Replies

By the way, I have not read through this entire thread (don't have the time), and was wondering where the Union enthusiasts might have posted the article, section, and clause of the antebellum United States Constitution, prohibiting the expansion of slavery...

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.

Sound familiar?

Tuesday, September 30, 2003 10:04:47 PM • 200 of 1,915
Non-Sequitur to TomServo
Well golly-gee, NS. How could we ever forget our racist past with ya’ll preaching from your mighty pulpit and sitting atop your high horses...
Especially when y’all hang on to it so tightly.

Monday, November 10, 2003 2:32:36 PM • 492 of 515
Non-Sequitur to HenryLeeII
Southern white trash is southern white trash regardless of where they live

Tuesday, October 29, 2002 9:58:04 PM • 356 of 448
Non-Sequitur to bjs1779
I hardly think that the south had to take lessons from anyone when it came to denying blacks basic rights and suffrage.

Monday, October 28, 2002 7:30:27 AM • 32 of 216
Non-Sequitur to thatdewd
You must be the product of the southern public school systems.

Non-Sequitur to seemoAR
There is a very old saying in the South about people who are as dumb as a fence post or a rock. It does as much good to argue with a post as it is does with some people. The results are the same.
And I imagine that the Southern population is equally divided between the two types.
you folks down South did just fine in the hate department without any coaching from us.