Free Dating Site    

Montreal guy cited a number of examples above.

I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man

This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world-enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites-causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles ofcivil liberty-criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.

I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people ... I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone.

intended to include all men, but they did not mean to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all men were equal in color, size, intellect, moral development or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness in what they did consider all men created equal-equal in certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society which should be familiar to all: constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even, though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people, of all colors, every where.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln-Douglas_debates_of_1858

March 3, 1837

The following protest was presented to the House, which was read and ordered to be spread on the journals, to wit:

"Resolutions upon the subject of domestic slavery having passed both branches of the General Assembly at its present session, the undersigned hereby protest against the passage of the same.

They believe that the institution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy; but that the promulgation of abolition doctrines tends rather to increase than to abate its evils.

They believe that the Congress of the United States has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the different States.

They believe that the Congress of the United States has the power, under the constitution, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; but that that power ought not to be exercised unless at the request of the people of said District.

http://www.nps.gov/archive/liho/slavery/al02.htm

Corwin Amendment

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State. (See U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, The Constitution of the United States of America: Unratified Amendments, Doc. No. 106-214).

I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

As recently as 1963, more than a full century after the amendment was proposed to the state legislatures by Congress, a resolution to ratify it was introduced in the Texas House of Representatives by Dallas Republican Henry Stollenwerck (House Joint Resolution No. 67, 58th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 1963) but the resolution received no further consideration in that body than to be referred to its Committee on Constitutional Amendments on March 7, 1963.

What I See in Lincoln's Eyes
Sunday, Jun. 26, 2005

By BARACK OBAMA

Still, as I look at his picture, it is the man and not the icon that speaks to me. I cannot swallow whole the view of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator. As a law professor and civil rights lawyer and as an African American, I am fully aware of his limited views on race. Anyone who actually reads the Emancipation Proclamation knows it was more a military document than a clarion call for justice. Scholars tell us too that Lincoln wasn't immune from political considerations and that his temperament could be indecisive and morose.

A few weeks ago, I spoke at the commencement at Knox College in Galesburg, Ill. I stood in view of the spot where Lincoln and Stephen Douglas held one of their famous debates during their race for the U.S. Senate. The only way for Lincoln to get onto the podium was to squeeze his lanky frame through a window, whereupon he reportedly remarked, "At last I have finally gone through college." Waiting for the soon-to-be graduates to assemble, I thought that even as Lincoln lost that Senate race, his arguments that day would result, centuries later, in my occupying the same seat that he coveted. He may not have dreamed of that exact outcome. But I like to believe he would have appreciated the irony. Humor, ambiguity, complexity, compassion--all were part of his character. And as Lincoln called once upon the better angels of our nature, I believe that he is calling still, across the ages, to summon some measure of that character, the American character, in each of us today.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1077287,00.html

Sorry charles, but the civil war was not about the states rights to own slaves. If that was the case, we never would have had the civil war because Lincoln was going to allow slavery if the south stayed in the Union. Even the white house and other northerner states had slaves. Not as many because there was not as much as a need.The south was a main contributer to the federal government.The Southern States left the Union to avoid Lincoln's newly passed import tax. Not much of this money was being sent back to the south. Basically, the North was getting richer off the south. Slavery was only a bargaining tool.

(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

The Southern States left the Union to avoid Lincoln's newly passed import tax.

Arieann, discussing anything to do with minorities is a non start with you. Do some reading.

Charles,Stop trying to bring race into this topic. My statement had nothing to do with race or minorities.It was why the south left the union, because of Lincoln, and how it was not about slavery, it was about taxes and lack of support for the south from the federal government. I see you can read, but I will ask you to learn to comprehend what you read. If you want to discuss that issue with me again, post in a supremacy thread. I'll be willing to meet you there.

but then you say Licoln being ellected was the final straw because they saw him as an abolitionist.

Which I would point out were legally raised in the democratic process.

Namely the ability to use slaves to continue to produce cotton.

refurbishing added up to $26,000, $6,000 more than Congress had allotted.

