My Ancestors Never Owned Slaves...

Status
Not open for further replies.

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Explain to us why Lincoln, the President thought he needed the 13th A to alter the Constitution if he didn’t think the Constitution protected Slavery. He knew the EP was just a word game. Which explicitly didn’t apply to the Federal controlled portions of the States. Lincoln feared a court would uphold slavery and denounce his EP as unconstitutional.

Lincoln, Thaddeus Stevens and all the Radicals thought Slavery was a States Right and protected in the Construction. Slavery wasn’t Nationally protected. The reason the Federals could control it in the Territories. Which weren’t States.
I won't contribute to the thread derailment any more. My question has been answered, mostly by Frederick Douglass. There was no words in the Constitution that protected slavery nationally from abolition through the normal legislative process.
 

uaskme

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
Belligerent status does not bestow legitimacy on a wannabe country. It's easier for you to tell us what countries considered the Confederacy "legitimate." Just provide the name of those countries that extended diplomatic recognition.
Belligerent status recognized the Confederacy’s legitimacy to fight for Independence. It elevated its Cause beyond that of being merely Rebels. Gave the Confederacy credibility in international circles. Vessels could confiscate enemy goods. Enter British ports with prizes. Enlist recruits, commission construction of ships, buy arms and munitions. Opened the way for them to build a Navy. Belligerent Status was a Recognition. One that the Federals vehemently opposed.

Try as you might, the Confederacy built a Nation, whether the Yankee or Europeans recognized it or not. Europeans decided to stay neutral until the military contest decided the Confederacy’s Independence. They had a government. Made War and were treated under Vattel,maintained that in a Civil War, the opposing sides were “two separate bodies, two distinctive societies” that “stand therefore to precisely the same predicament as two nations, who engage in a contest, and being unable to come to an agreement,have recourse to arms.” The “common laws of war” applied to civil wars. Pp 40 Blue and Gray Diplomacy by Jones.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Rather mute, as nothing says they can't, as actually it does say people can be held to service, pick whatever synonym for held to service you wish to put your happy face on it.
Actually, words matter. Frederick Douglass argued that the wording in the Constitution didn't apply to slaves, because it implied a labor contract had been entered into by the servant and master. It may have applied to apprentices or indentured servants, but slaves had not voluntarily entered into any contract.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Actually, words matter. Frederick Douglass argued that the wording in the Constitution didn't apply to slaves, because it implied a labor contract had been entered into by the servant and master. It may have applied to apprentices or indentured servants, but slaves had not voluntarily entered into any contract.
Again rather mute, as Congress and the courts didn't share Douglas's view.

Anyone can say or argue anything, it doesn't make it so. Perhaps you can show where Congress, or the US court, or even Lincoln or prior presidents as a body agreed with that interpretation. If they had, the 13th amendment would have been rather superfluous and unnecessary. As would the EP and emancipation laws.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Again rather mute, as Congress and the courts didn't share Douglas's view.

Anyone can say or argue anything, it doesn't make it so. Perhaps you can show where Congress, or the US court, or even Lincoln or prior presidents as a body agreed with that interpretation. If they had, the 13th amendment would have been rather superfluous and unnecessary. As would the EP and emancipation laws.
The 13th amendment and the Emancipation Proclamation had nothing to do with the Fugitive Slave clause wording. The FS clause wasn't even struck out of the Constitution after the 13th amendment passed.

And the word is moot, not mute.
 
Belligerent status recognized the Confederacy’s legitimacy to fight for Independence. It elevated its Cause beyond that of being merely Rebels. Gave the Confederacy credibility in international circles. Vessels could confiscate enemy goods. Enter British ports with prizes. Enlist recruits, commission construction of ships, buy arms and munitions. Opened the way for them to build a Navy. Belligerent Status was a Recognition. One that the Federals vehemently opposed.

Try as you might, the Confederacy built a Nation, whether the Yankee or Europeans recognized it or not. Europeans decided to stay neutral until the military contest decided the Confederacy’s Independence. They had a government. Made War and were treated under Vattel,maintained that in a Civil War, the opposing sides were “two separate bodies, two distinctive societies” that “stand therefore to precisely the same predicament as two nations, who engage in a contest, and being unable to come to an agreement,have recourse to arms.” The “common laws of war” applied to civil wars. Pp 40 Blue and Gray Diplomacy by Jones.
Belligerent status only confers the rights of belligerency under the laws of war equally on both belligerents. It does not legitimize nor recognize sovereign rights if one of the belligerents is an insurgent. Britain and France did not give legitimacy to the Confederacy.
 

RobertP

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Location
Dallas
Again rather mute, as Congress and the courts didn't share Douglas's view.

Anyone can say or argue anything, it doesn't make it so. Perhaps you can show where Congress, or the US court, or even Lincoln or prior presidents as a body agreed with that interpretation. If they had, the 13th amendment would have been rather superfluous and unnecessary. As would the EP and emancipation laws.
You are correct, the 13th would have otherwise not been necessary. BTW I didn’t realize the the loquacious Mr. Douglass was also a labor lawyer. Learn something new every day.
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Belligerent status only confers the rights of belligerency under the laws of war equally on both belligerents. It does not legitimize nor recognize sovereign rights if one of the belligerents is an insurgent. Britain and France did not give legitimacy to the Confederacy.
Recognition has nothing to do with legitimacy. If Britain and France had recognized the CSA it would have to do with their own self-interest and not with legalities. The USA would still call them Outlaws and Rebels.

"It does not...recognize sovereign rights"
Actually, Britain and France sought the CSAs adherence to the Declaration of Paris (a treaty).
Entering into a treaty is a sovereign right.

