25-11-2003 00:14									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

He should have made his proclamation before the war.
Then it would have meant something.

	25-11-2003 00:15									#32
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Bancroft:


"Massachusetts passed a law to secure to such fugitives trial by jury. Pennsylvania passed a law against kidnapping. A decision was finally made in the United States Supreme Court which gave to the owner of a slave authority to recapture him in any State of the Union, without regard to legal processes. Yet little benefit was gained by the South from this decision. The States readily obeyed the mandate against interference. Some of them forbade their courts to hear claims of this character, and laid severe penalties on officers who should arrest or jailers who should detain alleged fugitive slaves. The difficulty thus produced was obviated in the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. Commissioners were appointed by the United States to hear such cases, and marshals and their deputies were required to execute warrants for the arrest of fugitives, with a penalty equal to the full value of the slave if they should suffer one to escape after arrest. Other features of this bill increased its stringency, and under its provisions there was little hindrance to a free negro being kidnapped and taken South as a slave. The commissioners in certain cases refused to listen to evidence in favor of the freedom of the alleged fugitive"

	25-11-2003 00:16									#33
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand He should have made his proclamation before the war. Then it would have meant something.

yes, it would have meant that in addition to the states that actually seceded, Kentukcy and Maryland would have seceded as well, probably resulting victory for the Confederacy. It would have mean something, but actual liberation of the slaves is NOT what it would have meants.

	25-11-2003 00:24									#34
	Got spare money?

The Civil War wasn't about state's rights as some sort of high-minded noble and consistent principle. As is usually the case, one must follow the money, and you run into two things:

1. Slavery. I don't think I need to elaborate.

2. Protective tariffs and industrial subsidies. As the political elite in the South were plantation aristocrats instead of industrialists as in the North (most people at the time, North and South were farmers), they strongly opposed protection and subsidies for industry because that imposed strong financial burdens on themselves. In fact, the South almost seceded 30 years earlier over protective tariffs after the gov't passed the "tariff of abominations."

	25-11-2003 01:42									#35
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Bancroft: "Massachusetts passed a law to secure to such fugitives trial by jury. Pennsylvania passed a law against kidnapping. A decision was finally made in the United States Supreme Court which gave to the owner of a slave authority to recapture him in any State of the Union, without regard to legal processes. Yet little benefit was gained by the South from this decision. The States readily obeyed the mandate against interference. Some of them forbade their courts to hear claims of this character, and laid severe penalties on officers who should arrest or jailers who should detain alleged fugitive slaves. The difficulty thus produced was obviated in the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. Commissioners were appointed by the United States to hear such cases, and marshals and their deputies were required to execute warrants for the arrest of fugitives, with a penalty equal to the full value of the slave if they should suffer one to escape after arrest. Other features of this bill increased its stringency, and under its provisions there was little hindrance to a free negro being kidnapped and taken South as a slave. The commissioners in certain cases refused to listen to evidence in favor of the freedom of the alleged fugitive"

The problem is though, that some Southerners just do not realize the importance of primary sources in doing research or scholarly studies.

	25-11-2003 01:59									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark States are supposed to settle with each other according to legal means. IE a southerner claiming a lost slave in Pennsylvania was to supposed to sue for return of his property in Penn courts. Now they might side for him, or they might decide that a black claimed as a fugitive slave was NOT in fact the slave of said master. Southerners became impatient with Northern state processes, and in some cases wanted to take back blacks with little evidence or justification - basically launching slave raiding expeditions on free black communities. The FSA was passed to expedite this.

Like it or not, "negroes" were not persons under the Constitution at the time, and thus were governed under laws relating to interstate commerce. A state settling an issue with another state is different than a private litigant resident of another state being forced to travel out of state to file an action in another jurisdiction. A plaintiff normally brings a legal action in the jurisdiction where the subject matter giving rise to the action occurs, or where plaintiff resides (more often than not, the same jurisdiction. If I have property removed from California to Nevada, I do not need to commence another legal action in Nevada to claim lawful title - the state of Nevada is obligated to accept and enforce a California court's adjudication, unless a Nevada party to the case can show that the California court lacked jurisdiction or their is some other legal defect, such that the state of Nevada has a lawful basis for intervention.

This happens all the time with out of state enforcement of child custody and support orders, for attachments on property of debtors when that property is located in several states (you have to obtain judgment in one state with personal and subject matter jurisdiction, you don't have to commence separate actions in every state and retry the same issue), etc. You file an abstract of judgment or similar document (depending on the type of issue) with the other state.

	25-11-2003 02:02									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by MrFun The problem is though, that some Southerners just do not realize the importance of primary sources in doing research or scholarly studies.

Yes, honeybuns, it's very So you've now proven what's never been in dispute - certain states enacted laws specifically to hinder or thward enforcement of judgments or claims made properly under the jurisdiction of other states, in violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause, and so SCOTUS and the Congress acted to stop this unconstitutional interference with the evil institution.

