Posted on 06/16/2020 3:17:15 PM PDT by Lucas McCain
Democrat Senator and former VP running mate of Hillary Clinton, Tim Kaine (VA) on Tuesday said the United States created slavery.
To think this degenerate liar almost became Vice President of the United States.
“The United States didn’t inherit slavery from anybody. We created it,” said Tim Kaine as he droned on about racism in America.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
That is my understanding. So long as the Constitution has jurisdiction, it was legally impossible to abolish it. It would have required an amendment, or states voluntarily giving it up, though I don't know what they could have done about the "privileges and immunities clause."
If all the states outlawed slavery then para.3 Sec.2 Art. IV becomes extraneous verbiage in the Constitution.
Under that clause, a state is only required to return a run-away slave. it does not prevent a state from making slavery illegal within the borders of that state.
I am not convinced that is an accurate interpretation of constitutional intent. It sets up differing standards for the disposition of what was "property" in that era.
An effort to ban Oxen or Horses would be correctly seen as an infringement on the rights of citizens. Since the constitution does not list slavery as a special case, I would think the normal rules would apply.
Indeed, Article IV, implies that state laws to restrict slavery are in a range between banned and frowned upon.
An effort to ban Oxen or Horses would be correctly seen as an infringement on the rights of citizens.
By 1860 19 states had made slavery illegal within their borders. Even the Taney Court recognized the legal existence of a “free” state. Nothing in the Constitution requires a state to permit slavery. Nothing in the Constitution prevents a state from making slavery illegal. All Art IV section 2 para 3 requires is a state return a run-a-away slave to the owner upon his request. That article does not say he is free to take his slave anywhere in the United States he wants to go to.
I am not a follower of "experts." I'll look at their reasoning, but I don't accept something as correct merely because an expert says so.
Nothing in the Constitution requires a state to permit slavery.
No more than anything in the Constitution requires a state to permit horses or oxen. It is inherent in the document, not explicit.
That article does not say he is free to take his slave anywhere in the United States he wants to go to.
The "privileges and immunities" clause does say this. It claims that the "privileges and immunities" enjoyed in one state are to be recognized throughout all the other states.
Allowing states to declare themselves "free", was just an indulgence that wasn't really founded in law.
No, your version is an illusion.
The deep state progressives have been deceiving almost everyone for the past century.
Imagine what it’s like to be in a “management” position for the progressives. There’s no way you’d allow the truth to stand. Being pro slavery doesn’t look good, especially when you lose the war you fought for it, and they figured that one out pretty fast.
You’re forgetting that all politics is local, and that politics is the art of the possible. He needed the border states, Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, to be reassured that he did not have designs on their human chattels, or they would have either seceded from the Union or at least voted him out of power in Congress, and the midwestern farm belt and the frontiers were not particularly gung ho for abolishing slavery, either. He waited until the Union had scored at least one decisive victory, at Antietam, to avoid the criticism that he was fomenting domestic rebellion as a tactic to win a war that he could not prevail on through honorable means, as the British had done during the Revolutionary War. But even after Antietam, his party lost the mid-terms election, at least partly as an angry reaction to the Proclamation. But he announced the Proclamation to his cabinet as a Divinely ordained move, which they, being practical men, talked him into saving until a union victory for the above reasons. Lincoln himself was sincerely committed to abolishing slavery, but acutely aware that he could not just unilaterally impose that desire on the entire country, with political and regional realities being what they were. So whatever move he made was oriented towards limiting and curtailing slavery as much as the body politic would tolerate.
Lincoln opposed slavery on moral grounds. Opposition cannot be any deeper or absolute than this.
We can review his commentary if needed.
How much of what Lincoln faced in his day was a swamp, much the same as the one Trump is dealing with today?
Was it possible to just upend the institution of slavery in a matter of days or weeks?
Did Lincoln have to posture in order to build his plan?
Are you starting to understand now?
Since at least 1861.
Imagine what it’s like to be in a “management” position for the progressives.
Not hard to imagine. They get kickbacks from all their crony capitalist influence peddling. This is why the Grant administration is considered to be the most corrupt administration in history. He had all those corrupt liberals hired by Lincoln to deal with.
Lincoln even said of Simon Cameron,(secretary of war) "I don't think he would steal a red hot stove."
You mean he lied about his intentions in order to attain and keep political power? Noooooooo!!!!!
Lincoln himself was sincerely committed to abolishing slavery, but acutely aware that he could not just unilaterally impose that desire on the entire country, with political and regional realities being what they were.
If he was sincerely committed to abolishing slavery, how on earth did he urge the passage of the Corwin Amendment? There is virtually nothing that could have protected slavery more effectively than this amendment, and he was urging that it be passed!
After studying events of this era more closely than what I had been taught in school, it appears to me that Lincoln was quite flexible in his principles, except for his Mercantilism. That seems to be his primary core belief.
It was a bit of a corruption swamp before Lincoln got there, but like that other race obsessed liberal lawyer from Illinois who became president, he greatly increased the level of corruption in that city. His methods of doing business were threatening, bribing and cajoling.
