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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (35440)	5/8/2009 12:27:05 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

"...if we hadn't had the Civil War you would have thought it O.K. to continue slavery until enough states got together to amend the Constitution?" You're mixing emotional issues with constitutional issues. Dred Scott was decided on the basis of the law at that time. Using our values and modern more's, it seems incomprehensible that a human could be considered property. But, not to most folks in the mid-1800s. Anti-slavery laws were being passed in state legislatures, and the idea was gathering momentum. Much like the firearm concealed carry laws are spreading state to state. Or, shudder, the homosexual marriage laws that are going state to state. My point is, slavery would have become illegal (and impractical) regardless of whether there was a Civil War or not. But, for a direct answer to your question, yes. Until the constitution was amended or the SCOTUS made a different ruling, slavery should not have been prohibited at the national level. Had things happened that way, there would have been slaves for another decade or so, and the worst war in modern history (in terms of lost American lives) might have been averted.