Political Crossfire Forums

[Simon De Montfort]

FCTE wrote: Simon De Montfort wrote: What the f**k are you talking about. :roll:

Are you that completely ignorant of US History??

Neither the Revolution nor the Declaration of Independence made us the United States. All they did was separate us from England as Independent Colonies, essentially 13 different nations. The Articles of Confederation recognized these colonies in the union of a confederation, united colonies as free and independent states.

We were not the United States until September 17, 1787 with the ratification of the Constitution.

Quote: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Your custom title says "Save Our History" well try reading our history.

Last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence wrote: We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

LINK

I guess you're not too familiar with the Declaration of Independence.

The Articles of Confederation wrote: To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

I.
The Stile of this Confederacy shall be

"The United States of America".


LINK

It's the first freaking article!

HINT: If you're going to argue history, know the history you're arguing about. :roll:

[FCTE]

Simon De Montfort wrote: FCTE wrote: Simon De Montfort wrote: What the f**k are you talking about. :roll:

Are you that completely ignorant of US History??

Neither the Revolution nor the Declaration of Independence made us the United States. All they did was separate us from England as Independent Colonies, essentially 13 different nations. The Articles of Confederation recognized these colonies in the union of a confederation, united colonies as free and independent states.

We were not the United States until September 17, 1787 with the ratification of the Constitution.

Quote: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Your custom title says "Save Our History" well try reading our history.

Last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence wrote: We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

LINK

I guess you're not too familiar with the Declaration of Independence.

The Articles of Confederation wrote: To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

I.
The Stile of this Confederacy shall be

"The United States of America".


LINK

It's the first freaking article!

HINT: If you're going to argue history, know the history you're arguing about. :roll:

Incorrect.

Regardless of the wording (which simply means united against England, and united for separation) you also carefully left out the rest of that............... "That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States." (not United States)

We were not the ""United States"" of America until the "United States" Constitution, we were a ""Confederation"" of States, hence the Articles of ""Confederation.""

You are wrong. Feel free to contact a professional historian and get the facts.

[FCTE]

Also, could you tell me what our national currency was during the Articles of Confederation?? As I recall the northern colonies were using pounds, the middle colonies were using a continental currency of their own, and the southern colonies were using Spanish coins. We also still had tariffs between all the colonies both of these issues made it almost impossible for intercolonial trade as a confederation.

What national defense did we have during the AoC?? As I recall we only had colonial militias and that Pennsylvania and New York were still having skirmishes over their territory boundaries. The colonies simply didn't get along, all very much different and independent in every way possible.

These are the largest reasons the Articles failed and the Constitution came to be to centralize us under a common nationhood.

We were not a United States until the US Constitution.

[Simon De Montfort]

FCTE -Ignorance personified.

Well if the name give our nation by the Declaration Independence and the Aritcles of Confederation doesn't work for you :roll: let's look what famous Americans and real historians have to say about it.


Abaraham Lincoln:
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. "

That speech was made 1863. "Four score and seven years ago" mean 87 years ago.
Let's see 1863 - 87 = 1776. Wow, even ol honest Abe (your former Avatar) knew our nation was created in 1776. Or are you going to say he was talking about some other nation.:roll:


From the Preface of Gordon Wood's The American Revoluion
"When Abaraham Lincoln sought to define the signifcance of the United States, he naturally looked back to the American Revolution. He knew the Revolution not only legally created the United States, but also had produced all of the great hopes and values of the American people."

"The Revolution, in short, gave birth to whatever sense of nationhood and national purpose Americans have had."


Gordon Wood is the premier historian on the American Revolution.