Was it possible to just upend the institution of slavery in a matter of days or weeks?
It wasn't legally possible to upend it for many decades. But again, you do not "upend it" by passing an amendment protecting it.
That one act alone ought to be sufficient to demonstrate he had no actual moral principles regarding slavery.
Are you starting to understand now?
I understand that you are ignoring the elephant in the room. You can't claim moral principles regarding the abolition of slavery when you are trying to create an amendment that insures perpetual slavery.
Lincoln was aiding the effort to make slavery permanent. That's what the Corwin Amendment was. Here, i'll post it for you, because clearly you haven't read it.
"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."
Now you explain to me how Lincoln's support for this was some sort of strategic "fourth dimensional chess" that was really intended to end slavery.
I don't see it. It looks like a blatant back stab to the slaves and the abolitionists.
Slavery is inherently evil. Just the word makes the skin crawl. And no one ever, never should defend it.
But, I am wondering about the treatment of slaves. They were most important to people who “owned” them, because they were the deciding factor in success or failure.
Considering their importance, and I never researched it, wouldn’t it behoove the businesses to keep them healthy.
Was all of the treatment they received rotten bad?
I know just the fact that a human is not FREE is the worse thing that can happen to a person, but I wondered about how they were treated. I’m sure there is plenty of empirical data along those lines.
What happened to the amendment?
“You mean he lied about his intentions in order to attain and keep political power? Noooooooo!!!!! “
Just like FDR couldn’t advocate war with Germany, and had to make do with all sorts of subterfuges to keep Churchill and Stalin supplied. You can’t do anything to forward your intentions if you’re out of power.
“If he was sincerely committed to abolishing slavery, how on earth did he urge the passage of the Corwin Amendment? There is virtually nothing that could have protected slavery more effectively than this amendment, and he was urging that it be passed!”
Because he wanted to avert the partitioning of the country and civil war. How can you do anything against slavery if the slave-owners will not acknowledge you as their sovereign, and are at war with you. So he was willing to settle on containment, which, as we discussed previously, would frustrate slave-owners’ desire to unload their slaves on western territories. Left confined with thousands of potential Nat Turners and millions of potential Turner acolytes, and an economy that would remain moribund, tied to single crops such as cotton, tobacco and sugar cane, the slave states would either have to risk manumission, or consign themselves to being an anachronism.
Your superficial condemnation of progressivism appears to be artificial, given that your deeper objective is to provide a substantive defense of their long term narrative in attempting to obscure the fact that the American Civil War was a war between the Republicans and the Democrats over slavery.
But the American Civil War was just that—a war between the Republicans and the Democrats over slavery.
In this case the experts are the Federal Government, they recognized the right of states to outlaw slavery. It is also the slave states. They recognized that a state can and did outlaw slavery in their jurisdiction. The free states believed they had a right to outlaw slavery. Virtually every state in the United States recognized the existence of free states.
Since the Constitution of the United States does not reserve the right to determine the legality or illegality of slavery in the state to the Federal Government. Nor does it prohibit states from making that determination, the Xth Amendment gives the right to make the determination of free or slave exclusively to the States.
The privileges and immunities is not absolute. There are limitations on it. These limitations have been recognized by the Courts and the Federal Government.
Southern states refused to vote on it because they had declared independence and no longer wanted to be part of the US.
Since the whole point was to get them to come back, nobody pursued it further. It was ratified by 5 northern states, and could theoretically still be passed as an amendment. :)
Sounds like you can't do anything to forward your intentions if you tell the truth about them either.
How is this Democracy thing supposed to work again? They pretend they care what citizens want, and then do what they want instead? Doesn't sound like Democracy to me.
Because he wanted to avert the partitioning of the country and civil war.
I'm sure King George felt the same way, but these colonies had put forth this declaration of principle that everyone who wanted to have independence was entitled to have it.
Apparently nobody really meant all that "Laws of nature and of nature's God" stuff.
Also, there was not necessarily going to be any civil war following independence. If Lincoln would have just left them alone, it is quite likely there never would have been a war.
So he was willing to settle on containment, which, as we discussed previously, would frustrate slave-owners’ desire to unload their slaves on western territories.
The notion that any significant numbers of slaves were going to go into the territories is a Unicorn that farts rainbow skittles.
There was not ever going to be any significant level of slavery in the territories. The territories could not make sufficient money through slave labor to make it worthwhile to have slaves there.
Left confined with thousands of potential Nat Turners and millions of potential Turner acolytes, and an economy that would remain moribund, tied to single crops such as cotton, tobacco and sugar cane, the slave states would either have to risk manumission, or consign themselves to being an anachronism.
Alternatively if they had been left alone, the massive flow of new capital into their economy would have severely damaged the powerful and influential robber barons of the Northeast, and caused them massive monetary losses from the competition of foreign products released into American markets.
The power of trade and capital would have moved the centers of commerce away from New York and Boston to Southern cities.
This is what the war was really about.
Do you think Lincoln knew this would happen?
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.