
          The Cold Hard Truth
          By 
            Chestnut, J.L., Jr.J.L. Chestnut, Jr.
          Vol. 9, No. 5, 1987, p. 40
          
          This is the 200th year of the U.S. Constitution, but that document
remains shrouded in fiction, misunderstanding and ignorance. Millions
of Americans know so little about the Constitution, it is a miracle we
have been able to hold on to it.
          Speakers and writers, who should know better, continue to pay
homage to the Founding Fathers for the "Bill of Rights"--the first ten
amendments to the Constitution. The original constitution drafted at
Philadelphia in 1787 did not include the "Bill of Rights." Those
amendments came later during the ratification process. That is why
they are amendments.
          Indeed, the fifty-five affluent white males who met in Philadelphia
had no authority to write a constitution. They were only legally
empowered to revise the old Articles of Confederation. They drafted a
constitution anyway. The legal problems they created in doing so were
probably resolved by the subsequent ratification of their unauthorized
constitution.
          In 1787, slaves were hardly considered people. The Founding Fathers
reached a compromise at Philadelphia and upgraded each black to
three-fifths of a person. Women were ignored. The new constitution
reflected the culture. It also set certain forces into motion which
finally led to The Civil_War and the end of slavery as an
institution.
          The Civil_War and emancipation of blacks had no effect on
disfranchised white females. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth
amendments were added to the Constitution. These amendments, with the
exception of the Fourteenth, were all pegged to color or "previous
condition of servitude." Gender or sex proscriptions were conspicuous
by their loud absence.
          Nevertheless, another century after the Civil_War, the civil_rights
movement using those amendments spawned a whole new era regarding the
status and rights of women. What had happened? Is the mere passage of
time a sufficient explanation or is there something more?
          I heard an interesting explanation at a women's conference in
Birmingham last week. Approximately half the 200 women present were
white. One of the great loves of my life, sixty-two year old Shirley
Chisholm, was keynote speaker. But the words of a white female friend,
Ann Braden, really jarred my thinking.
          Ann and I served as panelists during a workshop on racism and
coalition-building. Years ago, Ann was a young reporter in Anniston
and covered Bull Connor's Birmingham. She later wrote an interesting,
frank and truthful book and many in the South will never forgive
her. She is unlikely to forgive them and now as a senior citizen
remains outspoken and a self-described "unabashed radical."
          For the women delegates, Ann described racism as the "indefensible
assumption that white males, by right, should rule all things and
everything was created for their benefit." She said that is why native
Americans (Indians) were wiped out by the settlers without the
slightest guilt or remorse. She also said that is why our foreign
policy is so dangerous in a world three-fourths non-white.
          Ann's definition of racism reduces sexism to a component of
racism. If her definition is correct, and I think it is, American
history begins to make sense for the first time.
          How else can one explain why intelligent, learned men would deny
their own mothers, wives and daughters certain fundamental rights
these men risked their lives to secure for themselves?
          Ordinarily, one would not consider that racism, but it obviously
was the exaltation of white males by white males at the expense of
people they love and were closest to.
          Women's rights did not move to the front after the Civil_War and
black emancipation because these developments were aimed at the
institution of slavery and not racism. Racism remained in vogue; only
slavery was outlawed.
          A century later, the civil_rights movement aimed its attack
directly at racism and the women's movement caught fire.
          The proof is in the pudding.
          Peace.
          
            J. L. Chestnut Jr. is an Alabama trial lawyer and
writer.
          
        
