Posted on 06/28/2022 6:10:13 AM PDT by artichokegrower
Last week, the Supreme Court eviscerated a woman’s right to abortion, undermined Miranda rights, expanded gun rights and allowed border patrol agents to operate with even further impunity. Today, it ruled that a former Washington state high school football coach can pray on the field immediately after games—regardless of the religious backgrounds of the students.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
George Washington's were inherited and he freed them in his will.
George Washington did not free the slaves he held in his own right in his will. He had no authority to manumit his wife's dower slaves.
The linked authority you assert for your claim does not go to the will of George Washington but to a Youtube video by Prager U which spews nonsense.
The actual will is explicitly clear:
Item Upon the decease of my wife, it is my Will and desire, that all the slaves which I hold in my own right, shall receive their freedom. To emancipate them during her life, would, tho' earnestly wished by me, be attended with such insuperable difficulties on account of their intermixture by Marriages with the Dower Negroes, as to excite the most painful sensations, if not disagreeable consequences from the latter, while both descriptions are in the occupancy or the same Proprietor; it not being in my power, under the tenure by which the Dower Negroes are held, to manumit them.
In his will Washington expressed the desire that they be freed upon the death of his wife.
Washington's slaves were freed by Martha Washington some time after Washington died.
Where in the constitution are slaves or slave owners mentioned.Two places. The clause that allows congress to abolish the slave trade after 1808, and Article IV, Section 2 which deals with fugitive slaves.
A third explicitly in the 13th amendment. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude...." That prohibited slavery which still existed after the Civil War in the Union states.
Also Article I by implication,
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
That was terrific wordsmithing. Free persons, indentured servants, and except for Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons. Or how to say slaves without using the term slaves.
I would have to acquaint you with a lot of reading I have done, and where to find much of the source material I have forgotten, though I remember a few bits.
Lincoln's Cooper Union speech is a clue.
This article on how he got the nomination is also a clue.
Charles Dickens' letter from 1862 where he explains what was going on is also a good clue.
The fact that the Republican party was created from the remnants of the Whigs is a clue. Henry Clay and his "mercantilism" political ideology is a clue.
Andrew Jackson's hatred of the national bank is a clue.
There are a lot of clues out there and you have to learn about them, and then see what they signify when taken as a whole.
The Corwin Amendment would not have made slavery permanent in the United States, any more than the Dobbs decision will make abortion permanent in the United States.
Pretty sure you are wrong about this. So far as I know, the Corwin Amendment is the only amendment ever proposed which forbid repeal.
"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the 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.”
Pretty hard for the court to misinterpret and seemingly impossible to repeal.
And Illinois ratified it in 1863. Lincoln's own home state agreed to it nearly 2 years into the war.
What do you think the Republicans should have done in this situation?
Well that would depend on what you thought their goal should be.
I have now come to look at them as the most corrupt part of the government of that era, and I have come to mistrust all their motives for doing anything, so i'm not sure what sort of answer you would want from me.
It would appear that they did in fact do what was the best for their own personal interests, so I guess I would have to say what they did was probably the best thing they could do for themselves, even though it wasn't necessarily the best thing they could have done for the nation.
[Tell It Right #125] I've read it off and on for years from various sources.Here's one about the Declaration:
https://www.ushistory.org/declaration/lessonplan/slavery.htmlThose who drafted the Declaration believed that it was better to remove the section dealing with slavery than risk a long debate over the issue of slavery. They needed the support for independence from the southern states. The clause itself was stricken out at the request of delegates from South Carolina, and Georgia, but with the agreement of New England states. The delegates recognized that the Declaration was going to result in war with England and that if the colonies were not united, they would not prevail. It was too big an issue for thirteen separate and independent colonies to tackle before they had even formed a country or won independence from England.
Your linked source does not support your conclusion.
South Carolina and Georgia, in agreement with New England states, opposed inclusion of a section blaming Britain for imposing slavery on the colonies. Had they publicly upbraided Britain for imposing slavery, it would impose a problem of what to do about it. It was agreed not to raise that stink at that time. The colonies needed to be united against Britain. They were divided on the issue of slavery, and could not afford to fight that argument amongst themselves at that time.
