Posted on 04/09/2007 7:08:03 AM PDT by presidio9
I would agree, with one caveat. The writers of the Constitution clearly stated that they were acting as the representatives of “We, the people of the United States of America,” not as representatives of the States.
As subsequent history shows, this was a crucial distinction. The Constitution did not set up a league of States, as had existed many time before, and which had generally fallen apart quickly when conflicts between the members got out of hand. It set up an entirely new type of government which creatively combined elements of central nationhood and confederation.
Unfortunately, in recent decades the central nation aspect has gotten out of hand, IMHO. You almost never hear any discussion about whether Congress has the right to pass a certain types of law, only about whether the particular law in question is a good idea.
I actually started to post a disclaimer on that statement. I meant slavery had existed for a very long time. I did not mean to imply the Pilgrims owned slaves.
----
The first slaves were brought into MA apparently around 1630.
According to wikipedia:
The first slaves used by Europeans in United States territory were among Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón's colonization attempt of North Carolina in 1526. The attempt was a failure, lasting only one year and the slaves revolted and fled into the wilderness to live among the Cofitachiqui people.
The first historically significant slave in what would become the United States was Estevanico, a Moroccan slave and member of the Narváez expedition in 1528 and acted as a guide on Fray Marcos de Niza's expedition to find the Seven Cities of Gold in 1539.
In 1619 twenty Africans were brought by a Dutch soldier and sold to the English colony of Jamestown, Virginia as indentured servants.
------
Interestingly, it was a free black slaveowner in VA who first sued to change the status of his black indentured servants to permanent and hereditary slavery.
Yes. Something else many people fail to know.
"A Republic, not an Empire" is a nice slogan, but in terms of justice and rights are we really worse off?
In 19th century South Carolina over half the population was enslaved, in some counties far over half the population. Wealthy planter families split up offices among themselves. For that matter, they split up families at their own whim. The state didn't even count the votes for presidential electors, for fear that the voters might think differently from the state establishment.
South Carolina wasn't a democracy in those days. It was a "republic" of sorts, like ancient Rome or Renaissance Venice. But it wasn't freer than it is today.
There's a lot to criticize in democracy, particularly if a democracy is a society where there are no limits on the power of the majority. But democracy isn't the only enemy of freedom, and republics don't always provide guarantees of rights to people.
Good post, Blackstone’s is a good source.
True, but individual members of a civil society (the People) create a collective civil State. I'm sure there's is a legal distinction between the two, but it is obviously very small.
You almost never hear any discussion about whether Congress has the right to pass a certain types of law, only about whether the particular law in question is a good idea.
Also true. It's appalling however, to see how many Americans think it's perfectly okay to have the government tell them what to do!
Thank you kindly! He's one one my favorites too. :-)
It amazes me how many of the same liberals who express hollow outrage over what Dred Scott did 150 years ago think Roe v. Wade is a positive good for society.
You're paraphrasing him out of context to score a cheap political point. Powell wrote a private letter to his family in the early 1940's stating that he feared a potential threat on the horizon where the United States would become a greater enemy to Britain than Japan and Germany were currently. He wrote it after receiving a U.S. diplomat's statement expressing hope that Britain would lose India as a side effect of World War II. When Powell wrote the letter he was also serving in the British army in North Africa and was very much against both Hitler and Tojo.
In the 1860 census Louisiana had 18,600 free black residents and 14,800 people listed as “free mulattos.” Combined that makes up about 10% of the state’s black population in 1860, so it’s a 1 in 10 chance.
So in other words, a 90% chance not a 99% chance. But either way, Raymann's point still stands.
Since when did I dispute his point? Another poster commented on the odds of being a free black in Louisiana in 1857. I simply provided the number. Nothing more, nothing less.
Is your tone usually this combattive?
Sometimes I’m more combative.
Whatever. You’ve obviously got a chip on your shoulder about something with this topic, and I don’t particularly care to inquire any further into it.
That's the chance of being a free black. The chance of being a free black slaveowner is somewhat smaller. Though I wouldn't know how to quantify it, it's not zero.
“While the decision, issued by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, is almost universally seen as the moral low point of the court’s history, participants in the mock hearing said the case still had a lot to say to the country 150 years later.”
I prefer “Among the lower points.”
I can think of equally egregious decisions.
Actually I’m from Southwest Louisiana, the free population of New Orleans and central Louisiana throws the figures off.
Don’t forget that all seven Supreme Court Justices who voted for the Dred Scott decision were Democrats, while the two dissenters were Republicans. See http://grandoldpartisan.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/republican_just.html for more information.
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.