When universal male suffrage was passed, some places like New York dropped the requirement for owning land for white males, but not for free blacks. Note this was 40-45 years after the revolutionary war. Even after the move to strike land owners rights there were many states that required literacy tests that disenfranchised significant portions of both the white and free black populations. During the revolutionary war a free black land owner had more rights in general than a poor white male. In the early years I believe that there was greater focus on wealth than ethnicity. That doesn’t mean that it didn’t matter, but rather that wealthy free blacks were considered to be more acceptable in society than the poor, regardless of the color of their skin.The question of whether slaves or free blacks were citizens was something that Taney tried to address. He claimed that slaves, at least, were not citizens and had no rights as such. This caused to a strong reaction against the decision.
Generally, states limited the vote to white males before the Civil War, although there was some non-white voting. The biggest trend was allowing poor white men to vote, universal manhood suffrage, in place of the earlier property requirements.
“Free territory” refers to Kansas, Missouri and other places that were not States yet. Kansas and Missouri were territories, not states. There were no laws either for slavery or free yet. In the South, the laws for slavery were sacrosanct and in the North was abolitionist–they did not obey slavery laws.I was reading Wikipedia on the Dred Scott decision, and it said about his daughter “Because Eliza was born in free territory, she was technically born as a free person under both federal and state laws.” What federal law(s) was this? Does “free person” mean citizen as well? What is the history of letting blacks vote in free states before Lincoln?
I don’t know exactly what laws they refer to but there was the Fugitive Slave Act, which was at the heart of this case. Also there might have been other federal laws dealing with slaves. Keep in mind federal property in a slave state would present challenges as federal law applies on that property. So they might have had laws concerning slavery. As for voting contrary to popular opinion being a free state did not mean welcoming Blacks or allowing them to vote.I was reading Wikipedia on the Dred Scott decision, and it said about his daughter “Because Eliza was born in free territory, she was technically born as a free person under both federal and state laws.” What federal law(s) was this? Does “free person” mean citizen as well? What is the history of letting blacks vote in free states before Lincoln?
Is Deleware a southern state? I don’t imagine citizens of that state thought they were southerners then and certainly don’t now.In the South, the laws for slavery were sacrosanct and in the North was abolitionist–they did not obey slavery laws.
I’d suggest Thomas DiLorenzo’s work. I agree with the late, great Joe Sobran that Jaffa does not provide a good analysis.I need to get Harry Jaffa’s book *A New Birth of Freedom *again to read the appendix. Interesting. (I’ve talked to him over email)
I’m not well studied in what their thoughts were. The challenge of US history is that attitudes and laws changed over time. The issue in the early days of the country was slavery and not race. There were many Blacks who had slaves. In the early days free Blacks could enjoy many, if not all, rights. In North Carolina they could even vote. That would shock people but only because there is so much ignorance surrounding the issue.So did the founding Fathers ever speak about non-whites being part of their social contract?
Surprising only because the ‘official’ narrative and what is taught in schools is so incomplete. There was also the issue of compensation for freed slaves. Who would pay the masters? It was easy to be for freeing slaves but not easy to pony up.It is surprising to learn that many abolitionists supported the idea of “colonization.”… Northern factory owners often opposed both freeing slaves as well as colonization, as they needed the cotton produced by slaves on Southern plantations as a raw material.
Indentured servitude was actually more of a northern thing as I recall, or at least later in the history of US settlement. One interesting aspect is that the length of contract varied by latitude. The further North the longer the contract. As you moved South the contracts shortened. If I recall you could work just a year on a sugar island versus maybe fifteen years in the far North. My understanding was that the contract reflected the difficulty of the work and environment.In addition to black slavery, some southern states had a custom of indentured servitude, which was identical to slavery except that the slaves were freed after a fixed term.
I would disagree. Being a slave is a different matter than how one becomes a slave. Slaves can be born into it but they can also be sold into it. A man can even sell himself into slavery. Slavery itself need not be for lifetime. Indentured servants were slaves for a term.However indentured servants weren’t slaves because they exchanged work for something agreed on.
