 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 13th, 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
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