George Washington's farewell address to the Army 1783

"The United States in Congress assembled, after giving the most honorable testimony to the Merits of the Federal Armies, and presenting them with the thanks of their Country for their long, eminent and faithful Services, having thought proper, by their Proclamation bearing date the 18th day of October last, to discharge such part of the Troops as were engaged for the War, and to permit the Officers on Furlough to retire from Service from and after tomorrow, which Proclamation having been communicated in the public papers for the information and government of all concerned. it only remains for the Commander in Chief to address himself once more, and that for the last time, to the Armies of the United States (however widely dispersed the Individuals who composed them may be) and to bid them an affectionate--a long farewell."

If the United States didn't exist then what nation was George Washington refering to?

[FCTE]

Simon De Montfort wrote: FCTE -Ignorance personified.

Well if the name give our nation by the Declaration Independence and the Aritcles of Confederation doesn't work for you :roll: let's look what famous Americans and real historians have to say about it.


Abaraham Lincoln:
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. "

That speech was made 1863. "Four score and seven years ago" mean 87 years ago.
Let's see 1863 - 87 = 1776. Wow, even ol honest Abe (your former Avatar) knew our nation was created in 1776. Or are you going to say he was talking about some other nation.:roll:


From the Preface of Gordon Wood's The American Revoluion
"When Abaraham Lincoln sought to define the signifcance of the United States, he naturally looked back to the American Revolution. He knew the Revolution not only legally created the United States, but also had produced all of the great hopes and values of the American people."

"The Revolution, in short, gave birth to whatever sense of nationhood and national purpose Americans have had."


Gordon Wood is the premier historian on the American Revolution.

George Washington's farewell address to the Army 1783

"The United States in Congress assembled, after giving the most honorable testimony to the Merits of the Federal Armies, and presenting them with the thanks of their Country for their long, eminent and faithful Services, having thought proper, by their Proclamation bearing date the 18th day of October last, to discharge such part of the Troops as were engaged for the War, and to permit the Officers on Furlough to retire from Service from and after tomorrow, which Proclamation having been communicated in the public papers for the information and government of all concerned. it only remains for the Commander in Chief to address himself once more, and that for the last time, to the Armies of the United States (however widely dispersed the Individuals who composed them may be) and to bid them an affectionate--a long farewell."

If the United States didn't exist then what nation was George Washington refering to?

Irrelevant.

What is referred to as The United States was a lose term for general defense during the war and we were never truly a United States until September 17, 1787.

We were a Confederation of States bound by the Articles of Confederation from 1781 to 1787. During this time states were at war over boundaries, there was no national currency, no common consolidated national defense, and no free trade amongst the 13 independent nations. We were 13 independent nations who could not get along with each other. Even within the 13 nations rebellions were many, the greatest being Shay's Rebellion which gave birth to the movement to create a truly United States. The Constitution Conventions established a clearly defined national authority and unity which gave birth to the US Constitution and United States.

You need to spend a little less time personally insulting people and trying to one up everyone and a little more time hitting the books.

[FCTE]

Simon De Montfort wrote: Your custom title says "Save Our History"

My title addresses the fact that I donate time and money to several historical societies and movements to preserve US historical battlefields, cemetaries, buildings, documents, and other artifacts, as well halting corporate development from bulldozing historical sites so that future generations can enjoy them.

[Simon De Montfort]

FCTE wrote: Simon De Montfort wrote: FCTE -Ignorance personified.

Well if the name give our nation by the Declaration Independence and the Aritcles of Confederation doesn't work for you :roll: let's look what famous Americans and real historians have to say about it.


Abaraham Lincoln:
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. "

That speech was made 1863. "Four score and seven years ago" mean 87 years ago.
Let's see 1863 - 87 = 1776. Wow, even ol honest Abe (your former Avatar) knew our nation was created in 1776. Or are you going to say he was talking about some other nation.:roll:


From the Preface of Gordon Wood's The American Revoluion
"When Abaraham Lincoln sought to define the signifcance of the United States, he naturally looked back to the American Revolution. He knew the Revolution not only legally created the United States, but also had produced all of the great hopes and values of the American people."

"The Revolution, in short, gave birth to whatever sense of nationhood and national purpose Americans have had."


