Re:Justin Amash Introduces Bill to End Civil Asset Forfeitur...
by jfengel on Friday December 18, 2020 @01:49PM
(#25470460)
It was explicitly constitutional. They managed to avoid the word "slave", but Article 1, Section 2, clause 3 explicitly distinguishes "free Persons" from "all other persons" (who only count for 3/5 when it comes to computing representatives).
They called it the Fugitive Slave Clause, even though the word doesn't appear in the Constitution. So yeah, that really wasn't just a matter of judges thinking about the "spirit" of the constitution. It was very clear that this was a slave nation.
Bonus: it still is, even with the 13th amendment. It does use the word slavery, and then provides an exception for people convicted of a crime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise
It also explicitly said that you can't escape "service or labor" just by going to a state that didn't allow it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_Sta...
They called it the Fugitive Slave Clause, even though the word doesn't appear in the Constitution. So yeah, that really wasn't just a matter of judges thinking about the "spirit" of the constitution. It was very clear that this was a slave nation.
Bonus: it still is, even with the 13th amendment. It does use the word slavery, and then provides an exception for people convicted of a crime.