Secession to protect slavery made no sense at all, because slavery was secured by the Constitution, by the Supreme Court and even by Abe Lincoln's public promises that he had neither plans nor desire to interfere with it. The war was actually a tariff war - Lincoln trying to hang on to millions of dollars per year in tariffs on Southern goods. In his first inaugural Lincoln promised a military invasion of any state that failed to collect tariffs for the federal government - that he would in his own words, "hold, occupy and possess" said tariffs by "using force against or among the people."

Point to me the place within the original US constitution that enshrines the right to own slaves please.

Point to me the place within the original US constitution that enshrines the right to own slaves please.

Slavery is seen in the Constitution in a few key places. The first is in the Enumeration Clause, where representatives are apportioned. Each state is given a number of representatives based on its population - in that population, slaves, called "other persons," are counted as three-fifths of a whole person. This compromise was hard-fought, with Northerners wishing that slaves, legally property, but uncounted, much as mules and horses are uncounted. Southerners, however, well aware of the high proportion of slaves to the total population in their states, wanted them counted as whole persons despite their legal status. The three-fifths number was a ratio used by the Congress in contemporary legislation and was agreed upon with little debate.

In Article 1, Section 9, Congress is limited, expressly, from prohibiting the "Importation" of slaves, before 1808. The slave trade was a bone of contention for many, with some who supported slavery abhorring the slave trade. The 1808 date, a compromise of 20 years, allowed the slave trade to continue, but placed a date-certain on its survival. Congress eventually passed a law outlawing the slave trade that became effective on January 1, 1808.

The Fugitive Slave Clause is the last mention. In it, a problem that slave states had with extradition of escaped slaves was resolved. The laws of one state, the clause says, cannot excuse a person from "Service or Labour" in another state. The clause expressly requires that the state in which an escapee is found deliver the slave to the state he escaped from "on Claim of the Party."

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html

"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."

Thus this clause explains that the number of persons in each state, for the purpose of representation and taxation, is to be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons three fifths "of all other Persons" The phrase " free Persons" is followed by an explanation that in addition to free citizens, all people bound to service for a term of years, such as an indentured servant, are also included in the total number for representation. Indians, which are not taxed, are excluded from the population to be represented.

Although the word slavery is not mentioned, "all other Persons" implies it. The clause explicitly makes reference to all other social or economic classes of the time, namely free people, bound servants, and Indians. The only economic class it does not refer to by name is that of slaves. This proves the reluctance of the Founders to include slavery in the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Trade_Compromise_and_Fugitive_Slave_Clause

"All good men wish the entire abolition of slavery, as soon as it can take place with safety to the public, and for the lasting good of the present wretched race of slaves."

-Oliver Ellsworth

"I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil. Everything we do is to improve it, if it happens in our day; if not, let us transmit to our descendants, together with our slaves, a pity for their unhappy lot and an abhorrence of slavery.

-Patrick Henry (refused to attend the Convention. btw)

"There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all education in him."

- Thomas Jefferson (owner of 223 slaves, sold after his death to relieve his estate's debt

"Slavery is such an atrocious debasement of human nature, that its very extirpation, if not performed with solicitous care, may sometimes open a source of serious evils."

-Benjamin Franklin (owned 3 slaves)

"[Y]our late purchase of an estate in the colony of Cayenne, with a view to emancipating the slaves on it, is a generous and noble proof of your humanity. Would to God a like spirit would diffuse itself generally into the minds of the people of this country; but I despair of seeing it."

- George Washington (owned over 300 slaves, and directed that his slaves be freed upon her death, His will provided for the continued care of all slaves, paid for from his estate.)

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html

Parliament passed the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833. This act gave all slaves in the British Empire their freedom. The British government paid compensation to the slave owners. The amount that the plantation owners received depended on the number of slaves that they had. For example, the Bishop of Exeter's 665 slaves resulted in him receiving £12,700.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Lslavery33.htm

Following the Plessy v Ferguson decision in 1896, where the Supreme Court ruled that while blacks had equal right under the law, but that separation of the races was legal as long as facilities were equal, throughout the South, and elsewhere, more laws were enacted to keep blacks on one side and whites on the other. These laws, known as Jim Crow laws, affected every aspect of the lives of blacks.

