-=> Quoting Sondra Ball to Jim Casto <=-
 JC> CM> so was slavery Sondra and many men died to keep it legal vainly
 
 JC> Uh, you want to be a little more specific as to where in the 
Constitution y
 > find that slavery was ever _legal_ under U.S. Constitutional law? The 
rst
 SB> Let's be fair, Jim.  Non-free people counted as only a percentage of a
 SB> person in the constitution.  That *does* imply slavery was
                                              ^^^^^
 BIG difference between a statement that says the Constitution says slavery
 was _legal_ (as Charles "implied") and your statement that says the
 Constitution "implies". I won't disagree with a statement that says anything
 about what the Constitution "implies" (or "means" or "can be interpreted as
 saying"). BTW, the "implication" reasoning or the "but the Constitution
 doesn't say it's _illegal_ therefore it must be legal" reasoning usually
 don't hold much water when arguing a case before the Supreme Court.  
 
 As for slavery... Several times prior to the Revolution several colonies on
 their own (such as Georgia, Delaware, Massachusetts and maybe others) had
 tried to ban slavery at one time or another. Slavery was an issue that the 
 "founding fathers" (whom all  Americans revere as
 wise old gentlemen and put them on pedestals) didn't have the guts to outlaw
 when they had the chance. Whether they _intentionally_ wanted to keep the
 practice is probably debatable. The practice violated every _natural_ law
 known to humankind and had been virtually unknown throughout the "civilized"
 world for a few hundred years before the Europeans decided to revive the
 practice in the Western Hemisphere. The "founding fathers" did not have the
 nerve to declare it legal in writing in the face of world-wide opinion.
 After all, the Revolution was a "fight for freedom" was it not? How could
 they write "all men are created equal" and also write "slavery is legal in 
 the United States of America"? It wouldn't look good to the rest of the
 world. So they ignored the issue and hoped no one would notice.
 SB> constitutional. So does the Dred Scott decision.
 
 A couple of things about the Dred Scott decision:
 1. It didn't actually legalize slavery. It said that under the Constitution
 blacks weren't citizens and therefore had no right to sue therefore Dred
 Scott had no case to argue about.
 
 2. It overruled Congressional action of the Missouri Compromise by syaing
 Congress didn't have the authority to pass such a law.
 
 3. The majority of the Supreme Court justices were southerners.
 
 4. The Chief Justice was southerner Roger Brooke Taney. Today he would more
 than likely be classified as a "racist".
 
 5. Taney was appointed to the Supreme Court by Andrew Jackson. (I'll let you
 make up your own mind about Jackson. )
 
 6. Buchanan was a "wishy-washy" president that endorsed the Taney-led court
 decision and fueled the slavery conspiracy theory. The "don't make waves"
 policy.
 
 7. No one (to my knowledge) has ever said that the Dred Scott decision was
 correct or fair. And it is not the only time the Supreme Court has made some
 really BAD decisions. Every once in awhile someone comes along and 
hallenges
 a previous Supreme Court ruling.
 
 BTW, the case I am going to write about for my term paper in my U.S.
 Constitution seminar is: Washington State v. the Yakima Nation heard in 
979.
 It deals with Public Law 280 and tribal jurisdiction in legal cases.
 Jim
--- Blue Wave v2.12
---------------