Good grief...since when...1980?
Remember this doofus?
Posted on 04/11/2011 7:51:03 AM PDT by Davy Buck
"The fact that it is acceptable to put a Confederate flag on a car *bumper and to portray Confederates as brave and gallant defenders of states’ rights rather than as traitors and defenders of slavery is a testament to 150 years of history written by the losers." - Ohio State Professer Steven Conn in a recent piece at History News Network (No, I'll not difnigy his bitterness by providing a link)
This sounds like sour grapes to me. Were it not for the "losers" . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
Apparently your math is as weak as your history. And your reading skills aren't so hot, either. The DeWolfe family did indeed bring about 10,000 slaves across the Atlantic. But they didn't land them all in the US. The slave markets (and the DeWolfe plantations) of Cuba were just as much a destination.
Oh, and according to The Slave Voyages Database The number of slave disembarked in North America was just over 300,000. So where did the rest of that million come from, since, as you said, "There's no way to increase the slave population (aka "expansion") except by bringing more into the country. "?
There were many other families from RI (like the Brown University Brown’s in Providence), NY, etc. They effectively controlled major ports in the south such as Charleston, SC.
Sorry, how do you get from slave traders to effective control of Charleston?
You really are clueless, aren't you? Cotton farming was always backbreaking labor, but until the cotton gin came along, barely any cotton was produced because it was too full of seeds and there was no way to remove them. The cotton gin removed those seeds and suddenly made cotton viable as a crop and huge fortunes could be made on it. The price of slaves shot up. Seriously, this isn't even controversial, and your lack of knowledge about even the basics of the slave economy makes me almost embarrassed for you.
That this is the only alternative to the importation of two million more slaves into the US after the banning of the slave trade that you appear to be able to imagine speaks for itself.
Apparently Durand didn’t touch on that...
As for the first, it's Article IV, Sec. 3 that gives Congress the "Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;" That was taken (until Dred Scott, at least) to mean that congress could ban slavery in the territories.
As for the second, that would be Article 1, Sec. 9: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight,"
Yes, the Constitution is interesting reading. You should try it sometime.
“ALL BLUEBELLIES TO PERDITION AND GOD BLESS ROBERT E. LEE!!!”
Amen to that.
I love that graphic! It kinda warms my heart since that old white dead guy burned my town to the ground, save one home...which he used as his headquarters.
That’s not to mention the looting...
Article IV, Section III: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State." Under that Congress has the power to ban slavery in the territories until 1856 and the Dred Scott decision. Had the rebellion not intervened I believe that the Lincoln administration would have worked to overturn that decision. And I don't think it would have been difficult, given the flaws in the ruling.
... - or even prohibiting the importation of slaves.
Article I, Section 9: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." This gave Congress the authority to control slave imports after 1809, including banning imports altogether.
Now that would make interesting reading.
The Constitution always is.
thank you for pointing out exactly what we’ve been saying.
neither example you provided from the USC outlawed slavery nor the slave trade:
- the first said congress could speak to the laws in the territories owned by the collective states, but could NOT prejudice the laws of any state in doing so. they could not not infringe upon any person’s native state rights (which slaves had none since they weren’t citizens) while traveling through the territories or other states. (of course to change residence to a different state would require becoming a citizen thereof and abiding by those laws, so the argument that “scott” would expand slavery through the north was bunk)
new states entering the union had as much sovereignty to decide the issue within their borders as the existing ones did, and congress could not affect that either.
- the second did not outlaw trade, but merely deferred the the power for congress to address the matter at a later date. when they did so in 1807, they passed a law (not an amendment) that was enforced as rigidly as our immigration laws today. if that’s the definition of “outlaw”, then i guess our borders are secure too.
taney did a better job than i of explaining it. of course no one questions the constitutional accuracy of his decision, they just find it “objectionable”. i find federal income tax objectionable but it’s the law of the land and i’d expect no judge to rule otherwise no matter what the popular sentiment is.
and the fact that dred scott was owned by an Northern ABOLITIONIST for 7 years prior to his trial apparently didn’t matter either. maybe Chafee just didn’t realize he married a slave-owner and that he could’ve ended the matter at any point.
Both provided the authority to outlaw slave imports and regulate slavery in the territories.
- the first said congress could speak to the laws in the territories owned by the collective states, but could NOT prejudice the laws of any state in doing so.
We must be looking at different versions of the Constitution. Mine says that Congress can make laws "respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." That would include all territories not organized and admitted as states. Until the 13th Amendment, Congress could do nothing slavery in any state where it existed, or force states to allow it if they chose not to.
they could not not infringe upon any person’s native state rights (which slaves had none since they weren’t citizens) while traveling through the territories or other states.
But should that person decide to establish a residence in a territory then Congress should, and I believe did, have the right to deny him the right to live there with his slave property unde the powers granted them under Article IV. Taney thought otherwise, and I believe his flawed decision would not have been upheld.
new states entering the union had as much sovereignty to decide the issue within their borders as the existing ones did, and congress could not affect that either.
