Reply With Quote
Ah. So, show us in the Cons ution in which it says blacks had to be slaves.
No. Loss of property by people in rebellion was allowed.
Outright freeing of slaves was not.
That's why the cons ution had to be amended. This is fundamental stuff.
Ah. So, show us in the Cons ution in which it says blacks had to be slaves.
straw man. I accept your white flag.
You can't do it. I accept your white flag.
I never claimed it said that.
Why do you have to lie, derp?
It was legal to import slaves until 1808. There were fugitive slave acts in 1793 and 1850.
Black birth was not a guarantee of involuntary servitude, but slave birth almost certainly was until the 1863 emancipation.
In the south, free blacks ran the risk of becoming slaves again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Negro"Southerners came to believe that the only successful means of removing the threat of free Negroes was to expel them from the southern states or to change their status from free persons to ... slaves."[34]:112 Free Negroes were perceived as "an evil of no ordinary magnitude,"[34]:119 undermining the system of slavery. Slaves had to be shown that there was no advantage in being free; thus, free Negroes became victims of the slaveholders' fears. Legislation became more forceful; the free Negro had to accept his new role or leave the state. In Florida, for example, legislation of 1827 and 1828 prohibited them from joining public gatherings and "giving seditious speeches", and laws of 1825, 1828, and 1833 ended their right to carry firearms. They were barred from jury service and from testifying against whites. To manumit (free) a slave, a master had to pay a tax of $200 each, and had to post a bond guaranteeing that the free negro would leave the state within 30 days.[35]Eventually, some citizens of Leon County, Florida's most populous[36] and wealthiest[34]:140 county, which wealth was because Leon County had more slaves than any other county in Florida, who in the 1860 census cons uted 73% of its population,[37] pe ioned the General Assembly to have all free Negroes removed from the state.[34]:118
In Florida, legislation passed in 1847 required all free Negroes to have a white person as legal guardian;[34]:120 in 1855, an act was passed which prevented free Negroes from entering the state.[34]:119 "In 1861, an act was passed requiring all free Negroes in Florida to register with the judge of probate in whose county they resided. The Negro, when registering, had to give his name, age, color, sex, and occupation, and had to pay one dollar to register ... All Negroes over twelve years of age had to have a guardian approved by the probate judge ... The guardian could be sued for any crime committed by the Negro; the Negro could not be sued. Under the new law, any free Negro or mulatto who did not register with the nearest probate judge was classified as a slave and became the lawful property of any white person who claimed possession."[34]:121
http://legisworks.org/sal/2/stats/STATUTE-2-Pg426.pdf
https://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/slave02.htm
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/fugitive.asp
btw, Derptacular, was there ever any significant number of nonwhite slaves in the USA?
Cool stories, bruh. Now do you have anything from the Cons ution that directly requires blacks to be slaves?
The US Cons ution did not require slavery, but did recognize and protect it.
Federal and state laws enforced involuntary servitude until the US Cons ution was amended to prohibit it except for convicts.
Customarily, this meant the bondage of people of African heritage to others. There never was any significant population of non-black slaves.
Last edited by Winehole23; 02-28-2019 at 01:37 AM.
So then, your straw man has failed at inception. No one claimed the Cons ution mandated African American servitude, but it's undeniable that was the custom.
First by slavery, then by convict leasing and debt peonage until 1941.
Derp working det strawman hard.
Seriously, nobody anywhere made that assertion.
Seriously, you're an idiot.
What assertion are you making, cuck?
That you're an idiot, idiot.
I can't dumb down the phrase "you're an idiot" any further than that for you. Sorry.
Oh yeah? Well...what phrase are you making?
There's nothing you can't dumb down further, cuck.
And yea, you're not saying anything on the subject. Par.
You proved you're an idiot by failing to understand anything relating to the subject and making up and repeating a straw man fallacy when you knew you failed to understand anything about the subject.
No. I explained it fully.
Is there any part of that you don't understand?
I understand your need to lash out.
You're done here too.
I accept your white flag.
So, many times you have that comeback that. I question that you're even above blake level, tbh.
Ok, if you're not done the you can explain what the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863 did in full.
Go.
No end to it, hahaha~~~~
O Brother, Where Art Thou?
Convicts are returning to farming anti-immigrant policies are the reason
Prison inmates are picking fruits and vegetables at a rate not seen since Jim Crow.
Convict leasing for agriculture a system that allows states to sell prison labor to private farms became infamous in the late 1800s for the brutal conditions it imposed on captive, mostly black workers.
Federal and state laws prohibited convict leasing for most of the 20th century, but
the once-notorious practice is making a comeback.
Under lucrative arrangements,
states are increasingly leasing prisoners to private corporations
to harvest food for American consumers.
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/06/convicts-are-returning-to-farming-anti-immigrant-policies-are-the-reason/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story%29
Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-10-2019 at 01:27 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
