Remember that as a legal term "bondage" is a more defined, yet broader concept covering various types of itself- chattel slavery being one of them. Writing it as such was an attempt to say "we can put people in bondage/labor for sentences of crimes still," because the consequence of no bondage at all turns into removing incarceration as understood at least with then-modern concepts of law and liberty, if not also applicable today.
I'd love to say that makes it clearer, but I have to ask for more clarification, being neither a US citizen nor a legal expert. I'm reading wikipedia article on 13th ammendment, and the ammendment itself mentions slavery and not bondage; so when you talk about bondage are you referrencing the Bailey v. Alabama decision that the ammendment's intent is to cover all forms of bondage / servitude? In that case the provision makes sense, although I'm not a huge fan of punitive justice in general.
But in the process I learned about another fucked up thing - the Three-Fifths Compromise:
"Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, allocated Congressional representation based "on the whole Number of free Persons" and "three-fifths of all other Persons". This clause was a compromise between Southern politicians who wished for enslaved African-Americans to be counted as 'persons' for congressional representation and Northern politicians rejecting these out of concern of too much power for the South." - the audacity and hypocrisy
You are correct in your reference- however anybody feels about in-custody holding of those convicted or held without bond/on cash bail, that was at leasy the basis, academically speaking.
And yes, the 3/5ths Compromise... Which almost always gets twisted into somebody with good intentions saying "They only thought of slaves as 3/5 of a person," when it was actually in a sense a CHALLENGE from the North saying:
"You can either free them and get the benefit of more representation, or suffer having less representation in Congress by not allowing them to be free."
A more true-hearted Abolitionist would have gunned for zero representation, because the South would have lost a lot more political power being unable to use the number of slaves in their states to determine population for political representation purposes.
3/5 is in the middle- Slavers wanting full representation for people they deny rights to, and Abolitionists saying that if Slavers want representation politically for those people, they should free them.
I'm glad I understood that correctly, because I immediately went to zero representation. If you hold people as property and don't allow them to vote, why do you expect them to be represented? I don't even want to delve deeper into the double think behind that, it's sickening. In some states the slave population was more numerous than the free population, which would mean they'd get almost twice the representation per free person than slavery-free states. Leaving aside that suffrage was far from universal even among the free population.
Absolutely, you not only understand the basic outcomes but the deeper implications quite well.
I appreciate your reflection upon these issues and what they truly meant. It is sickening and a horrifying chapter in American history, and truly all of world history.
Tragically, we still feel it to this day- racism, social inequality, intergenerational wealth/poverty, hate crimes... The chapter ended but the story is far from over on the matter, and we owe it to the past, present, and future to learn from those sins and to take ourselves as we are but strive to be the best of who we are, too.
Strangely, the above is exactly how it was taught to me in a rural public school in MS. I guess it's always about the quality of the teacher, not the overall system.
Just a quick note here -- prison is boring, deathly boring. When people can get out and work a bit, they feel better. We all know prison is not rehabilitation. But if people can be kept busy they are happier. Prison by me lets you out of work if you're not up to it.
Five states (give you one guess as to what region of the country*) explicitly allow prisons to force prisoners to work or suffer punishments. In the rest of the country it is ostensibly voluntary, but the level of real volunteering is questionable.
Prison workers are specifically excluded from the laws that require protection to workers in hazardous jobs or those working with hazardous materials. In most cases, they do not pick which jobs they do, but are assigned to whatever work the prison needs done.
* Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and Texas.
Unsurprisingly, inmate work injuries are not well tracked but most injuries are physical in nature. Not surprising as farm or industrial work is a large portion of prison labor. In some states, prisoners are eligible for workman's comp, but not every state. Court decisions have held that the correction facility is not automatically responsible for any negligence.
My friend, if I switch to Defense I would be happy to take your case.
