Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


Why slavery was unconstitional? - General Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:    1  2  Next Page Last Page  
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Sat Apr 14th, 2012 09:06 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
1st Post
ebg
Member
 

Joined: Fri Apr 13th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 22
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Statement from the Radical Abolitionist Convention (New York June 26-28 1855):

It does this by providing that "No State shall pass any bills of attainder or laws impairing the obligations of contracts"; nor "grant any titles of nobility." [Article I §§ 9 - 10]. Slavery is an "attainder" because it "attaints the blood," and imposes disabilities on the child, on account of the condition of the parent. It establishes an order of nobility by that same process, and by conferring hereditary or transferable powers of subjugation and control upon one class or order of men over another class, [unconstitutionally made] their [supposed] hereditary inferiors and subjects. It [slavery] not merely impairs but annihilates the power of making contracts.

Last edited on Sat Apr 14th, 2012 09:11 pm by ebg



 Posted: Sun Apr 15th, 2012 02:55 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
2nd Post
Old Blu
Member
 

Joined: Tue Sep 16th, 2008
Location: Waynesboro., Virginia USA
Posts: 330
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Have you read that slavery was legal and protected by the Constitution?



 Posted: Sun Apr 15th, 2012 05:09 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
3rd Post
ebg
Member
 

Joined: Fri Apr 13th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 22
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

OLD BLUE-

Please clarify your question. I'm not being a smart guy, but I really don't understand what your question is?

Are you looking for the exact written "letter of the Law" interpretation of the Constitution, or are you looking for "what is meant" interpretation of the Constitution??

Or, are you looking for a specific fact of ommission to justify denying the Bill of Rights to the slave population?

Last edited on Sun Apr 15th, 2012 05:14 pm by ebg



 Posted: Sun Apr 15th, 2012 10:08 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
4th Post
Old Blu
Member
 

Joined: Tue Sep 16th, 2008
Location: Waynesboro., Virginia USA
Posts: 330
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

ebg wrote: OLD BLUE-

Please clarify your question. I'm not being a smart guy, but I really don't understand what your question is?

Are you looking for the exact written "letter of the Law" interpretation of the Constitution, or are you looking for "what is meant" interpretation of the Constitution??

Or, are you looking for a specific fact of ommission to justify denying the Bill of Rights to the slave population?


If you don't understand what I wrote it is no use in going any further.



 Posted: Mon Apr 16th, 2012 01:16 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
5th Post
ebg
Member
 

Joined: Fri Apr 13th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 22
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Old Blu wrote:
ebg wrote: OLD BLUE-
if you don't understand what I wrote it is no use in going any further.


oh, yes, I agree...if your unable to elaborate upon your position, you should quit.

if it were possible to legalize slavery, it is historically certain that it never has been legalized in this country. No statutes have been enacted that could have legalized it—none that have even pretended to do so.-by Radical Abolishment Convention 1855

In other words...omission doesn't make something legally constitutional.

if omission makes something constitutuional, then seccessionist have to acept the fact that the slave population is inclusive in the Phrase "We The People" because the words "except the slave population" written after "We the People" was omitted!

Last edited on Mon Apr 16th, 2012 02:32 am by ebg



 Posted: Mon Apr 16th, 2012 02:31 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
6th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

within the constitution, slaves are at best 'other persons'.

at worst they are property and not worth mentioning other than that the constiution provides for their return as fugitives.

the constitution also allowed the african slave trade to continue until at leat 1808...



 Posted: Mon Apr 16th, 2012 03:01 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
7th Post
ebg
Member
 

Joined: Fri Apr 13th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 22
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

HankC wrote:
within the constitution, slaves are at best 'other persons'.

at worst they are property and not worth mentioning other than that the constiution provides for their return as fugitives.

the constitution also allowed the african slave trade to continue until at leat 1808...


Could you please direct me to the exact phrase of "other's persons" in the constitution.

