Any Civil War buffs want to help a man out?

[MichaeltheGreat]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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!

[MichaeltheGreat]

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.

[MichaeltheGreat]

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.

[chequita guevara]

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.

[GePap]

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

[Dr Strangelove]

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.