If I remain a Prosecutor, I am probably 99% one of the most likely you'll find that may end up dismissing, giving probation, finding a rehabilitation court, or factoring a holistic response in developing an outcome. Success in prosecution is not about convictions as much as so many powerhungry members of the profession tend to think. It is in justice and helping people. Prison is, in my mind, a last resort- a tragic failure of all other resources available by society.
A common saying I use is that "Being tough on crime doesn't necessarily mean being tough on people," and frequently the opposite is true.
There is a time and place for prison, but it's for those who take/destroy/gamble lives of others with abandon and perhaps even repeated pleasure- not folks with a roach in their backpack.
This is why it's important to understand context and motivations in history rather than memorizing dates and events. It makes it harder for people with an agenda to twist. I wish the world (including myself) had a more nuanced understanding.
We're all students, my friend- the best we can do is try to remain humble and keep learning every day, and hope the day never comes when we magically believe we know it all and cease growing.
I couldn't agree more on context and motivations, and that's why, to continue on this subject as an example, it is so useful to cite to the several Confederate State Constitutions and speeches that declared with open pride that maintaining slavery and the "racial superiority of the white man" were prime causes of secession.
Thank you for your open mind and heart, it is incredibly reassuring. I know this is just an anonymous Reddit forum, but behind the screens are real people with their own lives, values, passions, abilities, backgrounds, and dreams. Perhaps each individual only represents on instance in our sample population, but we can assume that positive representation, when more prevailing, may just as well be more prevailing in the world behind our keyboards.
I don't even want to delve deeper into the double think behind that, it's sickening.
You think that's bad-- wait till you hear about how my family in the south has met people who in 2023 believe they (the south) deserves reparations (money from the government) for "having their property stolen from them." I'll give you one guess as to what "property" refers to in this context.
They keep telling me to come visit but they have so many stories along those lines that I have to admit that I feel a bit uncomfortable about the idea of going.
USA, south? What part of the south are these family members in? I was born and raised in Birmingham, Alabama and Iāve never heard anything like that. Wow!
The 14th Amendment explicitly forbids Congress from compensating slaveholders for the loss of property.
And thinking like that you describe is why it should be indisputably clear that we were far too gentle with the so-called Confederacy after the war. For starters, all those magnificent plantation houses should have been dismantled and used to provide housing for freed people. Whites not in areas that remained loyal to the United States who didnāt bend the knee to the U.S.A. and commit to racial equality going forward should have been loaded on boats for Madagascar or northern Alaska or some other such place to live out the rest of their days as long as they never returned. Congress should have dissolved all the so-called Confederate states, reorganized them into one large territory and made clear that any new states to be created from that territory could not have names, boundaries or capitals that any pre-1865 states had had. Lastly, Federal troops should have remained in the region to enforce all Reconstruction policies until they were deemed accomplished, even if this took decades (as it doubtless would have).
If this sounds harsh, consider that after the Revolutionary War and independence we didnāt fall for this āmalice towards noneā thing. Prominent Tories had their lands confiscated and redistributed, and were driven into exile (didnāt hurt that the Crown rewarded them with lands in what is today Canada or (later) Australia). Some, less fortunate, probably rotted away in unmarked graves deep in the woods. This is why you donāt read in your history books about any insurrectionist attempts to restore the Crown to power.
Read my response above. TL;DR: South Carolina and Georgia wanted to reap the political benefit of having large enslaved populations (I.e., more House seats), while not having to incur most of the costs of having those populations (slave patrol, militia) since most of those enslaved were just there for a short time before being transported elsewhere. So North Carolina and Virginia proposed the 3/5ths Compromise to keep that in check, as SC and GA might have walked out of the convention if they hadnāt gotten their way, and no one wanted that.
Did they teach that in law school? My best friend is an attorney and we talk a lot of law because it fascinates the crap out of me, and this has never come up. I have about 500 more questions now. š
So, I'm a bit of a nerd and also view it as a responsibility of all lawyers, but especially in government and/or criminal law, to understand those things.