As for their being property...that is the interpretation upon "what is meant" as opposed to "what is written." Because secessionist believes or argue that the slave population was not included within "We the People" doesn't mean the whole population of the United states agreed. Certainly,the people attending the Radical Abolistionist Convention in New York of 1855 did not agreed that the slave population was excluded from "We the People." Certainly, President Lincoln and his party didn't either. Certainly, not Harriet Beecher Stowe who wrote Uncle tom's cabin, the most sensational best seller of 1800.

As far as the slave population as being "not worth mentioning"...only "human beings" can be "fugitives". A runaway dog isn't considered a "fugitive", is it?? So, how can there every have been A Fugitive Slave Act if a slave is not considered first as a "Person" running away from prison in order to be considered a "Fugitive"??


The constitution allows only the trade of slavery to continue because of comprimise, but does not stipulate slavery itself to be legitimate.

Last edited on Mon Apr 16th, 2012 04:10 am by ebg



 Posted: Mon Apr 16th, 2012 12:10 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
8th Post
Mark
Member
 

Joined: Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 434
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

ebg, have you read the majority opinion of Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)? I think that would answer most of your questions. Chief Justice Taney argues that slaves (and indeed all 'persons of african decent') cannot be considered citizens because they are not included in the "people" mentioned in the preamble. His reasoning: they and their ancestors were brought by force into the United States and therefore could not be a part of those who ratified the Constitution. As to the legality of slavery, he argues that the 3/5 compromise (Art I, Sec II; also that is the origin of the phrase 'other persons') and Art I, Sec IX, which prohibited the slave trade after 1809, show that slavery was accepted as legal by the framers. It was very difficult for anyone to make a Constitutional argument for the illegality of slavery; in fact one famous abolitionist ripped up a copy of the Constitution saying that it was a pact with the devil. Lincoln and the Republican party acknowledged the legality of slavery where it existed, however they argued that Article IV, section III allowed the congress to regulate the spread of slavery into the territories. That was a much easier argument to make via the Constitution. I hope that helps.

Mark

Last edited on Mon Apr 16th, 2012 01:30 pm by Mark



 Posted: Mon Apr 16th, 2012 01:50 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
9th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

the constititution left slavery, among other things not enumerated in the constitution, up to the states.

many states, such as Massachusetts, specifically prohibited it. Many states, such as Virginia, allowed it.

it's left to you to search for 'other persons' in the text of the constitution...



 Posted: Mon Apr 16th, 2012 04:19 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
10th Post
Old Blu
Member
 

Joined: Tue Sep 16th, 2008
Location: Waynesboro., Virginia USA
Posts: 330
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

ebg wrote: Old Blu wrote:
ebg wrote: OLD BLUE-
if you don't understand what I wrote it is no use in going any further.


oh, yes, I agree...if your unable to elaborate upon your position, you should quit.

if it were possible to legalize slavery, it is historically certain that it never has been legalized in this country. No statutes have been enacted that could have legalized it—none that have even pretended to do so.-by Radical Abolishment Convention 1855

In other words...omission doesn't make something legally constitutional.

if omission makes something constitutuional, then seccessionist have to acept the fact that the slave population is inclusive in the Phrase "We The People" because the words "except the slave population" written after "We the People" was omitted!


Sometimes things can be too simple for some to grasp the Constitution!!   =+-



 Posted: Mon Apr 16th, 2012 04:50 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
11th Post
ebg
Member
 

Joined: Fri Apr 13th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 22
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Old Blu wrote:
ebg wrote: Old Blu wrote:
ebg wrote: OLD BLUE-
if you don't understand what I wrote it is no use in going any further.


oh, yes, I agree...if your unable to elaborate upon your position, you should quit.

if it were possible to legalize slavery, it is historically certain that it never has been legalized in this country. No statutes have been enacted that could have legalized it—none that have even pretended to do so.-by Radical Abolishment Convention 1855

In other words...omission doesn't make something legally constitutional.

if omission makes something constitutuional, then seccessionist have to acept the fact that the slave population is inclusive in the Phrase "We The People" because the words "except the slave population" written after "We the People" was omitted!