For example, a 1958 Alabama law stated that "It shall be unlawful for white and colored persons to play together ... in any game of cards, dice, dominoes, checkers, pool, billiards, softball, basketball, football, golf, track, and at swimming pools or in any athletic conference."

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html

The southern states had no interest or concern for the Constitution, in terms of its relationship to slavery since slaves weren't viewed as legal persons, only the economic impact of abolition (which further underscores their widespread belief that blacks were not fully human in comparison to whites).

Point to me the place within the original US constitution that enshrines the right to own slaves please.

I am not in the mood to search, but owning slaves was a state rights to own property. Slaves were considered property at that time. They were not considered people. The constitution protected stater rights concerning this issue.

In seventeen ninety-three, approximately one hundred and eighty thousand pounds of cotton was harvested in the United States. Two years later, that harvest grew to more than six million pounds; by eighteen ten, an astounding ninety three million pounds was brought to harvest.

The reason for this growth?

The cotton gin, invented in the latter part of seventeen ninety-three by Eli Whitney.

Before the invention that changed the way cotton was cleaned and readied for processing, there were only two cash crops, or non-food crops, that were grown in America: tobacco and indigo, which was used in the dye-making process. Although it was abundant, cotton did not prove, before the invention of the gin, anywhere close to being a profitable crop. But with the gin, cotton very quickly began to rival in profit the industry of growing tobacco.

With the advent of the cotton gin, the boundaries of agriculture soon became almost limitless. Cotton, requiring very little more than air to flourish, was soon found growing and thriving in places previously unheard of, such as Texas. Acres of land that had been dormant because of poor growing capabilities were found to be filled with cotton; this land that had been barren for so long now held a very profitable crop that could enhance a grower’s finances.

Another impact upon the economy was realized with a sudden dependence upon cotton production. Entire communities were without much notice forced to depend upon the price and abundance of a single crop. When the cotton industry stumbled, so, too, did the south. On the other hand, when cotton did well, many farmers would rush to make a gain and overproduce the crop. This sometimes resulted in price drops that proved to be catastrophic to a vast majority of growers.

The issue of slavery was also greatly impacted by the invention of the cotton gin. Prior to this invention, slavery had become less favorable with Americans. Because of the huge numbers of new immigrants to the United States, labor had become cheap enough that many farmers found it necessary to pay. Suddenly, as the gin made dramatically improved ways to produce cotton, the need for labor was made more imperative to the livelihood of those who grew the crop.

Larger and larger fields of cotton were needed to keep up with demand; along with the increased production of the crop was the need for laborers to glean it. The influx of immigrants to America had produced many more laborers for such a task, but these peoples were reluctant to undertake such terrible and difficult work; they could find easier and less painful ways to earn a living. Once again, slave labor was sought by land owners.

Although considered to be among the most important inventions in the role of economics in America, and beyond, the cotton gin also played a social role as its appearance is said to have caused the continuance of slavery in America, until its dissolution at the end of the Civil War.

http://sc.essortment.com/cottongin_rciv.htm

that is the reason it had been outlawed in the Northern states on Constitutional grounds.

1804, New Jersey passed its "gradual emancipation" act, essentially freeing any child born of slaves. This law, with the earlier end of foreign import of slaves, was to bring a final end to the practice of slavery.Under the terms of the "gradual emancipation act," females born of slave parents after July 4, 1804, would be free upon reaching 21 years of age, and males upon reaching 25. In 1846 the state passed its second major emancipation law, which formally outlawed slavery. While the law outlawed slavery, it didn’t protect all slaves. Under the act, all black children born after the act’s passage were free, but those blacks were to be “apprentices” for life. The act did offer former slaves greater legal protection; they could sue for their freedom if abused or mistreated and they could not be sold without written consent. This act was eventually superceded in 1865 by the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which abolished slavery nationally.

1863 The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in rebel states, not including sections of Louisiana, West Virginia, and Virginia. The Proclamation did not apply to slaves in the Border States of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Tennessee or to slaves held by Native Americans..

The Emancipation Proclamation did not free ALL slaves. It only freed slaves in states remaining in the Confederacy. It was not an altruistic effort (or Lincoln would have freed them everywhere). It was a war measure intended to disrupt the Confederacy.