Per the Kansas-Nebraska Act, yes. Congress gave them that authority, which Constitutionally they were empowered to do.
Unlike the Confederate Constitution, which denied the people of the new territories that choice. Slavery was mandated throughout the entire CSA.
the second did not outlaw trade, but merely deferred the the power for congress to address the matter at a later date. when they did so in 1807, they passed a law (not an amendment) that was enforced as rigidly as our immigration laws today. if that’s the definition of “outlaw”, then i guess our borders are secure too.
That is true. But the authority to end slave imports came from that Article I, Section 9 clause.
But where is this any different that the Confederate Consitution, which specifically protected slave imports? But which also gave the Confederate Congress the same out of being able to end it, not by amendment but by legislation?
of course no one questions the constitutional accuracy of his decision, they just find it “objectionable”.
ROTFLMAO!!!! The Constitutional accuracy of Taney's flawed decision has been questioned by people far more learned than you or I.
i find federal income tax objectionable but it’s the law of the land and i’d expect no judge to rule otherwise no matter what the popular sentiment is.
And I am sure that the existence of the 16th Amendment would make their job a lot easier. Taney had no such clause or amendment to justify his decision.
and the fact that dred scott was owned by an Northern ABOLITIONIST for 7 years prior to his trial apparently didn’t matter either. maybe Chafee just didn’t realize he married a slave-owner and that he could’ve ended the matter at any point.
That is not accurate. Ownership of Scott was held by Dr. Emerson's estate, managed by his widow's brother, John F. A. Sanford. Hence the name of the case, Scott v Sanford.
Where is secession outlawed in the Constitution?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/so-where-did-the-civil-war-start-move-over-sc-one-town-says-florida/
In Mississippi on Feb. 1, 1890 an appropriation for a monument to the Confederate dead was being considered. A delegate had just spoken against the bill, when John F. Harris, a Negro Republican delegate from Washington, County, rose to speak: "Mr. Speaker! I have arisen here in my place to offer a few words on the bill. I have come from a sick bed. Perhaps it was not prudent for me to come. But sir, I could not rest quietly in my room without contributing a few remarks of my own. I was sorry to hear the speech of the young gentlemen from Marshall County. I am sorry that any son of a soldier should go on record as opposed to the erection of a monument in honor of the brave dead. And, Sir, I am convinced that had he seen what I saw at Seven Pines, and in the Seven Day's fighting around Richmond, the battlefield covered with the mangled forms of those who fought for their country and for their country's honor, he would not have made the speech. When the news came that the South had been invaded, those men went forth to fight for what they believed, and they made no requests for monuments. But they died, and their virtues should be remembered. Sir, I went with them. I, too, wore the gray, the same color my master wore. We stayed four long years, and if that war had gone on till now I would have been there yet. I want to honor those brave men who died for their convictions. When my mother died I was a boy. Who, Sir, then acted the part of a mother to the orphaned slave boy, but my old MISSUS! Were she living now, or could speak to me from those high realms where are gathered the sainted dead, she would tell me to vote for this bill. And, Sir, I shall vote for it. I want it known to all the world that my vote is given in favor of the bill to erect a monument in HONOR OF THE CONFEDERATE DEAD."
When the applause died down, the measure passed overwhelmingly, and every Negro member voted "AYE".
Individual states had no claims to the territories.
You keep saying you think the law "wouldn't have been upheld", but BY WHOM?
No, I keep saying that the Dred Scott decision would not have been upheld, flawed as it was. And that would be by a future Supreme Court.
You mock that people "far more learned than you or I" objected, but who holds greater authority to uphold federal laws than the chief justice of the supreme court (in "your" Constitution)?
The Chief Justice has no more authority than any other Supreme Court justice has.
Again, you're lying here because this has already been addressed. The EXACT same article and section of the CSAC doesn't grant a non-committal "authority" to make up their minds later on trade, but instead states with no uncertainty...
No uncertaintly indeed. Right there in black and white - slave imports are specifically protected by the Confederate Constitution. The only limitation is point of origin.
Scott was managed by his widow's brother, but OWNED by his widow, who married Chafee in 1850 thus legally transferring ownership to him. Chafee transferred ownership of Scott for the Blows after the decision, who compassionately dumped him on the streets of St. Louis where he died from tuberculosis a year later. Oh what sweet freedom.
Then why was Sanford the defendant and not Chafee?
The others on here may have some facts mixed up, but you're the first I've seen repeatedly, deliberately try to deceive to make a point.
Obviously you don't read your own posts. As I've suspected all along.
7 minute Documentary featuring Nelson W. Winbush, a black son of confederate black soldier Luis Napoleon Nelson who fought under Nathan Bedford Forest, founder of the KKK. A series of interviews, documentation, stock footage, and reenactments all collaberate to help defend the Confederacy and it's soldiers against it's notorious reputation in regards to black slavery and what the confederate flag actually stood for.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YF-QIJyLhKQ&feature=related
Good grief...since when...1980?
Remember this doofus?
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.