Gordon Wood is the premier historian on the American Revolution.

George Washington's farewell address to the Army 1783

"The United States in Congress assembled, after giving the most honorable testimony to the Merits of the Federal Armies, and presenting them with the thanks of their Country for their long, eminent and faithful Services, having thought proper, by their Proclamation bearing date the 18th day of October last, to discharge such part of the Troops as were engaged for the War, and to permit the Officers on Furlough to retire from Service from and after tomorrow, which Proclamation having been communicated in the public papers for the information and government of all concerned. it only remains for the Commander in Chief to address himself once more, and that for the last time, to the Armies of the United States (however widely dispersed the Individuals who composed them may be) and to bid them an affectionate--a long farewell."

If the United States didn't exist then what nation was George Washington refering to?

Irrelevant.

So that's your counter argument? So any facts presented to you that don't fit into the FCTE view of the world you just dismiss as "irrelevant?" That's just pathetic.

Quote: What is referred to as The United States was a lose term for general defense during the war and we were never truly a United States until September 17, 1787.

We were a Confederation of States bound by the Articles of Confederation from 1781 to 1787. During this time states were at war over boundaries, there was no national currency, no common consolidated national defense, and no free trade amongst the 13 independent nations. We were 13 independent nations who could not get along with each other. Even within the 13 nations rebellions were many, the greatest being Shay's Rebellion which gave birth to the movement to create a truly United States. The Constitution Conventions established a clearly defined national authority and unity which gave birth to the US Constitution and United States.

You just don't get it do you. We were a nation in 1776. We were called the United States of America. Prior to 1787 we were a much looser collection of States. But that does not me we were not a nation. Under the AoC the states were more powerful than the central government. The situation wasn't working well so held a Constitutional Convention drafted and then adopted the US Const. It provided for a much more powerful central government and unified the republic. In 1787 we became a more unified nation but we were already a nation.

Quote: You need to spend a little less time personally insulting people and trying to one up everyone and a little more time hitting the books.

You started it with "Are you that completely ignorant of US History??" If you don't like insults then don't through them yourself.

You ought to try backing up you points with evidence instead of just spouting your opinion.

[FCTE]

Upon further investigation I'll concede this argument.......you win. :x

[FCTE]

Back to the topic.

I would argue that the Civil War is just as important as the Revolution, possibly even an extension of the Revolution and unfinished business from the Constitutional Conventions.

[Quell]

I'd agree with the OP..I think the second would be the A-bomb..This is the first time in the history man, we were physically able to "destroy" the world..Not saying it was plausable, but it was/is possible. In fact I'd say the A-bomb was in the top 3 most important things of man's history.

[Simon De Montfort]

The three most important periods in American history in order.

1.) American Revolution - Constitution Convention (1775 - 1789)

2.) American Civil War and Reconstruction (1861 - 1877)

3.) Great Deal and World War II (1933 - 1945)


editorial note: Though I despise much of FDR's Great Deal I can't deny it's effect on American government, therefore it's important.

[Clara Listensprechen]

battleax86 wrote: Yeah, this is kind of a no-brainer. It's like asking if one's birth is the most important event in that person's life.

Au contraire. It's like saying that birth is the only important event that ever happened to you.

[FCTE]

Simon De Montfort wrote: 3.) Great Deal and World War II (1933 - 1945)


editorial note: Though I despise much of FDR's Great Deal I can't deny it's effect on American government, therefore it's important.

Not of fan of FDR's presidency either.

I would not object to him as much if the deals most offensive parts had sunset after the depression was over.

[Gaea]

FCTE wrote: Back to the topic.

I would argue that the Civil War is just as important as the Revolution, possibly even an extension of the Revolution and unfinished business from the Constitutional Conventions.

