nathaniel Perkins-ali's Page

By Nathaniel Perkins-Ali
(originally written in 1994)

Whenever a person thinks of the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, they think of the abolishment of slavery and Abraham Lincoln. Indeed, for over a century, many Americans, including African-Americans, have been mis-taught that had it not been for the courage of Lincoln and the ratification of the 13th Amendment, the institution of slavery would still exist.
But did America really free the African and their descendants? Does the 13th Amendment truly abolish slavery in all of its form? Or, has it merely changed hands from one master to another. The truth is, slavery is alive and well, and the United States is the biggest plantation in the world. Anyone who has taken time to read the 13th Amendment, will notice the gray area, which when questioned, points to a legality that had, until now, become an acceptable fact.
In it's entirety, the amendment states, "Neither Slavery, nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within these United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article with appropriate legislation."
A closer examination of this tiny, but powerful amendment, which is the shortest amendment in the Constitution, gives the view of a compromise, or rather yet, a transfer of ownership. Excluding the rhetoric of debate, we will attempt to provide the reader with a chronological sequence of events leading up to the 13th amendment and beyond, which should provide a clear picture of the continued perpetuation of slavery in all of it’s various forms.
The Thirteenth Amendment, in essence, became a measure for the President and Congress to "assume power over slavery." What that means is, that even though they temporarily dismantled slavery as it existed then, they would never fully consider abolishing it, and could reassemble it in another form.
In Feb. 1861, Congress adopted a resolution for an amendment that would "deny" itself the power to abolish slavery in every state. Could this be the reason that the call for reparations fall on deaf ears in Congress? This resolution would, in essence, never give Congress the power to abolish slavery in every state. Only in those states that did not conform to government policy, or the powers that be. Consequently, the Confiscation Acts of 1861-62, gave the national government forfeiture rights over disloyal (confederate sympathizers) slaveholders and their slaves, which also meant mobility for the slave. Loyalists (northern sympathizers) were allowed to keep their slaves. Therefore, it was only those slave states that were in rebellion that the Confiscation Acts applied to. When the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on Jan. 1, 1863, declaring the freedom of slaves to slaveholding states, loyalist states were unaffected and slavery was continued for them. However, the legal issues surrounding slavery had not been clarified at that time. Thus, Rep. James M. Ashley of Ohio, Senator John Brooks Henderson of Missouri, and Charles Sumner of Massachusetts introduced resolutions. In its final form, the resolution was reported to the Senate by Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, and resembled the slavery prohibition of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, ratification, or the necessary three-fourths vote of the states necessary to initiate President Andrew Johnson's Reconstruction program, contained 8 states that had seceded from the Union. This meant that there were eight Confederate States that were included in the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, but were not considered states in the Union in 1867 by Congress in the Reconstruction Acts of 1867. Yet, the Amendment was ratified and validated as part of the Constitution in 1865.
After the ratification of the 13th amendment, many of the conquered southern states passed legislation of its own. Now being part of the Union and no longer in rebellion, they could now restructure the institution of slavery and disguise it to be more palatable to the people. They would be able to do it within the confines of the law. They called those laws the "Black Codes." These laws were basically passed to limit the mobility of the slaves, and devise a plan to return them back into slavery.
The black codes, which were very similar to the "Antebellum" Legislative period, is seen as originating out of the 17th century and continuing throughout the Civil War. Typical legislation was, vagrancy, unemployment without permanent residency, bound out for a term of labor, if unable to pay fines, and breaking an agreement entered into voluntarily, to name a few. Even "codes" for orphans existed. They would be taken as apprentices to work for a number of years. The "Black Codes" were specifically designed to "ensure" that the freed slave would remain in a position subordinate to whites, socially, economically, and politically. Mississippi, which enacted the harshest "codes," passed its body of laws in the State legislature in November 1865, one month before the ratification of the 13th amendment.
As if in silent conspiratorial agreement, it was understood by both the North and the South that, although the law gave the slave mobility to move freely within the system, a stipulation was placed on that mobility. With this understanding, each state went about the business of creating situations and laws that would indirectly lead slaves back to slavery. Despite, the ratification of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution in July, 1868, and the 15th Amendment in Feb. 1870, which served to temporarily remove such laws, the same identical laws resurfaced in the early 1900's, termed "Jim Crow" laws and continued until the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The chronology just given has every indication that despite the illusion of progress, the African in America and their descendants has been duped, once again, into believing that this government (slave master) has their best interest at heart. So for the most part, the first Africans that set their feet on the shores of what is now called the United States, until this day, have not been free.
