3 ms·

Yeah, that happens a lot. There's no need to treat the 13th Amendment as a unique case. The default state under natural law is that there is no such thing as le

Yeah, that happens a lot. There's no need to treat the 13th Amendment as a unique case. The default state under natural law is that there is no such thing as legitimate involuntary slavery; treating anyone as a slave without their consent infringes on their inalienable rights. As such, there was never any need to ban private parties from holding slaves; the slave holder's only tenuous claim to legitimacy comes from the fact that the government takes their side, recognizing and enforcing their claims while simultaneously ignoring the natural rights of their slaves. I suspect the convoluted arguments proposed for why the 13th Amendment must be unique are a direct consequence of the tortured logic needed to reconcile the institution of slavery with the principles on which the Constitution was based. Faced with a choice between acknowledging the government's role in legitimizing slavery or else arguing that it was merely a "private" matter which the government had thus far refrained from regulating they chose the narrative which minimized their share of the blame. This is akin to how the Interstate Commerce and General Welfare clauses have been perverted to justify all manner of legislation outside the narrowly defined scope of the federal government's enumerated powers.

eesmith 8y ago
"direct consequence of the tortured logic needed to reconcile the institution of slavery with the principles on which the Constitution was based" You cannot pick and choose which principles you like. The Constitutional principles include the support of slavery. The Constitutional principles do not include universal suffrage. The Constitutional principles said nothing against expanding westward and stealing Native American lands. The Constitutional principles didn't prevent us from ruling the Philippines as a colonial power, or using government power to suppress labor rights. To the contrary, I believe federal power was strengthened in part to be able to suppress the rights of the poor. The rebels of Shay's Rebellion fought against monetary policies and court practices which caused their lands and possessions to be confiscated. The elites and merchant class wanted to be able to call out federal troops should their own power be threatened. What does "natural law" say about the right to confiscate land and possessions for failure to pay debts? For failure to pay taxes? What if those debts and taxes must be paid in hard currency, and that currency isn't available, and the government refuses to issue paper currency and allow it to be used as a substitute?

eesmith 8y ago

"direct consequence of the tortured logic needed to reconcile the institution of slavery with the principles on which the Constitution was based" You cannot pick and choose which principles you like. The Constitutional principles include the support of slavery. The Constitutional principles do not include universal suffrage. The Constitutional principles said nothing against expanding westward and stealing Native American lands. The Constitutional principles didn't prevent us from ruling the Philippines as a colonial power, or using government power to suppress labor rights. To the contrary, I believe federal power was strengthened in part to be able to suppress the rights of the poor. The rebels of Shay's Rebellion fought against monetary policies and court practices which caused their lands and possessions to be confiscated. The elites and merchant class wanted to be able to call out federal troops should their own power be threatened. What does "natural law" say about the right to confiscate land and possessions for failure to pay debts? For failure to pay taxes? What if those debts and taxes must be paid in hard currency, and that currency isn't available, and the government refuses to issue paper currency and allow it to be used as a substitute?