I concur. I've been brushing up on my history lately and I think you summed it very well. I also agree with your earlier comments about the cotton gin being the next most important event in US history. If not for the invention of the cotton gin, the institution of slavery probably would have died a natural death liked the Framers hoped it would after 1808. No slavery = no civil war. If slavery had died out as the framers hoped, I don't think there would have been a civil war at all. The South would have entered the modern world and perhaps the country wouldn't be as culturally and intellectually divided as it is today.

A few people might find this hard to comprehend as well, but slavery was never a legal institution in the US to begin with. The subject of slavery was debated during the drafting of the Constitution and a few consessions were made to the Southern States because of their dependance on slavery. But the institution of slavery itself was never legal under British law, Common Law, the Articles of Confederation, US Constitution or National/Federal law. So theoretically, the practice of slavery made Rebels out of Southerners long before the Civil War or even the Revolution for that matter.

IMO, the spark to the Civil War was the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the flame was Dredd Scott. It was custom for a gentleman in the 1800s to slap an offender on the cheek with his glove, to indicate he wanted a duel to the death. Dredd Scott was a deliberate (perhaps even unconstitutional) slap in the face to the North.

Yeah, the fact that the Civil War is still being discussed like it was yesterday, I would have to say the Civil War was the most important event in US history. I don't think our country was fully united until the Civil War made it an undeniable fact. One might even suggest that the Civil War was finally enforcing the common law forbidding slavery.


http://medicolegal.tripod.com/slaveryillegal.htm

[Simon De Montfort]

Moot wrote:

A few people might find this hard to comprehend as well, but slavery was never a legal institution in the US to begin with. The subject of slavery was debated during the drafting of the Constitution and a few consessions were made to the Southern States because of their dependance on slavery. But the institution of slavery itself was never legal under British law, Common Law, the Articles of Confederation, US Constitution or National/Federal law. So theoretically, the practice of slavery made Rebels out of Southerners long before the Civil War or even the Revolution for that matter.

You are mistaken. Unfortunately the Constitution protected slavery in the states. Both Congress and the Supreme Court defended the institution of slavery prior to 1865.


US Constitution
Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." They were referring to slaves here.


Article 1 Section 9 Clause 1
"The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."

This states that Congress could not ban the slave trades until 1808 but could tax the importation of slaves. That's unless you can explain to me what kind of people are imported other than slaves?

Article 4 Section 2 Clause 2
"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 to the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

Here the return of escaped slaves is made legal. A slaves is a "person held to service or labor."

The 1857 Dred Scott case used the two previous clauses to Justify denying the rights of citizenship to slaves.

From the text of the Dred Scott case.
"... a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves. . . were not intended to be included under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can, therefore, claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States."


The naturalization law pass by Congress on March 26, 1790, confines the right of becoming citizens "to aliens being free white persons." Who do you think they were excluding?

[FCTE]

Moot wrote: I also agree with your earlier comments about the cotton gin being the next most important event in US history.

That wasn't me, but it was important, I don't know about next to most important though.

Quote: If not for the invention of the cotton gin, the institution of slavery probably would have died a natural death liked the Framers hoped it would after 1808. No slavery = no civil war. If slavery had died out as the framers hoped, I don't think there would have been a civil war at all. The South would have entered the modern world and perhaps the country wouldn't be as culturally and intellectually divided as it is today.

Slavery would not have died out until cotton could no longer sustain the South. With India providing cheaper cotton in the near future the South's outdated agriculture economy was dead. I like the South as it is culturally, obviously I'm no fan of slavery, but they really do have a different culture that I enjoy. I think people should stop comparing the South to the North or the World, they are who they are and their culture and heritage will always be different.

Quote: A few people might find this hard to comprehend as well, but slavery was never a legal institution in the US to begin with. The subject of slavery was debated during the drafting of the Constitution and a few consessions were made to the Southern States because of their dependance on slavery. But the institution of slavery itself was never legal under British law, Common Law, the Articles of Confederation, US Constitution or National/Federal law. So theoretically, the practice of slavery made Rebels out of Southerners long before the Civil War or even the Revolution for that matter.

