Flags and slavery split from Confederate flags banned at Federal cemeteries.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
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.

There were American merchants involved in the transatlantic slave trade before it was outlawed and not all of them were from the south either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reb
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reb
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.

Personally I'd just said that slave catchers fly no flag.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Reb
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.
 
Last edited:
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, 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.
 
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

Which I already acknowledged

In fact, the Constitution even contained provisions to protect the institution of slavery such as the 3/5 clause,

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.

Again, if the Constitution legalized slavery or "protected" it, then no State would have been able to ban it (several states did just that.) nor could the Founding Fathers have banned it from the Northwest territory, but they did precisely that in 1787 in the Northwest ordinance.

What the Constitution recognizes is that slavery was a State matter under the control of the States. Not under the Control of the Federal Govt.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if the Constitution protected slavery on the federal leval that this would have given the Federal govt. Power over the institution within the States.

The fact that this was NOT the case is demonstrated by the need to pass the 13th amendment. If the Federal govt. Had power over the institution of slavery in the States no amendment would have been necessary in order to abolish it.
 
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.

Well the Constitution did say "Persons held to service or labor" which included slaves, indentured servants, and apprentices. So I must assume the Constitution protected the concept of indentured servants and apprentices as well. However the Constitution did not expressly state that every U.S. Territory must recognized and allow slavery, indentured servants or apprenticeships. Lincoln himself did not believe he had the power to interfere with these in states where it existed but he did believe the federal government could stop it from being legal in territories. I would assume that once the territories became states they could vote slavery in or out as they seen fit. The south did not leave because slavery might be forbidden in their states, but they attempted to leave the Union over the slavery being not allowed in every territory.
 
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.

I wouldn’t say it did nothing. The 3/5 clause gave the slave states more power in Congress by giving them more seats compared to if only free persons of a state where counted/represented in Congress. This gave the slave states more power thus protecting slavery. It also legalized the idea that Africans slaves were not full humans since they were 3/5 of a person and thus justified/protected slavery.

I agree the Constitution did not overtly protect slavery like it did free speech, right to bear arms, etc…
 
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.

This is 100% horse dung and you know it. The difference being that the de facto Confederate nation and its flag was born from a group of states whose primary existence was to perpetuate and expand the enslavement of a race of people. That nation died with that stain intact in 1865.
 
Back
Top