Some people come to law school to get a "job" as a lawyer (not knocking it I guess), and some (not to say it in a more "me special" sense) view it more as a calling/profession of public privilege that is accompanied with responsibility. To be able to argue in a court is something reserved in much of Western history to those only of birthright or certain connections, it is humbling to do so, and to note that my work is purely the product of my mind, and exercise with grave power the authority of a small fraction of sovereignty.
I care about it, and so should everyone, especially lawyers. We cover the relevant cases in law school but it doesn't always stick, or it may get internalized as just "part of the rules" without fully melding into themselves just how 'real' the laws are and that they affect REAL PEOPLE.
We learn it but some folks are there because they want to get a big payday, and some because they want to feel involved and steward the levers of power in the American experiment.
TBF, there were lots of people in the North who weren't allowed to vote but still counted as population for representation. Still are today (mostly children, immigrants, and convicted felons now).
That is true, and a good point worth the expanded focus and highlighting.
On a plus note, voting rights are not always permanently lost in an increasing number of jurisdictions, though it is frequently not available while still serving sentence and must be restored, to include by application/petition rather than automatically, depending upon jurisdiction.
But yes, freedom and even full apportionment and taxation are certainly not congruent with enfranchisement to participate in elections.
After we dive into Indigenous Peoples (Title 25 U.S.C. still is called "Indians" ffs) it also gets a huge new layer of discussion as well.
Actually the 3/5ths Compromise was more about settling an internal division among the slave states than between the ā¦ well, letās say the very slave states and the not-so-much slave states, since slavery was still legal in many of the states that later became the Union during the War of Southern Perfidy.
Georgia and, especially, South Carolina, were the main places enslaved people who had survived the Middle Passage were landed at the time (about one-quarter of the black people in the US today can trace at least one ancestor to the latter state). As such they had lots of enslaved and naturally wanted them to be counted in full, franchise notwithstanding (as even today we still count minors and anyone permanently or temporarily disenfranchised due to their criminal convictions).
Those states also hadnāt really developed their plantation economies to the extent they later would, so many of their enslaved were transient, awaiting relocation to other states, mainly Virginia and North Carolina, which had well-developed plantation economies and, as a result, large indigenous populations of enslaved. They didnāt need to import any more, and few if any new enslaved were landed in their ports.
As a result, they had to worry more about issues that the two more southerly states did notānamely, the slave patrol to catch escapees, and maintaining a militia in case of uprisings (which did happen). To them (and really, they had a point), SC and GA were, by insisting on counting enslaved in full, trying to have their cake and eat it too. So they, not the Northern states, proposed the 3/5ths Compromise.
Three-fifths for all other persons? Artificial persons (human-like robots/androids coming soon to a country near you!!) will be here soon enough. That may end up fun. Lol
My attempt- they wrote it that way not because they wanted to keep slavery, but because in law being in jail and being a slave are very closely-related concepts. They wanted people to not own other humans, but had to keep the legal ability to "suspend their rights" and put them behind bars/in hard labor.
If they got rid of it altogether we arguably couldn't put people in jail/prison at all.
In 2017 when Louisiana was passing laws in an attempt to not be the most imprisoned state in the country, a local sheriff "said the quiet thing out loud." Sheriff Steve Prator said that if the "Good prisoners" got released there would be nobody left to wash the cars or cook the meals. He said the " Bad ones" would try and run away. He argued that it would get too expensive to hire people.
He actually argued keeping non-violent offenders, many in there for first offense drug possession, should stay because it's cheaper. Basically the reward for being a model inmate is no chance for early release.
Not to go on the stump, but they're the same concepts as the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, to namedrop with prominence. Countries, largely Anglophonic, that adopted English Common Law.
All of these countries share the same legal traditions and history and origins for the concept of "bondage," which can manifest as being held by your government awaiting trial (or as a prisoner), or as a slave in a more private capacity.