- - - - - - - - - -
[Tell It Right #125] Here's one about the Constitution:
https://www.ushistory.org/us/15d.aspTo modern eyes, the most stunning and disturbing constitutional compromise by the delegates was over the issue of slavery. Some delegates considered slavery an evil institution and George Mason of Virginia even suggested that the trans-Atlantic slave trade be made illegal by the new national rules. Delegates from South Carolina and Georgia where slavery was expanding rapidly in the late-18th century angrily opposed this limitation. If any limitations to slavery were proposed in the national framework, then they would leave the convention and oppose its proposed new plan for a stronger central government. Their fierce opposition allowed no room for compromise and as a result the issue of slavery was treated as a narrowly political, rather than a moral, question.The delegates agreed that a strengthened union of the states was more important than the Revolutionary ideal of equality. This was a pragmatic, as well as a tragic, constitutional compromise, since it may have been possible (as suggested by George Mason's comments) for the slave state of Virginia to accept some limitations on slavery at this point.
Slave trade
The slave trade was always a controversial issue in the history of the United States.
The proposed constitution actually strengthened the power of slave states in several important respects. Through the "fugitive clause," for example, governments of free states were required to help recapture runaway slaves who had escaped their masters' states. Equally disturbing was the "three-fifths formula" established for determining representation in the lower house of the legislature. Slave states wanted to have additional political power based on the number of human beings that they held as slaves. Delegates from free states wouldn't allow such a blatant manipulation of political principles, but the inhumane compromise that resulted meant counting enslaved persons as three-fifths of a free person for the sake of calculating the number of people a state could elect to the House of Representatives.
Your linked source does not support your contention. South Carolina and Georgia opposed limiting the importation of slaves. The Constitution increased the protections of slavery.
The Massachusetts delegate Rufus King pushed for abolition in the Constitutional Convention.
Also at the Const. Convention, George Mason of Virginia stated: Slavery discourages arts & manufacturers. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent the immigration of Whites, who really enrich & strengthen a Country. They produce the most pernicious effect on manners. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of heaven on a Country. As nations can not be rewarded in the next world they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes & effects providence punishes national sins, by national calamities. To me it's a big kudos for him because he was a slaveowner (he had a lot to lose by trying to make the new nation abolitionist).
Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania: (Of the Three-Fifths Compromise) Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them citizens, and let them vote. Are they property? Why, then, is no other property included? The Houses in this city [Philadelphia] are worth more than all the wretched slaves which cover the rice swamps of South Carolina. James Madison wrote of Morris being: reduced to the dilemma of doing injustice to the Southern States or to human nature, and he must therefore do it to the former. Top that with Morris doing most of the talking at the convention (as per James Madison) then it's safe to say that abolition was a main topic of discussion.
I, therefore, state that if in all that discussion with at least 3 states (that we know of) for abolition, combined with the loudest talking at the convention being abolitionist, if only 2 states stated that slavery was a necessity for them to join the union, the other 6 states were at least ambivalent if not pro-abolition.
The Northern states did not own slaves and the New England states were the larger portion of the signers.
The Northern states held slaves before, throughout, and after the Civil War. For example, New Jersey held out until shortly after the 13th Amendment was ratified. Other Union states also had legal slavery before, throughout, and after the Civil War. The Emancipation Proclamation had no effect in Union States. For this reason, the 13th Amendment was required to abolish slavery in December 1865.
New Jersey ratified in 1866, Delaware in 1901, and Kentucky in 1976.
My bad, his name was Anthony Johnson.
It was one thing for Lincoln to declare it. But it had no teeth except in places the Union had military victories over the confederates (both then and later).
The effect of Lincoln's Proclamation was carefully limited to those states, or parts of states, which had not been taken by the Union forces. It had no effect in the parishes of Louisiana which had been taken, nor in the state of Tennessee, nor in the state of Virginia in counties designated as West Virginia, or other designated exceptions.
Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, towit:Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. Johns, St. Charles, St. James[,] Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New-Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South-Carolina, North-Carolina, and Virginia, (except the fortyeight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth-City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk & Portsmouth [)]; and which excepted parts are, for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.
Those taken as contraband by the Army became Federal property and were then set free by the Federal government. Those not taken as contraband, the vast majority, were simply runaways or walkaways. Technically, they still fell under the Fugitive Slave Clause.
The 13th Amendment made the slaves free, but did not make them citizens. Manumission did not confer citizenship.
As the slaves were born in the United States, the 14th Amendment took care of the problem by declaring all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, to be citizens of the United States. That was a form of mass naturalization.