I disagree. Slavery was 100% Constitutional and legal in the United States. It was discussed during the drafting, but they left it to the future, they estimated it to be about 50 years and it ended up to be 100.

Quote: IMO, the spark to the Civil War was the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the flame was Dredd Scott. It was custom for a gentleman in the 1800s to slap an offender on the cheek with his glove, to indicate he wanted a duel to the death. Dredd Scott was a deliberate (perhaps even unconstitutional) slap in the face to the North.

I feel it was the failing compromises.

The Fugitive Slave Act was the biggest contradiction of the South. They didn't want the Union to have a say in their states, but they wanted federal help to catch escaping slaves.

[Gaea]

Simon De Montfort wrote: Moot wrote: A few people might find this hard to comprehend as well, but slavery was never a legal institution in the US to begin with. The subject of slavery was debated during the drafting of the Constitution and a few consessions were made to the Southern States because of their dependance on slavery. But the institution of slavery itself was never legal under British law, Common Law, the Articles of Confederation, US Constitution or National/Federal law. So theoretically, the practice of slavery made Rebels out of Southerners long before the Civil War or even the Revolution for that matter.
You are mistaken. Unfortunately the Constitution protected slavery in the states. Both Congress and the Supreme Court defended the institution of slavery prior to 1865.
I don't think I am mistaken.

Modern research verifies. "The framers of the Consitution had not intended to make slavery a national institution supported by the Union's fundamental law." Moreover, its words "were not intended to make the Constitution a proslavery compact."—Prof. Don E. Fehrenbacher, Ph.D., The Slaveholding Republic: An Account of the United States Government's Relation to Slavery, ed. Ward M. McAfee (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp ix-x.

To my knowledge Congress did not legislate or enact any laws defending slavery until they passed the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850. That's 61 years (1789 - 1850) after ratification and a predominately Southern majority in congress the entire time, not lifting a finger to legislate or enact any law defending slavery. That's a long time to not enact such an important law, isn't it?

Congress did however legislate the slave trade illegal in 1808. But apparently the slave traders didn't get the message and in 1820, the same year they passed the Missouri Compromise, Congress made slave trading a crime equal to piracy, punishable by death.

I learned from another thread not to confuse the slave TRADE with the institution or PRACTICE of slavery. The colonials themselves made the distinction between slavery and the selling/trading of slaves as a business. The Framers deliberately and completely left the word slavery out of the Constitution and only referred to the legality of the slave trade to be abolished in 1808. Thats not much of an endorsement for slavery IMO.

I also learned not to confuse the institution or PRACTICE of slavery with the LEGALITY or constitutionality of slavery. Although illegal, slavery kept recurring, just as civil rights violations kept recurring for the next 100 years despite the 13th and 14th Amendments.

In the Colonial Bible Belt, business and profits trumped Christian morality.

The early colonists considered themselves to be British subjects and freely adopted British law to legislate in their colonies simply because it was familiar to them. Slavery was never legal in Britain and since the colonies followed the British Constitution and Common law, the practice of slavery was never considered legal in the colonies either.

"As soon as a man puts foot on English ground, he is free: a Negro may maintain an action against his master for ill usage [modern term, reparations], and may have a Habeas Corpus, if restrained of his liberty." - Shanley v Hervey, 2 Eden 126 (Chancery, March 1762)

Somerset v Stewart, Lofft 1, 18-19; 20 Howell's State Trials 1, 79-82; 98 Eng Rep 499, 509-510 (King's Bench, June 1772), sponsored by British abolitionists including Granville Sharp, via Judge William Murray, L. Mansfield, reconfirmed that “there neither then was, nor ever had been, any legal slavery in England.” Goodell, supra, pp 18 and 49-51.

Smith v Brown and Cooper, 2 Ld Raym 1274; 2 Salk 666; 91 Eng Rep 566 (1765), Chief Justice Holt said "that as soon as a negro comes into England, he becomes free: one may be a villein [serf] in England, but not a slave." Goodell, supra, p 48.