	25-11-2003 02:09									#38
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Like it or not, "negroes" were not persons under the Constitution at the time, and thus were governed under laws relating to interstate commerce.

Incorrect - slaves WERE not persons at the time - free negroes most certainly WERE persons. Ergo questions of their status could not be considered the same as questions of property. And of course whether the blacks in question were in fact escaped slaves or free negroes being kidnapped was just what was at issue.

Whether negroes could be citizens was another question. SCOTUS in Dredd Scott said they were not - but this considered a radical new doctrine - in at least a few New England state Negroes could vote. Note that SCOTUS made its judgement in the context of whether a Negro could sue in Federal court - NOT whether they were property under the Commerce clause.

	25-11-2003 02:12									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: WRT the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincolm was inaugurated in March 1861, and released the proclamation in Sept 1862. Less that a year and a half. He didnt release it earlier for fear of alienating the neutral slave state of Kentucky, at a strategically delicate time. Lincoln was a pragmatist. Doesnt mean he wasnt a great man.

If he truely issued the EP because he was a great man, he wouldn't have just done it to UNLIBERATED regions in the South. Those slaves that lived in areas that were liberated by union troops were SOL until the 13th Amendment.

He was a great politician no doubt, but I don't think you can use the EP to claim he was a 'great man'.

	25-11-2003 02:15									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: WRT the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincolm was inaugurated in March 1861, and released the proclamation in Sept 1862. Less that a year and a half. He didnt release it earlier for fear of alienating the neutral slave state of Kentucky, at a strategically delicate time. Lincoln was a pragmatist. Doesnt mean he wasnt a great man. If he truely issued the EP because he was a great man, he wouldn't have just done it to UNLIBERATED regions in the South. Those slaves that lived in areas that were liberated by union troops were SOL until the 13th Amendment. He was a great politician no doubt, but I don't think you can use the EP to claim he was a 'great man'.

he was a great man viewed in the bigger picture - i was responding to sloww, who basically asked "if lincoln was so great, why didnt he issue EP earlier" Cosnidering how basic the discussion of the EP timing is to anyone who knows much about the Civil War, and obvious it was that it couldnt be issued earlier, that struck as a rather inane question.

	25-11-2003 02:19									#41
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: WRT the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincolm was inaugurated in March 1861, and released the proclamation in Sept 1862. Less that a year and a half. He didnt release it earlier for fear of alienating the neutral slave state of Kentucky, at a strategically delicate time. Lincoln was a pragmatist. Doesnt mean he wasnt a great man. If he truely issued the EP because he was a great man, he wouldn't have just done it to UNLIBERATED regions in the South. Those slaves that lived in areas that were liberated by union troops were SOL until the 13th Amendment. He was a great politician no doubt, but I don't think you can use the EP to claim he was a 'great man'.

There were plenty of slaveowners in unliberated areas who the govt were trying to form into loyalist state govts at the time - this gets into the whole question of Lincolns view of reconstruction.

What should be recalled is that EP was controversial in the North at the time, and that most of the opposition to Lincolns policy came NOT from people asking why it wasnt bigger or earlier, but from people who resentd that it had happened at all, turning a war for union into a war against slavery. That was largely the thrust of the Democratic campaign in 1864, and was very popular, especially in the "lower North".

Its easy to nitpick Lincoln from the vantage point of 140 years later. It was VERY hard being Lincoln.

	25-11-2003 02:20									#42
	Put an end to popups!

It also shows that Lincoln didn't do it because he wanted to free slaves. He did it for political gain.

	25-11-2003 02:22									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui It also shows that Lincoln didn't do it because he wanted to free slaves. He did it for political gain.

I think a fair reading of Lincoln's letters, speeches, etc show a man for whom saving the union was first priority ("If I could save the Union by..."),but who was rapidly learning on issues of justice to the Negro.

	25-11-2003 02:26									#44
	Increase Your PM Length

on emancipation as pragmatism versus justice - Lincoln already thought of that, and ansered it in December 1862.

"In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free - honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just - a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless."

	25-11-2003 02:33									#45
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Read the language very carefully. There was no rebellion (i.e. an attempt to replace the United States government, or that of any state, by force).

Tennessee was overthrown by secesionists, IIRC.

	25-11-2003 02:38									#46
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Incorrect - slaves WERE not persons at the time - free negroes most certainly WERE persons. Ergo questions of their status could not be considered the same as questions of property. And of course whether the blacks in question were in fact escaped slaves or free negroes being kidnapped was just what was at issue. Whether negroes could be citizens was another question. SCOTUS in Dredd Scott said they were not - but this considered a radical new doctrine - in at least a few New England state Negroes could vote. Note that SCOTUS made its judgement in the context of whether a Negro could sue in Federal court - NOT whether they were property under the Commerce clause.

