even if the civil war was about state rights how could the south justify slavery

They were actually right about States Rights. Their view of the Constitution was valid.

As to your question about slavery....pure rationalization based on fear and preservation of their status quo.

what was there view of the constitution? what state rights did they want to keep?

my great great grandaddy thanks you
for that compliment :)

Slavery flourished in the Colonies
because the English Crown profited
immensely from it.

Those high class dresses made for the Royals
was made from southern cotton grown
in the south and shipped to London.

George Washington was a slave trader
by profession. He traded about 250 slaves
a yr for profit and he owned 225 slaves
of his own.

The English brought slavery here
and they made riches off it's cheap labor
picking cotton, tobacco and hemp.

another thing your history books
don't tell you is that about 35-40%
of the freed slaves returned to
their masters who could not function
as a free man and make it on their own
whom sought to return to slavery.
Thus the welfare state was born.

They were incorrect about state's rights regarding their own reasons for secession. Much of it had to do with prohibiting slavery in federal territories not yet made states. The South felt adding more free states to the Union would upset the balance of power between slave and non-slave states.

They were more concerned with regional interest as opposed to individual state's rights. If anything, the North was more concerned with state's rights in their desire to admit new states which prohibited slavery, as mandating slavery in such new states would oppose the right of the new state to be non-slave.

The Confederate Constitution was basically just a copy of the US Constitution, except it made it clear that slavery was legal in any confederate state or territory.

...and to clarify, the Civil War itself was not about slavery or state's rights. It was about preserving the Union.

In theory, when the South seceded, the North could have said, "okay, goodbye." However, the North said "No, and we'll fight you to keep you in the Union." Hence, the war itself was about preserving the Union.

if the South had won
there still would have been
a Union and Davis as it's
President.

The South's interpretation of the US Constitution's core objective was way off the mark. The US Constitution was a response to the entrenched privilege of class based Britain where men were unequal under the guardianship of the state. The US Constitution rejected this principle hence its equality objective and of course, it set in place, the processes of government to ensure this. The South on the other hand sought to establish its own form of Britain's agrarian inequity, this time based on skin colour, but with the same embedded privilege.

The English blue bloods must have been enjoying a quiet titter.

I'm from the south and the south was wrong ....

the Constituion and the Decleration of Independence is a federal document and these documents guarantee the right of individual freedom and liberty....therefore it's is the duty of the federal goverment to insure and enforce freedom for the citizen

Therefore the abolishing slavery was a Duty of the Federal Goverment and Lincoln being a lawyer understood that Federal law in this case superseded state law

Last Edited by Simple_Man on 11/15/2012 04:11 AM

geez
some of you are disillusioned as to what
a FREE man is.

these slave traders that went to Africa did not
kidnap or steal slaves

their own families sold them into slavery
so that both parties could survive.

if your own family sells you into slavery
and that person allowed it of his own will
then the person becomes an asset, not a free man.
That was a choice they made on their own
in Africa and it has nothing to do with
where that asset shows up later on
a map.

therefore the Constitution does not
apply to those who already made the
choice of his free will to be a slave.

The Constitution does not define freedom to exclude those who knowingly reject their freedom. Such a notion would be an absurdity in court and could result in for example, the ludicrous spectacle of a woman voluntarily agreeing to subject herself to the dominion of her man (at that time in history) and legal precedents to substantiate such absurd limitations of the Constitutions contemplation of what freedom means, of which there are none.

Legal freedom is full freedom as that is understood by the reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus and cannot be willingly given up.

the African families accepted payment
for a resource, that makes it a
contractual agreement.

at that point they gave up their right
to be free men.

any court in the land would honor
a contract where payment was received.

this is why slaves had bill of sales
to prove their choice to be a slave.

Presumably your family can take you to Africa, naturalise you in an African country, renounce your US citizenship, and sell you with your full agreement, thereby rendering you into an asset, like a toilet roll.

now you are confusing the laws of the land
of Africa with the laws of the US.

the slave contract was agreed to in
the home birth country of that individual.

where that individual goes to after that
is irrelevant after the contract was
made.

This is constitutional law we are talking of, not contractual law. Constitutional law is based on crimes statues, contract is based on civil misdemeanours. You may try and enforce a contract, say selling a little girl, in court as a civil claim. Criminal law which takes precedence over civil law hence the higher standard, would overrule the civil claim.

The same way they justify the black on white crime epidemic now

slaves are bought and sold every day
today

look at the 9 yr old girls and boys
sold into marriage.

that is the laws in their home country.

if that lil 9 yr old slave wife goes
to live in NY she is still a slave.
She doesn't become free because she
crossed a national border of another
country.

And you are confusing the object of constitutions. A constitution that sets up standards in one place will not countenance laws from another state that flout its objects. For example, whislst it may be acceptable to flog a shoplifter in Saudi, that rule cannot enforced by the Saudis in the US.

Simple and elementary stuff.

I wish you the best of luck in trying to enforce that situation in a US court. You will quickly be locked up

we could argue this case til the cows come home
and it wouldn't change the principles
associated with the construct.

the Constitution was not meant to change the
laws of other countries. It was only written
to change the laws in America.

what happened in Africa was a contract.

Islam does it every day
in America

look around

The Constituion is designed to maintain civilised standards in the US. Transactions under foreign laws that deviate from this constitutional objective in the US and on US soil will be struck down. I know my Anglo-Saxon law.

thank you
you just proved my point.

the point of sale of the slavery
occurred in Africa.

All manner of laws are flouted daily in the US. However, when tested, the breaches fail.

The Amish for example, enjoy certain archiac standards not for being tested in the courts, but rather for not being challenged. However, when crimes are committed and reported, these practices then fall to be tested constitutionally under crimes laws which the Fed uses to ensure compliance with the constitution.

And ... in WHAT YEAR did Lincoln make the infamous 'Emancipation Proclamation'? Was it in ... 1863?

Two years after the start of the Civil War?

Was the war about 'slavery' (... there was an abundance of slave-owning business owners in the Northern States) ... or was it about the original 13 states/colonies "Rights to Self-Determination"?

A useful political football - nothing more, nothing less.

Last Edited by MindShaft on 11/15/2012 05:04 AM

You are too emotional and normative, not objective.

Lets remember that a cannibal may happily eat his purchase in his foreign land under rules that allow the purchase and consumption of human flesh but cannot in the US due to Constitutional rules on the state of men, THE STATE OF MEN.

maybe you didn't get the memo:
we do not have a Constitution any more today.
That was dissolved in the Act of 1871.
We only have an ILLUSION of a Constitution
because it serves the elitists agenda.