Yet the slave trade thrived far away from Englands shores because British merchants ruled the waves and had a monopoly on the importation of slaves from Africa. British merchants aka slave traders aka scum, kept the South well supplied with slaves until they (British) finally made the slave trade illegal in 1807.

But before and during the Seven Year War, who was there to enforce the law in the colonies except the colonists themselves? Nobody really. Nor were the colonies united to a common cause until the Revolution. For all intent, the colonies were wild frontiers and separate little countries aka colonies. People could pretty much do whatever they wanted since there wasn't law enforcement like we know today. If the colonists obeyed any laws at all it was because they freely chose to. For the most part they chose to obey British law. But in the South they chose not to obey the law against slavery and there was no one to stop them.

The USC mandated congress could make the Slave Trade illegal in 1808. Technically, that should have put an end to slavery if not for the invention of the cotton gin. The cotton gin was significant because it was cause for the explosive increase in the slave trade, instead of the Framers intention for slavery to finally be abolished. IMO, the cotton gin changed the course of US history more than the Revolution because it perpetuated the institution of slavery and the slave trade far longer than the colonists could ever have imagined or intended, thereby causing the Civil War.

Quote: US Constitution
Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." They were referring to slaves here.

The USC infers that slaves were personsand to my knowledge only humans are considered persons. If the USC had meant slaves or property, it would have called them slaves or property. But it didn't. In fact the USC went out of its way to infer slavery was not legal by its mere absence. Slavery was already illegal under precendent case law and common law and even under several colonies or state laws.

Since these persons were only counted as 3/5 of a whole person, the Southern states were inspired to import as many slaves as possible in order to get more representation in congress. This may explain the temporary 20 year importation clause that allowed congress to abolish the slave trade in 1808. I don't believe the Northern states were so stupid as to allow the South to artificially build their population base forever in order to gain power in congress. The North were desperate to get the constitution ratified, but not that desperate. You did know these slavery clauses in the USC were really just compromises to the get the USC ratified, didn't you? That's why they were worded so carefully to not mention the word slavery and give the institution any legal legitimacy.

So these persons are counted in the decade census in order to determine how many representives a state could have in congress. Albeit these persons are only counted as 3/5 of whole person, nevertheless, they are counted as humans and legally they have 3/5 representation in congress. Would property have such rights?



Quote: Article 1 Section 9 Clause 1
"The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."

This states that Congress could not ban the slave trades until 1808 but could tax the importation of slaves. That's unless you can explain to me what kind of people are imported other than slaves?


The South and the slave traders weren't particular who they enslaved. At one point (1815 ?) they even enslaved white women. White men were also often enslaved as crew aboard slave trade ships. Mulatoes, even those that looked white and generations removed were enslaved. They tried enslaving Indians, but the Indians didn't grasp the concept of slavery too well.

The above clause allowed for a poll tax (head tax) on the imported slaves heads. But all US citizens, residents and free men had a poll tax on their heads too. Remember, this country was founded on the principle of "no taxation without representation?" Well, the imported slaves were poll taxed and they had 3/5 representation in congress just as the all the other free persons and US citizens were taxed and had representation. Are you trying to say that the poll tax and 3/5 representation in congress isn't a constitutional protection granted to a certain class of human persons? Clearly, it says it is.

But notice how it was the Southern colonies that wanted Federal protections for their trade put in the Constitution. The North seemed to favor State rights more since they were already independantly passing anti-slavery and anti-slave trade laws in their state legislatures. But the South wanted the Federal government to supercede States rights. Has the South changed that much?

Quote: Article 4 Section 2 Clause 2
"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 to the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

Here the return of escaped slaves is made legal. A slaves is a "person held to service or labor."

The 1857 Dred Scott case used the two previous clauses to Justify denying the rights of citizenship to slaves.