Voting for state elections, and one's legal status for each state's own purposes, was distinct from their legal status under Federal law. Suffrage is a distinct issue, because by definition it was (and is) restricted to persons meeting certain criteria. Citizenship is also a distinct issue, because the Constitution recognized a dual system of citizenship of the individual state and of the United States - and each state was free at the time to define it's own citizenship and suffrage criteria for state purposes - so long as they didn't do so in a way that infringed on Federal citizenship and suffrage.

quote: On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the government might choose to grant them.

quote: For, previous to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confirmed to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the constitution of the United States... It is very clear, therefore, that no State can, by any act or law of its own, passed since the adoption of the constitution, introduce a new member into the political community created by the constitution of the United States. It cannot make him a member of this community by making him a member of its own. And for the same reason it cannot introduce any person, or description of persons, who were not intended to be embraced in this new political family, which the constitution brought into existence, but were intended to be excluded from it.

quote: But there are two clauses in the constitution which point directly and specifically to the negro race as a separate class of persons, and show clearly that they were not regarded as a portion of the people or citizens of the government then formed. One of these clauses reserves to each of the thirteen States the right to import slaves until the year 1808, if it thinks proper...And by the other provision the States pledge themselves to each other to maintain the right of property of the master, by delivering up to him any slave who may have escaped from his service, and be found within their respective territories... The only two provisions which point to them and include them, treat them as property, and make it the duty of the government to protect it; no other power, in relation to this race, is to be found in the constitution; and as it is a government of special, delegated powers, no authority beyond these two provisions can be constitutionally exercised. The government of the United States had no right to interfere for any other purpose but that of protecting the rights of the owner, leaving it altogether with the several States to deal with this race, whether emancipated or not, as each State may think justice, humanity, and the interests and safety of society, require. The States evidently intended to reserve this power exclusively to themselves...

All excerpts are from the Dred Scott opinion of CJ Taney.

I was incorrect in the use of the term "person" - it is used in the Scot opinion to refer to an individual, I was using it to refer to an individual member of the body politic, endowed with recognized and protected rights. The substance is correct - at the time, for Federal purposes, they had no recognized rights, regardless of emancipation.

	25-11-2003 02:40									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: I think a fair reading of Lincoln's letters, speeches, etc show a man for whom saving the union was first priority ("If I could save the Union by..."),but who was rapidly learning on issues of justice to the Negro.

Why not free the slaves in his own country first. The EP was, for all intents and purposes, useless. It freed slaves where the US did not control. It'd be like Jacques Chirac issuing a proclimation banning the death penalty in Texas!

	25-11-2003 02:44									#48
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Tennessee was overthrown by secesionists, IIRC.

Not so much "overthrown" as there was a strong split between the pro-Confederate west and pro-Union east, and the state government was dominated by the west. Missouri was a case where you had competing state governments, and Maryland was split.

The recognized procedure, which didn't clearly exist under the Articles of Confederation and made Shay's rebellion (justified though it was) a lot dicier for the Massachusetts fat cats, was that the state government would request Federal assistance - the goal was to protect the fat cat elites that ran the state government from the common rabble - so it was never really contemplated that the state itself would dissociate itself from the Union.

	25-11-2003 02:47									#49
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark on emancipation as pragmatism versus justice - Lincoln already thought of that, and ansered it in December 1862. "In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free - honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just - a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless."

Lincoln was being quite a bit disingenuous there, since any Confederate state which returned to the Union before January 1, 1863, would be entitled to keep it's slaves. He ought to have tried it before the Seven Day's battles, when things actually looked bad for the Confederacy.

	25-11-2003 02:52									#50
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Indentured servitude existed in what would become the US since the 17thc century, and involved the VOLUNTARY signing away of freedom for a fixed period of years to pay for ocean passage. It was not a bad deal of impoverished immigrants,

Oh yes it was. Seven out of ten indentured servents either died before their term was up, became hopelessly poor upon manumission, or returned to England upon manumission. Frequently African slaves were treated better than ISs, because a slave was a lifetime investment, while you only had an indentured servent for seven years. They weer worked harder and maintained less than slaves.

On top of that, parents wuold sell children into servitude and prisoners were often made into servants. You could also be shanghai'd or just being Irish was enough to get you sent over as forced labor.

	25-11-2003 03:46									#51
	Support Apolyton

You southern boys got whupped. That is all the history we need to know. Oh, and don;t try it again.

	25-11-2003 05:05									#52
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Oh yes it was. Seven out of ten indentured servents either died before their term was up, became hopelessly poor upon manumission, or returned to England upon manumission. Frequently African slaves were treated better than ISs, because a slave was a lifetime investment, while you only had an indentured servent for seven years. They weer worked harder and maintained less than slaves. On top of that, parents wuold sell children into servitude and prisoners were often made into servants. You could also be shanghai'd or just being Irish was enough to get you sent over as forced labor.

Well, my ancestor was indentured to servitude in Barbados, which was undoubtedly a much more harsh environment. Not only did he survive, but he migrated to Virginia and became a fabulously wealthy slave owner. One of his sons "acquired" a young stowaway who eventually won the hand of his daughter and then went on to found the city I'm now living in, Lynchburg. It just goes to show you what quality folks can do.