Posted on 07/04/2018 6:19:14 AM PDT by Bull Snipe
A glorious 4th of July for the Union cause. General Lee's Army of Northern Virginia begins it retreat from Pennsylvania after having been defeated by General Meade's Army of the Potomac at the Battle of Gettysburg. General Grant accepts the surrender of the City of Vicksburg from General Pemberton. About 32,000 Confederate soldiers stack their weapons and are paroled by the Union forces. This is the second Confederate Army to surrender to Grant. The Union now controls the Mississippi river and the Confederate state is split into two parts.
Are you absolutely certain about these points?
I was thinking the United States constitution does prohibit a Bill of Attainder and ex post facto Law.
Maybe somewhere around Section 9, Article I. Check it out.
“Haven’t you gotten your revenge for Sherman yet? “
That’s funny and was well received.
Hope you had a safe and fun July 4.
He wants to project modern ideas onto people of 158 years ago and 229 years ago respectively.
At the founding, the majority of people were only starting to contemplate the wrongness of slavery. Most at the time saw nothing wrong with it.
The past is a different country.
Not by normal people it isn't.
Here we are once again focusing on Confederate slavery and completely ignoring Union slavery that existed for "Four Score and Seven years.
The US constitution protected slavery too, but it didn't do it explicitly, it did it through indirect weasel words meant to cloud the fact that it was protecting slavery.
But it protected slavery.
Had the confederates never declared independence, the Union Constitution would have continued protecting slavery, because the Union was a slave Union.
So people like you come along and go "Oh my God! There's slavery in the South! We have to wait till they secede, so that we can DESTROY SLAVERY!!!"
Bullsh*t. I call bullsh*t because the Union never had any intention of eradicating slavery, and it was not their goal for the war at all. The fact that it happened two years into the war does not make it the sole nail on which you can hang justification for invading and murdering people to control their money and commerce.
You people trot out slavery because you literally dare not look beyond that fig leaf. The war was about power and money for New York and Washington DC, and when the Confederates threatened their money stream, they deliberately provoked a war to stop it.
Absolutely. I just saw some writing from this one guy who thought that. I'm glad you are here to set him straight. This is what he wrote.
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?
There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?
Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"?
He goes on and on with more of the same sort of drivel about the constitution and the law protecting slavery, but you know more about this stuff than he does i'm sure.
Time to wake you up. Article IV, Section 2 is specifically about protecting slavery. If you don't believe me, perhaps you will believe the guy at this link.
But I must gently disagree with you in that, as I see it, the Constitution legitimized slavery by allowing slaves to be counted as 3/5 of a person . True, the word “slave” is not mentioned. But the phrase “all other people” can only refer to slaves, and was it meant to refer to slaves.
A lot of people don't understand this. They think the 3/5ths was because the slave owners considered them lesser persons, but the truth is the 3/5ths was insisted upon by the Free states, not the slave states. The slave state representatives wanted to count them as a full person, and the free states thought that would give too much representation to the slave states, and therefore didn't want them counted at all.
The free states compromised by allowing the slave states to count them as 3/5ths, not the other way around.
At the time, they were far more worried that the British would try to take them back than they were that the already several hundred year practice of slavery in America might continue awhile longer. In 1812 the British gave them good reason to fear being reabsorbed.
Also the slave states vastly outweighed the free states at that time. Had they chosen obstinance, they could have awaited the abolition of slavery in 1833 with the other British Subjects. No slavery, no Union.
Pretty much sums it up.
en·shrine [inˈSHrīn, enˈSHrīn] VERB enshrined (past tense) · enshrined (past participle) place (a revered or precious object) in an appropriate receptacle. "relics are enshrined under altars" preserve (a right, tradition, or idea) in a form that ensures it will be protected and respected. "the right of all workers to strike was enshrined in the new constitution" synonyms: set down · set out · spell out · express · lay down · set in stone · embody · realize · manifest · incorporate · represent · contain · include · preserve · treasure · immortalize · cherish
Are you a History Professor? Best explanation I have ever heard on that era! Thanks.
Very nice, thank you. Family barbecue. Hope your's was fun as well.
Good point.
What seems to get lost in most of our posts is the point that the Constitution didn’t discuss slavery, because at the time it didn’t need to.
Doing so would have prevented ratification of the Constitution. It was more sensible to discuss and enshrine the concept of property rights. Slaves were not legally citizens, they were property.
When religiously driven abolitionists, like my family, chose their faith over the rule of law, the resistance and eventual fighting over slavery began.
Defining what is property, and how to treat property, is the real core of this debate. Every result issues from that core.
That core issue, though, only became real to many in the North when slaves and slave catchers came north.
That’s when many Northerners, abolitionists or not, realized that there would eventually be war between the states.
The only issues that remain is a sentimental sympathy for the property losses and destruction of the South, and a continuing strain of white supremacy in both the North and the South.
I don't think those are the only issues remaining. I think this business of "consent of the governed" is an issue that was decided wrongly in the 1860s, and needs to be corrected.
I believe states should and do have the right to regain independence. This notion of a compulsory union is anathema to the principles of our own founding.
If California wants to leave, so long as they pay us what they owe us, i'm okay with them leaving. They are nuts anyways.
Not yet. :)
Thanks.
You're welcome.
The slave state representatives wanted to count them as a full person, and the free states thought that would give too much representation to the slave states, and therefore didn't want them counted at all.
The free states recognized that the Slavocracy wanted to count their chattel property in full for purposes of aggregating power but had no intention of ever actually allowing them any representation. Why count them at all if the reason is representation that they could never benefit?
Oh, and neo-confederates also conveniently neglect to mention that the original reason for the census was for purpose of apportioning tax liabilities. At that time the Slavocracy didn't want their chattel property counted at all.
OK, I agree, there are many forms of secessionist movements all over.
WA, OR, CA has them every year.
The secessionist movements that tend to work are typically unincorporated urban areas that incorporate to gain local control.
Mostly the schemes are too grandiose and lack a thorough financial/tax plan and have not gone anywhere.
Frankly, the South is too heavily embedded with Northerners to ever have a cohesive states rights movement.
There is a very popular bumper sticker in the TX: “We don’t care how you did it up North.”
I have no general opposition to states splitting into more states. But forming another country is just not right.
Women and Children were also counted, but couldn't vote. The representatives elected on their behalf were also expected to benefit them.
Oh, and neo-confederates also conveniently neglect to mention that the original reason for the census was for purpose of apportioning tax liabilities. At that time the Slavocracy didn't want their chattel property counted at all.
There was a possibility that was going to happen? I don't think so. The one surety of government is that the people with money will be taxed.
Your family objected to slavery protection laws. Your family resented the notion of having to live under an immoral law.
I resent having to live under immoral abortion and homosexual laws. I also resent having to live under a system where people who do not pay into the treasury have an equal say with those of us who do.
It is impossible to fix these things with the Democratic process, so what course is left to conscientious objectors of immoral laws?
Well, my family, two branches, started shooting.
I don’t recommend that approach, but given the time and circumstances I likely would have been right there with them.
I strongly oppose abortion because it’s murder, but going to jail is not practical.
Abortion has become a political litmus test and is one of the most effective ways that both sides have to raise money.
So the fight goes to the courts and elections.
Any government is a beauty contest, majority rule, minority rights.
We can only struggle through the available Constitutional processes and stay free ourselves.
I’ve helped some community groups incorporate into new cities.
Guess what, the city councils that started out with well-meaning activists and soon got packed with realtors and lawyers.
Self-determination only lasts so long.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.