matthew mckeon
Guest
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2005
On H-shear there is an interesting discussion on if the Constitution was a proslavery document.
One poster says yes, because slavery, unlike any other form of property was constitutionally recognized.
William Lee Miller argued that it was both: a. It recognized the reality of slaveholding in the US, b.but envisioned a slave free America
One guy quoted Patrick Henry during the debate on whether to ratify the Constitution in Virginia. Henry says the Constitution gives the federal government the power to destroy slavery by a simple majority in Congress. Henry argued that either Congress could tax slave property so severely to make slave holding economically impossible, or conscript slaves into the army, then free them as a condition of military service, as had been done in the Revolution.
If Henry's statements have any validity, or any currency in the 1850s? If so it could explain some of the urge to secede was due to Lincoln's election and a Republican majority in the Congress.
I will confess I have never heard of Henry's particular argument before or read about it being used in the 1850s or 60s. Anyone else have any thoughts?
One poster says yes, because slavery, unlike any other form of property was constitutionally recognized.
William Lee Miller argued that it was both: a. It recognized the reality of slaveholding in the US, b.but envisioned a slave free America
One guy quoted Patrick Henry during the debate on whether to ratify the Constitution in Virginia. Henry says the Constitution gives the federal government the power to destroy slavery by a simple majority in Congress. Henry argued that either Congress could tax slave property so severely to make slave holding economically impossible, or conscript slaves into the army, then free them as a condition of military service, as had been done in the Revolution.
If Henry's statements have any validity, or any currency in the 1850s? If so it could explain some of the urge to secede was due to Lincoln's election and a Republican majority in the Congress.
I will confess I have never heard of Henry's particular argument before or read about it being used in the 1850s or 60s. Anyone else have any thoughts?
Bringing the