Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Have seen where a slave was given leave to contract for his services. Never one that questioned who owned him or her. There was no contract there. The dawg doesn't have a contract with me. It's just the dawg. What is this contract BS anyway?
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Have seen where a slave was given leave to contract for his services. Never one that questioned who owned him or her. There was no contract there. The dawg doesn't have a contract with me. It's just the dawg. What is this contract BS anyway?
ole
Hanny claims that chattel slavery constitutes a labor contract between master and slave. However, what Hanny implies in the Constitution only applies to a state's power of not interfering with a labor contract. It says nothing about Congress passing laws that interfere with labor contracts. I want him to prove these contracts existed. Frederick Douglass talks about a contract that his master MR. Auld made to hire out Douglass' labor to a shipbuilder, but there was no written contract between Douglass and Auld. When Douglass violated the rules Auld took him back to the plantation.
__________________ "Those who forget to remember the past are condemned to repeat it", George Santayana.
Your interpretation of the Contracts Clause is misguided. If you note, the clause itself specifically prohibits state action in certain areas.
None of this touches on the fact that slavery (chattel or movable property) was subject to state based regulation (this is why you still get your car registered/titled by a state).
If so then ill stop using the reading material from the USA education system that exlains it that way, and start using what i find on the net, hmm, on second thoughts maybe i wont!.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Further, by your own argument slavery cannot be a labor contract. Legally, a contract can only be entered into by a legal person (either a natural person or a "person in law" such as a corporation). Since by the citations you have given negros could not be "persons" only "property" there could be no labor contract. You cannot contract with your car, or your dog. You own your car or your dog. You can enter into a contract for the purchase of same, but you cannot contract with the thing itself.
yes thast waht i just pointed out, theslave is not a party to the contract he is the object of the the contract, the contracts are between the propertys owners.
Quote:
There were contracts for servitude - indentured servants - who were essentially contracted slaves for a particular period but who were not considered slaves. Apprentices, likewise, were contracted to a particular master for a period of time and were restricted in freedom. The language of the constitution covered these situations.
yes i posted that and agree with you and myself.
Quote:
The slaveowners of the South would never have considered negro slavery a contract. That implies that there could be a breach of contract and with the breach the negation of the contract. Can you see a slave who had been mistreated suing to say that I am no longer a slave because Master has breached by service contract? The slaveholders were very careful to make sure that slaves were not considered in law as persons. If they were persons, they would have rights. If they were, then they would be subject to penalties for murder if they killed a slave, as opposed to less severe penalties such as we have for cruelty to animals.
Since your have asumed wrongly that the contract is between slave ( with rights of some sort) and master, and not as it was between owner and property ( without any rights), your not advancing anything usefull methinks.
Yes, I realize the Constitution calls them "other persons" in the three-fifths clause, but a contract is a matter of state law and the Slave Codes made clear these were not persons.
the point of "other persons" was to advance there emncipation so as to make them full citizens and so able to increase the sates representation.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Oh, and by the way, Mr. Douglass considers himself a 'strict' constructionist concerning the Constitution.
Douglas was in the UK hidding from a warrant of arrest for the crime of treason, so hardly the best person to commnet on the thing he worked all his life to destroy.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
In the four State Supreme Court cases cited by Hanny the word "contract" does not appear even once.
Article I, Section 10, says "or law impairing the obligations of contracts."
So, again I ask, "show me a contract", between a slave and master.
No such thing exists, the contracts are between the propertys owners, there are however a large number of free slaves who sold themsleves back into slavery in states that allowed them state citizenship when emancipated, so as to gain state citizenship by selling themselves to anti slavery southerners, who took the time and effort to have them and their slaves outside the state and gain freedom after one year, often by hoireing them out of state, the income from that hirering out being used to fund further anti slavery measures
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
It is not the point of a contract law. It is that the federal government controls commerce trade between states and property is part of commerce. It is like this, you may own a slave in one state but if congress states slaves cannot cross state lines then you can not take your slave you own across state lines, contract or not.
contract law and commerce are two completly different and seperate things.
since million of slaves crossed many state lines, as they inter regional moved from being grouped around Marlyand to Ga, and from Ga further west, as slaves, i thinkj you may want to find out how and why this occured and th laws that regulated such movements.
Quote:
First, comparing Chinese labor practices fro our slavery was poor. They may work for wages that are poor but they have many more freedoms then the American slaves of 19th century. You should have use Stalin's labour practices were you work for nothing but for the state and get nothing but early death.
No i should not have, since the US had no inference or impact of Stalins actions, but USA ( and europe) imports on a massive scale, of cheap chinese imports are causing to a measurable degree the explotation of chinese citizens in conditions that are not aceptable in the USA or most of the devolped world, thats the same anaology to cotton production in the south, the slave was exploited so that the world had cheap cotton, now we exploit the devolping worlds cheap labour cost to our advanatge, exploitation does not stop, we simply exploit different people. besides the comparison by some writers to stalins camps to southern slavery has already been made by authors who framed there arguments in that context and have since been shown to be wrong to have done so.
Quote:
Child labour is interesting for I am not a big anti child labourer person unless the nation in question has resources to support a public school system and give their parents a living wage.
then take a quick look at child labour in the US NEast during the same period as slavery was practised, and continued long after the 13th.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
contract law and commerce are two completly different and seperate things.
The problem is that your thesis is valid "the Constitution protected slavery" but your reliance on the Contracts Clause in the Constitution is misguided. Simply put the Constitution was not interpreted as granting US citizenship to slaves, free or otherwise.
The problem is that your thesis is valid "the Constitution protected slavery" but your reliance on the Contracts Clause in the Constitution is misguided. Simply put the Constitution was not interpreted as granting US citizenship to slaves, free or otherwise.
No that not a problem with how the US education sytem teaches how slavery was protected in the constition, its a problem for those who posted that slaves were party to a contract, when no slave was every able to be a party to the contract.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
