If the prison is owned by a for-profit company and the company they slave for is a for-profit company, doesn't that make them property of those institutions?
It's different today in that the people aren't actually owned in the way that they were before the 13 amendment. Their labor is the property of the company, but they don't have to purchase themselves back from the prison in order to be released (although prison fees are eerily similar to that practice). The 13th doesn't specify who can profit off enslaved people's labor, just that it's allowed as punishment for crime. But the huge profit incentive to treat people horribly while being free of any OSHA standards or labor laws is one of many reasons for-profit-prisons need to end immediately.
Don't forget that the south was trying to force the north ro send back escaped slaves, depite the north using their states rights to say no. The south would also send Bounty hunters to go kidnap free born black people to sell into slavery. So yeah, states rights was an issue. The right to identify people as human.
But let's not also forget that the confederate constitution had a passage that says that there will not be any laws capable of being passed that infringe on the right to own black people
Article I Section 9(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed
From a purely constitutional standpoint the Fugitive Slave Act was just doubling down on language already in the Constitution, so states rights doesn't apply.
Article IV Section 2
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
"State's rights" is usually a bullshit argument unless it's coming from an actual constitutional scholar and they're probably not gonna use the phrase "state's rights." That being said, you know, fuck slavery and those who argued in its favor.
I'm Icelandic and I just learned about this now! To be fair I learned fuck all about pre-20th century US history in school and I've basically just puzzled it together through movies and references online.
I see the alt name for it is something like "bandariska borgarestriden"? Does it mean "borgare" as like in "citizen", " medborgare". Is that the name for a civil war in islandic? And bandarisk relates to a banner/flag?
It's actually "Bandaríska borgarastríðið". "Bandaríkin" is our word for the United States, "borgari" means citizen and "stríð" means war. So yes our word for civil war literally translates to "citizens' war" since all the participants are citizens of the same nation.
Hälsningar från en Isländing i Norge
So in bandaríkin, does "band" still have something to do with rope, string or something that "binds"? I'm thinking like "förbund" in swedish. So "united" is replaced with something bound together?
Well we do have a period called the Northern and Southern dynasties, but most of the time we are devided into multiple states and it's hard to tell who is south and who is north, so ...
The battle of red cliffs happened in the famous Three Kingdoms era, and the battle did settle the foundation for the situation. At the time the Shu(蜀) and Wu(吴) who were south of Wei(魏) were alliances so you could say it was a battle between south and north, but when we talk about it was more like a mexican standout sort of thing(if that makes sense to you).
I think it's a better name. My only issue is that it is an even better name for what happened in Haiti, where the enslaved rose up, defeated their masters, got revenge, and formed a nation.
I wish the nation was more of a success today, but it should still be celebrated as a victory for humanity.
Very true, which is why I made sure to clarify in my title. It's an arrogant American thing to call it the civil war... although I suppose the English say the same thing about one of their many civil wars.
Wouldn’t every country refer to the civil war that happened in their country as the civil war. Assuming that they only had one … we’ve had a few in the UK so they have their own names.
I genuinely had to check Wikipedia to remind myself which civil war we call the civil war. It’s the Roundheads apparently, and even that’s split into the civil war I, II and III. Ridiculous.
Don't even dignify it with calling it a war, it was an act of treason and ought be looked at as nothing more than a national betrayal made in the name of paranoid slave oligarchs
Clarify which of the two you're talking about at the start of your post. The post you're replying to is mostly discussing Haiti and your comment made be do a double-take.
Me too. You can mostly thank the US and especially France for that tbh. They both extorted Haiti for a debt of lost "property" owed to France. And by "property" I mean formerly enslaved human beings! That shit went on for 122 years and the first annual payment "owed" was of SIX TIMES the annual revenue of Haiti! 🤬
Any time you hear that phrase unironically, ask what war that is, and then go "oh you mean the Rebellion of Southern Cowards? That's the only way I've heard it phrased other than civil war"
I may not be a descendant of William Tecumseh Sherman, but I grew up in the same area, and maybe it's just something about the water or the geography but I really feel an urge for Southern BBQ and a brisk walk to the ocean when Southern Cowards start speaking up again.
And yet despite that, I would say that the two best things from the South were invented by black people- the music, from blues to jazz to rock and roll and soul food. Not the best revenge, but still some good revenge. A hell of a lot more people listen to rock music than listen to music invented by white people.
Don't even grant the premise. The State's Rights argument is entirely bullshit. The secessionists controlled the federal government and slavery was federal law. It was abolitionists in Wisconsin and Vermont that were freeing escaped slaves, and new territories wanted to vote to determine whether slavery would be law. The South opposed their right to do so. Lincoln had not threatened to free the slaves before the war, he just wasn't willing to enforce the federal Escaped Slaves act. That was all it took for the southern states to try to leave America.
[A]n increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. . . .
The only time secessionists invoked a state's right to do anything was to secede.
I'm sure there are some rednecks who call it that, but I'd be interested to know if there is a single, modern day public school text book that calls it that.
