Posted on 08/23/2025 4:28:03 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
Yes, labor contracts of a non-slave type did exist when the Constitution was written.
They even had a name. They were called “indentured servants”, and they were also called “redemptioners”. Now, yes, also, there were slaves themselves. They were also covered.
Here, you must need this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redemptioner
You do not need to omit this.
Voting in a definitive end to something is not "pro" anything. They all said: This ends in 1808.
That is not pro. That's anti.
Well duh, if you think something utterly necessary then you sunset it. That's the best way to make it last forever!
(sarcasm needed?)
You have to be really disturbed if you can somehow connect Alexander Hamilton with a reprobate political hack like Lyndon Johnson or Joe Biden. Really disturbed.
Yeah, I responded. I'm guessing you didn't like my response.
Horse or Zebra?
Well I didn't do that, but that seems to be how you read what I said.
Lincoln and Lyndon are probably closer in terms of how they did things. Lincoln thought bribing congressmen and other political officials was a good way to solve problems. That's how he won the nomination and got Seward to be his secretary of State.
Have you ever heard the phrase "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"?
It means what some men find ugly, others may find beautiful, and it is up to each individual to decide for themselves what is ugly and what is beautiful.
Whether or not you are being oppressed is exactly like that.
In any case, the Declaration doesn't put conditions on the right to independence. It says that people have a right to independence for any reason they want.
Again, you are over the top. Do you know that Lincoln was not even within a couple hundred miles of the 1860 Republican convention where he was nominated? And what’s wrong with Seward as Sec of State? He was damn good at the job.
And to compare them with Landslide Lyndon or Joe “The Big Guy” Biden is actually sick.
Yes, and Biden wasn't in Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, or Nevada when his minions stole the election for him.
And what’s wrong with Seward as Sec of State?
He was the favored nominee for president before Lincoln's goons did their intimidation, bribery, interference, and obstruction. He would have been a far better President than Lincoln.
You need to read up about what really happened in the Chicago convention.
Here is a start.
https://chicagohistorytoday.wordpress.com/2017/05/18/dirty-tricks-at-the-wigwam-5-18-1860/
No it does not say that and if you think it does you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Allow me to quote the Declaration some more for you.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
So I ask again… what were the long train of abuses that got your boys going in 1861. I know you have no answer, but I just like to ask.
Kind of a cartoon version of the convention. It wasn’t counterfeit tickets that stopped Seward from winning on the first ballot. Every delegate voted. It was “enemies” he had made over the years that kept him from winning on the first ballot. On the second ballot, Lincoln and Seward were virtually tied. On the 3rd ballot Lincoln won the nomination. There was no fraud that won for Lincoln. It was the fact that he was agreeable to virtually all the delegates while Seward while agreeable to many, did have enemies.
Again, not "my boys". Family wasn't here, and i'm not related to any of them.
So what was the prime abuse? Taking their money which they wanted to keep.
I guess you are new to this discussion. I have maintained for the last several years that the only motivation for the Civil War was money. Who pays it, and who collects it. That's it.
Using the term "tariff" is misleading to the scope of money taking that went on. About 60% of all the profits made from slavery in the South, went to the North.
Are you okay working for 40% of your earnings?
And then there was the gouging for products you had to buy because the prices of foreign made products of a similar nature were artificially inflated to force you to buy the Northern products instead.
It was way more than just tariffs.
Cotton sellers were forced to use northern shipping, and the prices were set such that it was just a little cheaper than the fines and confiscation would be.
what was the tariff rate in 1860?
It varied, depending on the good being purchased, but it ranged from 20% up to 50%, or thereabouts.
“Well duh, if you think something utterly necessary then you sunset it.”
That is an interesting comment.
Please provide your definition of “sunset.”
“So I ask again… what were the long train of abuses that got your boys going in 1861.”
Confiscatory taxation and sanctuary states that protected conspirators of John Brown’s murder raid. Start with that.
Those wealthy men in Massachusetts did try to start a massive slave rebellion. It could have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
Terrorism? Seems like it to me.
Here’s the same clarification I asked jeffersondem:
Why are you incapable of saying in broad terms that the civil war is over there and the american revolution is over here, with their obvious and unmistakable distinctions?
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.