Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (489952)	11/9/2003 9:29:11 PM
From: Peter O'Brien	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I understand the meaning of "explicit" perfectly well. I have indeed carefully read and re-read the sections of the Confederate constitution that I quoted to you in my previous posting. Have you? Article IV,Section II.III EXPLICITLY (not IMPLICITLY) says that if a slave in one Confederate state escapes (or is legally transported) to "ANOTHER" Confederate state, that it cannot be freed "IN CONSEQUENCE OF ANY LAW OR REGULATION THEREIN". I don't know how more EXPLICIT you can get! This provision of the Confederate constitution would be completely superfluous if individual Confederate states would never be allowed to abolish slavery within their own borders. The intention of this provision was to prevent future conflicts between those Confederate states that had abolished slavery WITHIN THEIR OWN BORDERS and those Confederate states that had not yet done so. What this provision says is that a Confederate state can abolish slavery within its own borders, however that state must still respect the property rights of slave owners in other Confederate states that had not yet abolished slavery.