Sometimes things can be too simple for some to grasp the Constitution!!   =+-


Hey, that's really cute what you did with that cartoon charactor going in and out of the door!!

If constitutional law was "simple to grasp", there would be no need for law schools to study constitution law. There would be no need for constitutional lawyers that spend their whole careers on a single constitutional issue.

I agree with you, most constitutional questions are to complex "to let the simple man decide."

Last edited on Mon Apr 16th, 2012 10:51 pm by ebg



 Posted: Tue Apr 17th, 2012 12:33 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
12th Post
ebg
Member
 

Joined: Fri Apr 13th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 22
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Mark wrote:
ebg, have you read the majority opinion of Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)? I think that would answer most of your questions. Chief Justice Taney argues that slaves (and indeed all 'persons of african decent') cannot be considered citizens because they are not included in the "people" mentioned in the preamble. His reasoning: they and their ancestors were brought by force into the United States and therefore could not be a part of those who ratified the Constitution. As to the legality of slavery, he argues that the 3/5 compromise (Art I, Sec II; also that is the origin of the phrase 'other persons') and Art I, Sec IX, which prohibited the slave trade after 1809, show that slavery was accepted as legal by the framers. It was very difficult for anyone to make a Constitutional argument for the illegality of slavery; in fact one famous abolitionist ripped up a copy of the Constitution saying that it was a pact with the devil. Lincoln and the Republican party acknowledged the legality of slavery where it existed, however they argued that Article IV, section III allowed the congress to regulate the spread of slavery into the territories. That was a much easier argument to make via the Constitution. I hope that helps.

Mark


First of all, it must be remember that we are not to look upon the founding fathers or any supreme court justice as Gods! Nor our we dictated to substitute the idealsm of the constitution for the teaching of our morality from the bible or other religious doctrine.

Even the Supreme Court Justices get it wrong...that's the beauty of the constitution, we are allowed to disagree with the Supreme Court. Because of the Dred Scott and and the fugitive slave act, the cause to abolish slavery was catalist to a fervent pitch. But the abolistionist worked within the System for their cause...eventually electing Lincoln to office.

You stated majority opinion...How many justices did not agreed with the decision of Chief Justice Taney, and what did those judges say was their reason not to agree?

If by Chief Justice Taney's reasoning of interpretation.... then Art I, Sec IX of the Constitution also shows that the "statue of limitation" for the acceptance of the legality of slavery ENDS in the year 1808 as written by the founding fathers.

Also, your saying the constitution refers to the slave population as "people." People that ar not entitled to their constitutional rights {b}because of there " foreced imigration statues" {/b}according the chief Justice Taney, but people neverless the same, and entilted to human rights in any other part of the world??????

Last edited on Tue Apr 17th, 2012 02:03 am by ebg



 Posted: Tue Apr 17th, 2012 01:41 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
13th Post
Mark
Member
 

Joined: Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 434
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

ebg, perhaps we misunderstand each other. I would be the last person to suggest that the founding fathers were gods and I'm not sure where you got that from my post. I was under the impression that you wanted to know why the vast majority of mid-nineteenth century Americans accepted the constitutionality of slavery. Perhaps I was incorrect in understanding your question? Can you clarify what you mean by "nor are we dictated to substitute the idealism of the constitution for the teaching of our morality..." I really have no idea what you mean. Since you asked about Dred Scott, three justices disagreed, and they dissented either on Taney's interpretation of Article IV, Section III or his insistence that black men could NEVER enter the body politic. They did not question the legality of slavery where it already existed. On abolitionists, there were two wings of the movement: one did attempt to work with in the system, as you put it. These formed the Liberty party and later became a constituent group within the larger Republican party. The other wing of the abolitionists insisted that they could not work within the system because the Constitution itself was the problem. As too your last point, perhaps you are confusing the slave trade with slavery itself? By 1800, slavery could exist without influxes of slaves from outside the United States. Hope that clarifies things for you.
Cheers!