From 1789 to 1850 and with 13 (?) Southern presidents having filled office, the predominatly Southern congress did absolutely nothing to enact or implement Article 4, section 2 Clause 2. This basically nullified the clause for 60 years. Not until congress passed the The Fugitive Slave Act in 1850 did Article 4, section 2, clause 2 become effectivally enforceable.

Without congress legislating to enforce the above clause, all this clause did was protect the individuals right to collect his escaped person of labor. But it didn't mandate for the states to help or assist the individual in any way. And so they didn't. The clause merely said the states couldn't pass laws to stop the individual from collecting his escaped laborer. So they did nothing.

The individual had the sole responsibility of proving his claim that the escaped laborer belonged to him. But without congress legislating how to enforce the clause, there wasn't a Federal court the individual could prove his claim to. This is why the law remained ineffective and null for 60 years.

There are literally hundreds of cases prior to Dredd Scott and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 that show precedent of slaves suing in US courts using Habeus Corpus and Common Law and gaining their freedom. Armistad is one of the more famous. I seriously doubt these slaves would have won their cases if slavery was at all considered constitutionally legal.

Because of the volumes of cases and precedent already established, I personally believe the Dredd Scott decision was unconstitutional and so did Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln made speeches referring to the illegality of slavery in common law and the unconstitutionality of Dredd Scott. In fact, the Dredd Scott decision helped get Lincoln elected and we know how he went about enforcing the illegality of slavery. Dredd Scott is almost a separate debate in itself so I won't go on about here.

Quote: The naturalization law pass by Congress on March 26, 1790, confines the right of becoming citizens "to aliens being free white persons." Who do you think they were excluding?

I believe they were excluding Negroes, indentured servants, laborers, women, Asians, Mulatoes, Spanish, British soldiers, kings, princes, nobility who refused to denounce their titles and just about anyone the courts decided didn't fit the criteria set forth by congress. Are you saying all of these persons were considered slaves because they weren't allowed citizenship? If that were the case then who except British 'white trash' would have willingly migrated to or even visited America???

http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-2006B-web/week08/naturalization1790.html

http://medicolegal.tripod.com/slaveryillegal.htm#11Elizabeth

[Fido]

[quote="FCTE"][quote="Simon De Montfort"]FCTE -Ignorance personified.

Well if the name give our nation by the Declaration Independence and the Aritcles of Confederation doesn't work for you :roll: let's look what famous Americans and real historians have to say about it.


Abaraham Lincoln:
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. "

That speech was made 1863. "Four score and seven years ago" mean 87 years ago.
Let's see 1863 - 87 = 1776.

Quote: Quote: If the United States didn't exist then what nation was George Washington refering to?

Irrelevant.

What is referred to as The United States was a lose term for general defense during the war and we were never truly a United States until September 17, 1787.

Not irrelevant. The United States was a legal term put before the judge of God who favored it and blessed it. The nation to which Washington referred was the one people -nation, of the United States who had stood together and made the revolution a reality. It may not have had a government effective enough to do much good or threaten liberty too much; and when it did get that government, it came at the expense of happiness which was supplanted by the older idea of property as the source of happiness as in Article V. None the less, our founding document is the Declaration of Independence even if that document was corrupted and denied in the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is our 18th Brumaire and the enthronement of the bourgeoisie, and for this place on the backs of Americas workers a cabal was made with the slavers of the South, and so the country was condemned to a future civil war that would itself be betrayed and frustrated in its aim.

[PhIlOsOpHiCaL MiNd]

im not sure how bad it was because even if we lost that war another may have followed it leading to our victory
so it could be and it could not be i think, idk i havnt really made up my mind yet

[battleax86]

Clara Listensprechen wrote: battleax86 wrote: Yeah, this is kind of a no-brainer. It's like asking if one's birth is the most important event in that person's life.

Au contraire. It's like saying that birth is the only important event that ever happened to you.
No, I never said it was the ONLY important event, just more important than the other important events... :-|