Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:40:54 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> From: Jeff Southmayd
> As you are undoubtedly aware, Dred Scott was the law of the land
> (United States) at that point and the Fugitive Slave Law in full effect.
> Slaves were chattel property and from a legal standpoint returning
> them to their owners was little more than returning a stray horse or
> cow to its owner, and in fact required under the statute of federal
> marshalls. I think some may need to take a couple PC nuetralizing pills
> when discussing slavery during this period in our history to try to get
> to some level of objectivity.
Diehard southern defenders of the indefensible regularly seek shelter in
antebellum law, evading admitting that even within the understanding of that
day, the laws of nature and of nature's god were clearly if highly
imperfectly recognized, and that so were the grotesqueness and moral filth
of the manmade laws of slavery. The charge of "political correctness" is
often a dodge used by evaders of common decency--for example, by those who
dehumanize fellow Americans who were enslaved. (Sometimes they also use the
Catch-22 of the filthy "law" to argue that those countrymen weren't citizens
and so weren't even Americans. Sheesh.) I've always thought that what we get
from Mr. Southmayd is mainly button-pushing, and that it's important not to
take it seriously. But the problem with that is that this kind of warped
thinking is also contributing, indirectly but importantly, to the
mishandling of Fort Monroe, about which more in another message.
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
|
|