Tag Archives | Slavery

We shouldn’t need to ask

By on January 28, 2013 in History

By Josiah Wedgwood (1730-1795) and either William Hackwood or Henry Webber; "Josiah Wedgewood...produced the emblem as a jasper-ware cameo at his pottery factory. Although the artist who designed and engraved the seal is unknown, the design for the cameo is attributed to William Hackwood or to Henry Webber, who were both modelers at the Wedgewood factory." (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2h67.html PBS]) (British Abolition Movement) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Facts: Pennsylvania’s 1780 Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery predated the Constitution by 7 years. It predated Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation by 83 years and it predated the 13th amendment by 85 years.

Pennsylvania’s emancipation act also preceded the end of slavery by more than 230 years (and counting) in the handful of countries where slavery is still practiced today. Continue Reading →

Comments { 6 }

Nationalism, Federalism and the Civil War

By on September 15, 2010 in History, Nullification

I often read blogs, articles, news “reports” and the like – where the commentator refers to the current 10th Amendment Movement with a comment like Hugh Holub in the Tucson Citizen:

“The Civil War was about the right of states to allow slavery. The Union won and slavery was outlawed.”

Obviously, the southern states wanted slavery, but in reading the original “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union” – one would find the ideas of nullification and states rights vs centralization to be the leading issue:

an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. [Emphasis Added]

Or how about Mississippi:

“[the North] has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.”

From this it seems quite obvious to me that the Civil War WAS about nullification and states rights – the northern states were utilizing them and the slavers in the South wanted central power to force their way on the whole country.

Totally opposite of how the mainstream mouthpieces would have us believe.

Comments { 4 }

Jonathan Bean on Lysander Spooner

By on November 27, 2009 in Constitution, Federalism

Recently, I wrote about Lysander Spooner’s dubious argument that the unamended Constitution as originally ratified prohibited slavery in a book review I did for The New American.

Jonathan Bean, Research Fellow at the Independent Institute and professor of history at Southern Illinois University, commented on my review of his book “Race & Liberty in America” (I believe it was him … you never know) and defended Spooner with the following.

Spooner may have been wrong about the Constitution (people disagree) when he wrote the argument that it did not — and could not — uphold slavery. While you may disagree, his argument is actually an extremely _strict_ interpretation of the law as a) protecting individual rights well-accepted in Anglo-American law; and b) contracts must be consensual: by tracing the history of American charters and constitutions, he shows that blacks never “signed over” their rights to the Government and submitted to slavery. And they had no right to hand over their children. There was no legal basis for man-stealing. It happened over time AND THEN it was codified. So he is arguing against a “living Constitution” theory that the law must grow to accept new conditions (namely slavery).

While I agree that slavery is vile, horrific and thankfully abolished, I must disagree that Spooner is “arguing against a living Constitution” and for a strict interpretation.

race-and-liberty-americaSlavery was definitely around at the time of the ratification and was debated by both the drafters and ratifiers. They both decided to mostly leave it as a state issue to be solved by popular sovereignty.

Spooner’s argument that the Constitution was not binding on African-Americans is actually much stronger but if you follow this line of thinking to its logical end, then you must conclude that the Constitution is not binding on anyone who wasn’t alive at the time of the ratification. And that’s actually what Spooner eventually argued.

BTW, if you’re interested in a good stocking stuffer, Bean’s book might be just what you need.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0813192315?tag=tenthamendmentcenter-20&camp=213381&creative=390973&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=0813192315&adid=0EQXSSW3WC4QYR3QBTQE&
Comments { 3 }