"if one of the belligerents is an insurgent"
Two different things. When an insurgency starts to control a vast amount of territory, has an army, a government, a constitution and makes its own laws, etc - it has become a belligerent and it is no longer an insurgency.

:smile coffee:
 
Last edited:

FedericoFCavada

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Location
San Antonio, Texas
The Declaration of Paris (1856) included an attempt by the great maritime powers, Britain and France, and some fifty other nation states to settle on three things:
1. Free ships make free goods (no longer seizing neutral goods on enemy vessels, etc.)
2. A blockade (like that of the Union's Plan Anaconda) had to be be effective or else it was not obligatory.
3. No more privateering or issuing of letters of Marque / patentes de corso... authorizing the taking of prizes on the high seas.


Again, a review of the CSS Alabama claims is revealing.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1861-1865/alabama
 
"It does not...recognize sovereign rights"
Actually, Britain and France sought the CSAs adherence to the Declaration of Paris (a treaty).
Entering into a treaty is a sovereign right.
We've been through this before. The British sought partial compliance (the U.S. was not a signatory) from both belligerents with the 1856 Declaration of Paris. Asking a belligerent for a partial compliance of an existing declaration agreed in total compliance by other sovereign signatories is not recognition.

In a separate note of the [September] 9th, Lord Russell wrote to Mr. Adams:
"In pursuance of an agreement between the British and French governments. Mr. Bunch [British Consul in Charleston] was instructed to communicate to the persons exercising authority in the so-called Confederate States the desire of these two governments that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th articles of the Declaration of Paris should be observed by those States in the prosecution of the hostilities in which they were engaged. Mr. Adams will observe that the commerce of Great Britain and France is deeply interested in the maintenance of the Articles providing that the flag covers the goods and that the goods of a neutral taken on board a belligerent ship are not liable to condemnation.

"Mr. Bunch therefore, in what he has done in this matter, has acted in obedience to the instructions of his Government, who accept the responsibility of his proceedings so far as they are known to the Foreign Department, and cannot remove him for having obeyed his instructions.

"But when it is said in a letter of some person not named, that the first step to the recognition of the Southern States by Great Britain has been taken, the Undersigned begs to decline all responsibility for such a statement.

"Her Majesty's Government have already recognized the belligerent character of the Southern States, and they will continue to consider them as belligerents. But Her Majesty's Government have not recognized and are not prepared to recognize the so-called Confederate States as a separate and independent State."
The British Consuls in the Confederacy, Volume 43, Issue 3
, Milledge Louis Bonham, pp. 400-401
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Screenshot (2451).jpg

-Abraham Lincoln, Volume 3, by Carl Sandburg
 

uaskme

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
Belligerent status only confers the rights of belligerency under the laws of war equally on both belligerents. It does not legitimize nor recognize sovereign rights if one of the belligerents is an insurgent. Britain and France did not give legitimacy to the Confederacy.
I think Seward would disagree with you. He threatened War against the Brits

But despite Union protests, the British had adhered to International law in equating a civil war with a war between nations and then assuming a position of neutrality intended to keep them out of the American contest. Other countries affected the fighting likewise saw the wisdom in declaring neutrality and thus coming within the rules of international conduct. Russell emphasized that the Confederacy had a civil government and deserved belligerent standing. Vattel had defined rebellion as "open and unjust resistance" against lawful authority (the Union's position) and civil war as "a just insurrection of the subjects against a sovereign.' A rebellion, the Swiss legal theorist continued, became a civil war when the rebels "acquired sufficient strength to give [the sovereign] effectual opposition, and to oblige him to carry on the war against them according to the established rules." pp49

Adams noted with disgust that most British observers thought America's division into two republics an incontrovertible fact. British neutrality provided the Confederacy with the stamp of legitimacy, constituting a provocative measure tantamount to outright interference in the war and part of a sweeping effort to eliminate the United States as a major player in the Western Hemisphere. pp52 Blue and Gray Diplomacy by Jones.

Adams thought it gave the Confederates legitimacy. Again the Brits thought fighting for Independence was a legitimate act. Brits never questioned the Confederacy's split from the Union or becoming a Nation.

The Union Minister to Paris, William Dayton, reported as early as mid-May 1861 that an Anglo-French concert regarding American affairs had already developed. French foreign minister Edoward Thouvenel soon took the British position on the war, whether or not coincidental, by remarking to Dayton that southern separation seemed certain in light of the Confederacy's command of so much territory and so many people. pp54-55

So. the Confederacy had legitimacy. Europe wanted to say out of it. That is why they chose Neutrality.
 
View attachment 410124
-Abraham Lincoln, Volume 3, by Carl Sandburg
Who cares what Jefferson Davis thought about CSA sovereignty vis-a-vis any partial compliance with the 1856 Declaration. He was obviously wrong about it. The British refused to even meet the 3 Confederate commissioners after the Confederate Congress on August 13, 1861, accepted compliance of the Treaty's Articles II, III and IV but not Article I that prohibited privateering.
 

GwilymT

Sergeant Major
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
Can we start with Stowe?

“Judging Harriet Beecher Stowe’s actions and opinions by the nineteenth century standards, she was a civil rights radical. However, judging her by modern standards, she was not without severe faults on racial matters. While Stowe was advocating for improvement in the lives of slaves and black people, she did not seem to believe in equal rights for all, nor did she believe that black people were fully equal to white people or entitled to a share of “The American Dream.” Because of her own faulty thinking that continually seeped into the novel, Stowe should not be looked at as the mother of the civil rights movement that she might have been in the absence of these flaws.”

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1314&context=studentpub
I read the paper, not a very convincing effort to paint Stowe as a racist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top