-=> Quoting Sondra Ball to Jim Casto <=-
 SB> OK.  The constitution does not *say* that slavery is legal.  However,
 
 SB> one slave, one person (while not allowing slaves to vote.)  For a
 SB> while, it looked like this disagreement was going to stop the
 SB> constitution from being formed, until the 3/5ths compromise was agreed
 SB> upon. 
 
 You have just described parts of what is called the "Great Compromise." And
 without the "compromise" there probably would _not_ even have _been_ a
 Constitution. We might still be a "Confederation" instead of a "Union". It
 is unlikely that the required number of states (9 of 13?) would have
 ratified the Constititon with _either_ an implicit pro-slavery statement or
 an implicit anti-slavery statement. That's why I say the "founding
 fathers" would NOT decide the issue at a _federal_ _Constitutional_ level.
 SB> The statement in section 9, "The migration or importation of such
 SB> persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit,
 SB> shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand
 SB> eight hundred and eight", was also a compromise.  Most of the free
 SB> states wanted immediate ceasation of the importation of slaves.  Most
 SB> of the slave states wanted no cessation of the importation of trades.
 SB> Section 9 was the compromise the convention finally arrived at.
 
 Yes... More of the "Great Compromise." Having much to do with "power" in the
 new government. (Such as why we have a House based on the state's 
opulation,
 but equal representation in the Senate.)
 SB> So, by implication, considering the discussions that led to these
 SB> sections, although not by direct statement, slavery *was*
 SB> constitutional prior to the 13th amendment, which is probably why the
 SB> Supreme Court tended to rule in favor of slavery when such issues
 SB> arose.
 
 Well, you (and Dennis) can make that impilcation if you wish. I don't 
ecause
 by such implication I would be confusing federal law with state law. And 
there
 is a BIG difference, IMHO.
 BTW, can you cite me some Supreme Court decisions (other than Dred Scott
 where the court was obviously tilted in the favor of the South and the issue
 wasn't slavery, per se) where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of slavery? I
 would like to read the affirming and dissenting statements to see exactly
 how they bring the Constitution into the issue.
 Jim
--- Blue Wave v2.12
---------------