Yes, indentured servitude, at least as practiced in the South of the 1800’s was just the same as slavery, except for the term, which was usually quite extensive–decades.Indentured servitude was actually more of a northern thing as I recall, or at least later in the history of US settlement. One interesting aspect is that the length of contract varied by latitude. The further North the longer the contract. As you moved South the contracts shortened. If I recall you could work just a year on a sugar island versus maybe fifteen years in the far North. My understanding was that the contract reflected the difficulty of the work and environment.
I would disagree. Being a slave is a different matter than how one becomes a slave. Slaves can be born into it but they can also be sold into it. A man can even sell himself into slavery. Slavery itself need not be for lifetime. Indentured servants were slaves for a term.
The way it seems to have worked in the Louisiana ports is that a ship from Europe would be carrying immigrants who had been unable to pay the fare. When the ship arrived at New Orleans those passengers were held on board until someone agreed to purchase them, thereby paying the ship’s captain for their passage. They then worked for the buyer for a number of years, as a slave. They got no wages as a slave. After their term of slavery was up, they were free to earn a living in the normal way.If the person had no option and the servitude was severe, he would be a slave. But if I sign a contract that I must work for a company for tens yours for a million dollars a month, I am not a slave
They chose to come over on the ship, so that’s not slavery. Also, even black slaves were paid food and shelterThe way it seems to have worked in the Louisiana ports is that a ship from Europe would be carrying immigrants who had been unable to pay the fare. When the ship arrived at New Orleans those passengers were held on board until someone agreed to purchase them, thereby paying the ship’s captain for their passage. They then worked for the buyer for a number of years, as a slave. They got no wages as a slave. After their term of slavery was up, they were free to earn a living in the normal way.
An owner could release an indentured servant from his contract early if he became sick, to avoid the expense of caring for him. For permanent black slaves, the slave owner was legally obligated, however, to keep a sick or disabled slave.
Perhaps I am wrong, but my understanding was that they could not do this by sailing into northern ports, because passengers could not be legally sold into slavery from northern ports, even voluntarily.
Anti-slavery people could be in good faith. Which Ecumenical Councils were you referring to? Anathematizing an action is not infallible. Vatican II and other doctrinal sources say that slavery is wrong, although I think that is so depending on the situation. Would you be okay with Obama buying you as a slave?The are two forms of slavery, one is permanent and long lasting and the other is called indentured servitude which lasts for a period of time. There is an ending day.
Indentured servitude is still slavery. When one man is constrained to work for another, it is called slavery.
There is another lighter form called “forced labor”. Where armies force inhabitants to dig ditches for say, for a week or a month.
The Bible condones two forms. The Hebrews are told they can take slaves from the surrounding territory, i.e. from non-Hebrews.
For debt reasons, a Hebrew and his family is enslaved by the debt holder. At the year of Jubilee or at the end of six years, the Hebrew is freed along with his family. Hebrews were only to be enslaved in indentured servitude.
The Orthodox Church has never condemned slavery. It is NOT part of the Deposit of Faith that slavery is wrong. Slavery is not wrong. It is just an institution. There are several Ecumenical Council decisions on slavery. One says anybody who counsels a slave to run away from his master is to be anathematized. Christians are free to buy slaves in the market and free them on their own dime. But nowhere does Christianity teach that slavery is wrong. All those abolitionists are sitting in hell. All those who conspired on the underground railroad are in Hell. All of them were heretical Christians.
St. Paul in the letter to Philemon is returning a slave to his master. The Deposit of Faith nowhere, nowhere attacks the institution of slavery. Jesus did not. We are NOT to. Every time Sean Hannity and Pat Buchanan, supposedly “conservative” Catholics, say that slavery is wrong----they are not right. They are not “conservative” nor are they good Catholics. They are in heresy.
That is based on I Timothy 6.1 “Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed”.“If any one shall teach a slave, under pretext of piety, to despise his master and to run away from his service, and not to serve his own master with good will and all honour, let him be anathema”.
The Council of Chalcedon accepted all the canons and re-ratified them thus making them good for all the Church FOR ALL TIME.Although merely a local synod, its decisions were later ratified by the Council of Chalcedon, which is of immense importance in the early history of Christianity, see also First seven Ecumenical Councils. Most modern Christian groups, whether Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox, accept the Council of Chalcedon’s decisions…(from Wikipedia)