Contrast the picture, as it existed then, with legislation being passed today, and you will see a historic resemblance of pass laws, re-worded to reflect today's society. This history of the past, once analyzed properly becomes profoundly important to the African-American. Its importance lies in how the descendants of Africans relate to America and the world today and the illusion perpetuated that slavery and racial prejudice is dead. By examining recently passed legislation and those now before Congress, we see a definite correlation to the antebellum slave statutes, the black codes, and the Jim Crow laws. This placed the "slave" in a position subordinate to whites, socially, politically, and economically.
For example, we have explored the 13th Amendment of the Constitution, concerning slavery, which contains the stipulation "except as a punishment for crime." However, similar stipulations are contained in state constitutions, as well. For instance, "Article 1, Sec. 6; of the California State Constitution, sates, "Slavery is prohibited. Involuntary servitude is prohibited, except to punish crime." In specific terms, this means, if convicted of a crime, the former slave, or their descendant, goes back into slavery. Thus, it is quite logical to view the present prison system as the "new plantation" and the laws that govern it as the "black codes" (Three Strikes) of the new millennium. It would even be conceivable to speculate that the same provisional statements are contained in other state constitutions making the United States a "legal" slave system.
Compare that with the United Nations Charter, which the United States is a part of, and we find a violation of human rights, according to International Law. The U.N. adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on Dec. 10, 1948, whose two principal authors included John Humphrey of the United States and Rene` Cassin, the French delegate to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. In Article 4, and 5, of the Declaration, respectively, states, "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. No one is subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment."
Yet, slavery in the form of "punishment of crime" becomes the questioning factor with regard to the United States Penal System laws that are specifically design to violate these rights, recognized internationally, as basic human endowment, have become acceptable practices among the Government, on local and federal levels. They become the focal point re-enslavement in the form of punishment, which ultimately degenerates into cruel and inhuman treatment at the hands of an unregulated, unmonitored, unchecked appetite of bestiality. Inmates are subjected to the worst kinds of experimentation imaginable under the guise of helping humanity advance, as lab rats for new psychotropic drugs.
The true reason behind the increased shrinkage in the workforce, both private and government, we politely call it downsizing is cheap labor or “slave labor.” The illusion that the astronomical costs associated with prisons is real has the American people duped to the true slaveocracy of the United States.
Inmates make everything from computer chips to office furniture selling them for enormous profits from state to state, bidding for government contracts using “slave labor.” In short, the government is using the taxpayers money to warehouse people under the color of authority to finance a perpetual slave system that puts any Southern plantation to shame. Inmates are even loaned out to neighboring institution in the federal prison system, reminiscent of the plantations of old. From corporate level of moving , manufacturing plants to foreign countries to prison slave camps, the cheaper the labor, the more money that is made.
How does this impact America’s workforce? In an Aug. 1994 edition of the Washington Times, private industries were being systematically squeezed out of business competing with cheap/slave labor, compliments of the U.S. Government. Known as factories, the article said, “Federal Prison Industries (FPI), is a little known agency in the Justice Department that markets prisoner made goods to government agencies. The agency was set up (over) 60 years ago to keep inmates busy and train them for outside jobs. Its products ranged from paint brushes to circuit boards and prescription eyewear. FPI is self-sustaining and has paid more than $80 million in profits into the Federal Treasury throughout it’s history,” quoting Denise Murphy, an FPI spokesperson. Twenty-three cents to $1.15 an hour. More than half of that pay is deducted from them to pay for fines, child support and other expenses which could range in the millions, that could take a thousand years to pay off. And they tell the American public that they are footing cost of $35,000 to house each inmate. That’s the illusion! The reality is they pay their own way.
An estimated “$400 million annually” had been made for ten years off prison labor, expected to increase significantly in the early years of the 21st Century. Economist claim that “this threatens the viability of the smaller electronics, furniture, and textile manufacturers.” The article revealed plans of the FPI to expand, “beyond supplying goods to the government, to the commercial marketplace.” Companies like Symix, of Columbus, Ohio, a computer software vendor, which boasted earnings of $31.4 million from FPI in 1993, for development of computer systems in Milan, Michigan’s minimum-security federal prison. Other vendors vying for FPI’s affections, at that time were, “Dial Soap” and “Que Tel Corp.”, American “never leave home without it” Express, and General “brings all good things to life” Electric, have invested millions into private prison construction in Oklahoma and Tennessee. However, to date, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) is the largest, founded in 1983 by Doctor Grants, a West Point and Harvard graduate.
In the final analysis, we still come back to the original question, “Did the 13th Amendment really free the slave?” If we really want to know, we must closely examine what is going on around us to find an honest answer. We must become more vigilant than ever before, keeping constant watch, vowing deep within our breast, never again will we accept the label, never again will we allow our freedoms to be whittled away at, our human dignities to be taken from us. Never again should we accept the holocaust of living the life of a SLAVE.