Potomac Pride
Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2011
- Location
- Georgia
The institution of slavery existed under the U.S. flag for a much longer time than under the Confederate flag. This whole flag controversy is a bogus issue.
The institution of slavery existed under the U.S. flag for a much longer time than under the Confederate flag. This whole flag controversy is a bogus issue.
Yet slavery ended under the US flag, no? The reason the South took the nation to war and sacrificed 700,000+ lives unnecessarily was to keep slavery from being ended under the US flag.
Yes, slavery ended under the US flag. However, it was that same flag under which Africans were transported across the ocean as slaves and the Native Americans were decimated and their lands seized.
I do not know why you insist on constantly clouding the issue with a bunch of relevant facts - it really gets in the way of some of my most cherished beliefs.Playing change the subject?
During the revolution, slave imports stopped.
Slave imports resumed at the insistence of Southern slaver owners.
Slave imports outlawed in 1808.
Playing change the subject?
During the revolution, slave imports stopped.
Slave imports resumed at the insistence of Southern slaver owners.
Slave imports outlawed in 1808.
There were American merchants involved in the transatlantic slave trade before it was outlawed and not all of them were from the south either.
We were taking about flags.
Yes, I know that and ships that flew the American flag were involved in the transatlantic slave trade before it was banned in 1808.
Good.
After 1808, the only flag flown by Americans carrying blacks from freedom into slavery was the Confederate Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia as it swept up blacks in 1863-64.
I am not so sure about the accuracy of your post because the U.S. Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850.
The so called, "fugitive slave act" in which the word slave does not even appear relied on state law not the Constitution or federal law.
"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
Had the Constitution actually protected or made slavery legal then no State could have banned it because of the supremacy clause of the constitution. Yet several states did just that. And the Founding Fathers themselves banned slavery in the Northwest territory in 1787.
The so called, "fugitive slave act" in which the word slave does not even appear relied on state law not the Constitution or federal law.
"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
Had the Constitution actually protected or made slavery legal then no State could have banned it because of the supremacy clause of the constitution. Yet several states did just that. And the Founding Fathers themselves banned slavery in the Northwest territory in 1787.
Actually, the U.S. Constitution did address the issue of fugitive slaves. Article 4, Section 2 of the Constitution stated that slaves who escaped had to be surrendered to their owners upon demand. However, the actual enforcement of this was a problem area and the southern states wanted to strengthen the fugitive slave law. Therefore, the Fugitive Slave Act was passed as part of the Compromise of 1850.
It says, persons held to labor, not slaves. Obviously it pertained to slaves as well as indentured servants. But as written it clearly reflects that it is the service or labor that is owned/owed not the person themselves.
[paste:font size="5"]No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
And once again, such service or labor is owed under STATE LAW not under federal law or the Constitution.
So while the Constitution acknowledges that there can be property interest/rights to a persons service or labor, nowhere does it state that people themselves can be property. That is why the Constitution explicitly states "UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE."
The constitution itself explcity forbids involuntary servitude except as punishment for crimes. That is why the issue of involuntary servitude(slavery) was a State matter, not a Federal one. Something the slaveholders argued time and time again. They steadfastly maintained that the Federal govt. Had no authority over the institution of slavery. That it was exclusively a state matter.
The "protection" they claimed under the constitution was the protection(s) for property. And property was defined by the laws of the" State thereof", not by the Constitution or the Federal Govt.
Sorry to disappoint you but the phrase in the Constitution "Persons held to service or labor" was the term used by the framers of the Constitution to imply slavery
In fact, the Constitution even contained provisions to protect the institution of slavery such as the 3/5 clause,
Sorry to disappoint you but the phrase in the Constitution "Persons held to service or labor" was the term used by the framers of the Constitution to imply slavery. In fact, the Constitution even contained provisions to protect the institution of slavery such as the 3/5 clause, the slave trade clause and the fugitive slave clause. The Constitution does forbid involuntary servitude except as criminal punishment but that was contained in the 13th amendment that was ratified after the Civil War was over.
The 3/5 clause did nothing to protect slavery. At best the Constitution acknowledged that Slavery existed within States. It did absolutely nothing to protect the institution itself.
The institution of slavery existed under the U.S. flag for a much longer time than under the Confederate flag. This whole flag controversy is a bogus issue.