You are correct, but it clearly wasn't written by the framers, and I was pointing out the parts of the constitution that were written in the context of this thread's premise.
I have also learned to regard the 13th as being of dubious legality because of the manner in which it was ratified under duress.
A few months ago I noticed that law professor Glenn Reynolds had mentioned that the topic of invalid ratification regarding the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments is much discussed in academic legal circles.
Also Article I by implication,
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
That was terrific wordsmithing. Free persons, indentured servants, and except for Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons. Or how to say slaves without using the term slaves.
Absolutely right. They go out of their way to say "slaves" and "slavery" without actually using the words "slaves" and "slavery".
I missed mentioning that reference too.
Think of counting a slave as a whole person without letting him vote (ignoring for now that states prohibited women from voting too) as an electoral equivalent to taxation without representation. What slave would want his free masters to have more political power in the House than free persons from other states, especially if the slave himself has no say in the matter?
For context, remember back then even in a family with no slaves, only the men could vote: not the wife and not the kids (obviously women can vote now). So the entire family counted towards the census population (and therefore representative count) even though only one person in the family got a vote. That's what the slave states wanted to do with slaves: let each slave count entirely towards the census/representative count even though only the free man in the "family" could vote. Obviously the 3/5ths compromise undercut the political power of the states with many slaves. Obviously that was a step in the right direction away from slavery.
I know. I have argued many times in the past that of course Massachusetts is going to end up doing some form of judicial activism and deliberately misinterpreting the intent of the framers of their own constitution.
The writers of the Massachusetts constitution did not intend to free slaves with that language. Had that been their intention, they would have made it much more explicit than just borrowing some nice sounding language from Thomas Jefferson. They would have said "Because all men are created equal, all slaves in Massachusetts are free."
Of course the thing would have never been ratified had they done that, but these sorts of realities do not trouble activist courts. The liberal activist courts in Massachusetts snuck that one over on the people of Massachusetts.
The poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent the immigration of Whites, who really enrich & strengthen a Country.
And here you identify the real reason why most people hated slavery. We Americans have been taught all our lives that people hated slavery because it was immoral and wrong to force people to work.
It wasn't until just a few years ago that I learned most Americans hated slavery because they hated black people and did not want them in their country, and because they hated free labor competing with people who had to earn wages for their labor.
I didn't realize how deep was the hatred for black people among the leadership class. Henry Clay thought they were the most vicious portion of the population, and he worked to create Liberia to induce them to leave the USA. Abraham Lincoln (who regarded Henry Clay as his mentor) also wanted to send black people out of the country, and he wrote a lot about his opinion of black people. According to Union General Benjamin Butler, Lincoln was contemplating a plan to induce blacks to leave America on the very day he was shot.
Only a very small portion of the population hated slavery because they had empathy for black people, and they were regarded as kooks by most of society at the time.
I, therefore, state that if in all that discussion with at least 3 states (that we know of) for abolition,
You cannot substitute the stated opinions of two people from different states as representing the entire people of those states. I happen to know that Pennsylvania did not actually get rid of slavery until well into the 19th century. Virginia did not get rid of it until 1865, and that only through force.
Yes it was, and that's exactly what it was.
The logical consequence of this is that anyone that requires the 14th amendment to be a citizen, is *NOT* a natural citizen. They are a "naturalized" citizen.
The two founders were Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren.
Would you like to tell us how many slaves Van Buren owned?
The author of the article claims the Constitution was written by slaveowners. My statement was that, using this same standard, the Democrat Party must be held in the same low regard as the author holds the Constitution.
Not all framers of the Constitution were slaveowners. Not all founders of the Democrat Party were slaveowners.
My analogy holds.
In other words, they were just like modern Democrats.
At least one it is believed. He rented others. His father owned six. Van Buren's daughter-in-law came from a planter family and may have brought slaves with her to the White House. Van Buren's vice president was also a slaveowner who had children with one of his slaves, and thought of her as his wife. Van Buren did turn against slavery enough in his later years to be nominated by the Free Soil Party.
Since it was Republicans who freed the slaves AND DEMOCRATS WHO OWNED THEM...
One usually reliable indicator that you are being lied to is when someone prefaced their comment with the word “honestly.”
Biggest government we ever had. Killed 750,000 people in order to shove more big government down the throats of people who wanted out of it.
And Lincoln didn't free any slaves in the Union states.
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.