Mark



 Posted: Tue Apr 17th, 2012 03:11 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
14th Post
ebg
Member
 

Joined: Fri Apr 13th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 22
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Mark wrote:
ebg, perhaps we misunderstand each other. I would be the last person to suggest that the founding fathers were gods and I'm not sure where you got that from my post. I was under the impression that you wanted to know why the vast majority of mid-nineteenth century Americans accepted the constitutionality of slavery. Perhaps I was incorrect in understanding your question? Can you clarify what you mean by "nor are we dictated to substitute the idealism of the constitution for the teaching of our morality..." I really have no idea what you mean. Since you asked about Dred Scott, three justices disagreed, and they dissented either on Taney's interpretation of Article IV, Section III or his insistence that black men could NEVER enter the body politic. They did not question the legality of slavery where it already existed. On abolitionists, there were two wings of the movement: one did attempt to work with in the system, as you put it. These formed the Liberty party and later became a constituent group within the larger Republican party. The other wing of the abolitionists insisted that they could not work within the system because the Constitution itself was the problem. As too your last point, perhaps you are confusing the slave trade with slavery itself? By 1800, slavery could exist without influxes of slaves from outside the United States. Hope that clarifies things for you.
Cheers!

Mark


1.) If you allow pro-slavery advocates, like Chief Justice Taney, the broad latitude of judicial interpretation of "what the founding fathers were thinking to show" when they wrote the Constitution, then you must also allow abolitionist the same broad latitude of judicial interpretation of "what the founding fathers were thinking to show" when they wrote the Constitution.

If Chief Justice Taney opinion for the Dred Scott Case was that Art I, Sec IX "shows that slavery was accepted as legal by the framers"; then, that's a broad interpretation of "what the founding fathers were thinking to show" when they wrote the Constitution.

Abolitionist can argue if Art I, Sec IX "shows that slavery was accepted as legal by the framers", then 1808 was the "statue of limitation" for that legality of slavery as to "what the founding fathers were thinking to show" when they wrote the Constitution.

However, is there one set of rules for the pro-slavery advocates, whereby they can interprete the constitution on a broad sense of "what the founding fathers were thinking to show" when they wrote the Constitution...

And another set of rules for abolitionist, wherby they can interprete only as to the exact language of the law, and NOT to "what the founding fathers were thinking to show" when they wrote the Constitution?


There is no "confussion" as to the interpretation of Art 1, sec IX; so that, you can't restrict the abolitionist to an interpretation of "slave trade issue only",THEN ALLOW pro-slavery advocates to interprete upon "slavery's legality as to what the founding fathers were thinking to show."

2.)To say the vast majority of people in the mid 1800 accepted slavery is somewhat misleading.

Uncle Tom's Cabin was a best seller and influenced thousands against slavery. Apathy to the situation does not mean acceptance.

Certainly, the term "Bloody Kansas" has it's roots in the issue of slavery.

3.) As for "nor are we dictated to substitute the idealism of the constitution for the teaching of our morality...": I was contradicting the previous example you gave of the clergy abolitionist tearing up a copy of the constitution. I interprete your example, or "what you were thinking to show" as the irrational action of a zealost radical clergyman unable to cope with the inexplectable logic of the constitutionality of slavery. I was counteracting your example by emphasizing that any political document is fallable, and are not in themselfs the source of moral authority.

Last edited on Tue Apr 17th, 2012 12:03 pm by ebg



 Posted: Tue Apr 17th, 2012 01:51 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
15th Post
Mark
Member
 

Joined: Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 434
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I confess to still being confused. I am merely trying to explain how most mid-19th century jurists (including Lincoln) interpreted the Constitution. If you want to talk about what the founding fathers thought about slavery, that is an entirely different matter. As to your points:

1) I'm not saying Taney was right, I'm just telling you what the court decided. He had a questionable interpretation (esp. in regards to Congressional power over the territories). Can you provide an example of an abolitionist tract that shows your line of argument? I'm not aware of one. Since (for the most part) slaves were considered chattel in the eyes of the law most Americans (like Lincoln) agreed that the best the Federal government could do through the Constitution would be to restrict the growth of slavery in the West and let it wither. The war intervened. In the end, that why the Constitution needed a 13th Amendment--because most people assumed that the document did protect slavery through property rights.

