> 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