundation would the post-Civil War amendments been appended? Sacrifices by blacks were made, but those sacrifices were both necessary and eventually rewarding to blacks as well as the nation.”
In countering the anti-Trade contention that the sacrifice of black rights was both evil and unprecedented, pro-Traders claimed, “Beginning with the Civil War in which black people gained their liberty, this nation has called on its people to serve in its defense. Many men and women have voluntarily enlisted in the armed services, but literally millions of men have been conscripted, required to serve their country, and, if necessary, to sacrifice not simply their rights but also their lives.”
As for the argument that the sacrifice of black rights in political compromises was odious racial discrimination, proTrade forces contended that “fortuitous fate and not blatant racism” should be held responsible. Just as men and not women are inducted into the military, and even then only men of a certain age and physical and mental condition, so only some groups are destined by their role in the nation’s history to serve as catalyst for stability and progress.
“All Americans are expected to make sacrifices for the good of their country. Black people are no exceptions to this basic obligation of citizenship. Their role may be special, but so is that of many of those who serve. The role that blacks may be called on to play in response to the Space Traders’ offer is, however regrettable, neither immoral nor unconstitutional.”
A tremendous groundswell of public agreement with the pro-Trade position drowned out anti-Trade complaints of unfairness. Powerful as would have been the notion of seeing the Space Traders’ offer as no more than a fortuitous circumstance, in which blacks might be called on to sacrifice for their country, the “racial sacrifice as historic necessity” argument made the pro-Trade position irresistible to millions of voters–and to their Congressional representatives.
To be continued. . . . .