2) I think you are overestimating the number of abolitionists in the US (and I'm using the strict definition of the term- that is one who advocated for the immediate, uncompensated abolition of slavery). They were a very vocal (and at times militant) minority. I would suggest to you that "bleeding Kansas" had more to do with "free soil" ideology than abolitionism. Of course many abolitionists were involved (like John Brown and James Montgomery) but most anti-slavery immigrants to Kansas wanted to prevent plantation slave labor from being used to undercut white labor in the state.

3) I guess I didn't explain my point well enough here. I'm merely saying that many abolitionists saw the Constitution as the problem rather than the solution. You are correct when you state that the members of that wing of the abolitionist movement argued that their authority came from a power higher than the constitution. For example, William Seward (anti-slavery though not an abolitionist) once said, "But you answer, that the Constitution recognizes property in slaves. It would be sufficient, then, to reply, that this constitutional recognition must be void, because it is repugnant to the law of nature and of nations." In other words, if the Constitution recognizes slavery, it must be wrong because slavery is a violation of the higher laws of nature and nations.

Last edited on Tue Apr 17th, 2012 01:52 pm by Mark



 Posted: Tue Apr 17th, 2012 02:00 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
16th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

It is not a broad interpretation, at all, to believe that the founders considered slavery legal.

1808 is the *earliest* date that the foreign slave trade could be abolished - not the 'peculiar institution' of slavery itself.

A primary reason for the war is the slavocracy's declining influence and political power.

immigrants are moving to the border states and more slaves are being sold further south from the border states.

the slave-holding influence in Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri is sliding and with it a major portion of southern political congressional strength.

With the decline in power would then come a loosening of the southern grip on the presidency and the supreme court.

Moral forces almost always lag well behind the law – the radical abolitionists were one of a number of such organizations…



 Posted: Tue Apr 17th, 2012 04:07 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
17th Post
ebg
Member
 

Joined: Fri Apr 13th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 22
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

1.) There is a differance between codification of the law and legality of the law.

Anything can be codefied into a law, even if it is unjust in its enforcement.

legality is understanding the moral justification of a law.

The search for the constitution legality of slavery does not stop in the period of the mid 1800's. The understanding of moral justice is a continious process of debate upon the Law.

Unlike reenactment, of which the purpose is present historic facts into a "living History", the search for the legality of Seccession & Slavery is a current debate and IS THE ISSUE as long there is a loyal following to the "Southern Cause".

"Slavery can not possibly be legalized. In its very nature it is incapable of legalization. The standard writers on common law affirm the impossibility of legalizing slavery, even by positive municipal law. They declare the right to liberty to be inalienable, and that statutes against fundamental morality are void."- radical abolitionist Convention, New York 1855

2.) If I overestimate the tide of the ant-slavery movement, then I see alot of peole underestimating it.

3.) The how and why's of seccesion and slavery is a lively debate has to the "why's and cause's" of the civil war.

The "what if Jackson had lived for the Battle of Gettysburg" , or "What if Culp's Hill was taken on the first day of Gettysburg" are just not fruitless questions upon the endless stream of possibilities, but are reasonable searches for understanding.

As we explore the fallacies of thinking upon the legality of Slavery & Seccesion, it too serves the purpose of understanding.

Last edited on Tue Apr 17th, 2012 04:17 pm by ebg



 Posted: Tue Apr 17th, 2012 06:10 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
18th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

the slavery debate in antebellum America was not over it's legality.

the debate was over how soon (if ever) it would be made illegal...



You have chosen to ignore Savez. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Fri Aug 31st, 2012 05:34 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
20th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

if slaves were made citizens, it would *increase* the power of the southern states.

rather being counted as 3/5, each would be counted as 1...



 Current time is 08:19 pmPage:    1  2  Next Page Last Page  
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.3763 seconds (13% database + 87% PHP). 39 queries executed.