Did they have the right

[Alcott]

From the CSA constitution:
" No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
That is ironclad. Nothing of the sort exists in the US constitution.

The closest the US Constitution comes is in Article IV, Sec. 2, paragraph 3: "No Person held to Service or Labour 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 Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

Do you think the Dred Scott decision was rightfully decided, considering this paragraph? I do; even though the majority opinion by CJ Taney seems to give the wrong reasons.

 

[StefanM]

The closest the US Constitution comes is in Article IV, Sec. 2, paragraph 3: "No Person held to Service or Labour 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 Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

Do you think the Dred Scott decision was rightfully decided, considering this paragraph? I do; even though the majority opinion by CJ Taney seems to give the wrong reasons.

Dred Scott was consistent with the laws of the era.

 

[Surfer Joe]

In the American Revolution there was foreign intervention. Germans and the French fought for the Colonials.

Surfer Joe said:

Either they wanted to be Americans 
or they didn't.

Keep in mind, back then, citizens thought of themselves as citizens of a particular State or Commonwealth, not of the US. That is the precise reason Robert E. Lee decided to fight for the correct side


Homework for tonight: Which Union Generals had slaves, and which CSA Generals did not?

That's interesting. I didn't realize that.

I think the homework will have to wait until tomorrow. I'm exhausted. :sleeping_2:

 

[Surfer Joe]

I'm not into re-enacting wars, but I do find them fascinating to a degree. I was just simply thinking how I would have done things if I were the leader of the Confederate army.

Ok, I see. I myself am very interested in getting into re-enacting. It seems like a lot of fun.

 

[Bob Alkire]

Homework for tonight: Which Union Generals had slaves, and which CSA Generals did not?

Off the top of my head, I believe that General Robert E. Lee, General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, General J. E. B. Stuart, and General Fitzhugh Lee, were not slave owners. I believe their was more but can't recall. As far as the norh goes I don't know, but I think I read that Grant did.

 

[Salty]

Off the top of my head, I believe that General Robert E. Lee, General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, General J. E. B. Stuart, and General Fitzhugh Lee, were not slave owners. I believe their was more but can't recall. As far as the norh goes I don't know, but I think I read that Grant did.

Now isnt that interesting that those Generals were fighting for the "Slave" War.

 

[just-want-peace]

Now isnt that interesting that those Generals were fighting for the "Slave" War.

Does make one question the "conventional" wisdom, does it not?

I just finished reading the article referenced in the Thoughts on "Liberal Education" thread, and this one
fact, of who owned slaves, just proves that the article is far more encompassing than a pastoral application!

IOW, logic AND common sense are either dead, or are so malnourished that they very rarely enter public discourse.

 

[StefanM]

Now isnt that interesting that those Generals were fighting for the "Slave" War.

First off, just because a particular individual did not own slaves does not mean that the individual in question did not support the preservation of slavery. Equally, fighting for the South did not necessary mean support for slavery.

That being said, I highly doubt you would find many vocal abolitionists fighting for the South.

Some of the factor in play is state loyalty. As has already been mentioned, loyalty to the state was far more significant in the antebellum period. Even if you disagreed with the decision to secede, you were still a citizen of your state. Many individuals undoubtedly opposed secession while fighting for the Confederacy.

We have to remember how dominant the slave economy was in the Old South. Slavery was THE hot-button issue for national politics. (Consider the controversy in the Dem. Nat'l Convention for the 1860 election.)

It's not as if the South was fighting solely for the preservation of slavery; they were fighting for the right of self-determination, to be sure. However, central to this concept was the right to retain the institution of slavery as well as the ability to expand it in future territorial acquisitions.