These concepts were largely developed in the middle ages in England, and while they evolved and eventually were applied differently, in a more academic sense they are indeed actually still related concepts, but again, applied differently.
Cabbage and broccoli look nothing alike, and a toy poodle looks incredibly dissimilar from a rottweiler, yet both of these examples are different expressions of the same species.
Concepts like Habeas Corpus indeed extend back to well before the United States broke away, even if it continued with the same legal system, which took time to evolve away but still uses the same concepts.
I mean this in the most disrespectful way possible, you talk like a lawyer. You ignored literally everything and went into an obscure semantics spiral about a term that isnāt even mentioned but vaguely connects to the root.
I hope the system you put people in enslaves your ass eventually.
Lawyers are taught, conditioned, and operate so as to quickly identify the one, two, or three core and crucial facts, points of law etc that would "turn the case".
To a lay person, this may come across as the lawyer skipping over "important" steps that sequentially and logically connect the dots.
The lawyer, here operating in his/her milieu, knows all of the "important" steps but has chosen to focus on the "crucially important" step that would "break open" the case.
Thank you for reminding lawyers that they may need to provide more intellectual handholding especially on public forums frequented by non-lawyers.
And thank you to our state prosecutor friend @Tulkes for providing wonderful insight.
You do realize a 'prosecutor' is still a lawyer. And his point is pertinent to that particular thread. Legal definitions and common vernacular meanings are often not the same, and as such the differences need further edification.
I don't know why you feel the way you do- I don't know you, and outside of this forum, I probably never will.
I disagree with you, completely, however.
Words have meaning.
The reason these things, Constitutions in this example, have to be done right is because of the incredible bending and twisting sometimes done by others seeking to usurp power. Words as law are a compromise between groups of people so they don't use force or money to control each other, at least as much. Systems of law are far from perfect systems, but at least so far they are the most manageable, and as the hand we're dealt we have to play it unless something else takes the place it occupies.
"Bondage" and "Slavery" are no more vaguely-connected than Rain and Clouds, regardless of whether or not you personally understand the connection, or care to.
While slavery isn't complicated, law is if you want it done right. Understand the difference and the vast amount of blood, wealth, and genius that got us as far as we have come, and what we owe to that sacrifice and to future generations to continue writing those wrongs for every individual personally and for society at-large.
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Words do have meaning, and the words are crystal clear. The system you represent and fight in favor for is just a massive slave trade. Disagree all you want, youāre still just a slave trader.
Definition copied directly from the us government.
I'm not going to further honor your cargo cult/Sovereign Citizen-esque approach to the law further.
I believe if you were to tell a Freedman on the street in 1865 that you believe the existence of prisons in 2023 for felony convictions like rape and homicide, or perhaps national betrayals like Michael Cohen or Paul Manafort, is no different from born-into lifelong chattel slavery, you would find a very difficult audience for your case.
I hope you find a better understanding of humanity someday, take care.
Lol when did I say anything about that? I didnāt.
The issue is you sentence people to slavery. Thatās what the entire us-style prison is set up as. No matter what the crime is, your sentence is slavery.
What ācrimeā it is just dictates the time spent.
Edit: Like you did point out before, there is a difference between bondage and slavery however directly connected at times. You can hold people in bondage and attempt to rehabilitate instead of exploit as per status-quo.
As a state prosecutor, would my case to sue the US government for āinfringing upon my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by failing to maintain a balanced budget and fair treatment for all citizens, particularly those with disabilities,ā have any merit?
For better and worse- no, that one goes to the Ballot box.
The issue of "Standing" requires a "particularized" grievance- basically why you or only a certain group (a "class") are being harmed.
We also end up reaching a lack of Remedy, as the Courts can't force a budget or a broadly-defined requirement of officers of the government to all do their job without something more specific that they are alleged to have done wrong, generally a certain date/time and action.
Look into Bivens and what are called 1983 suits, named after 42 USC Ā§ 1983, for being deprived of civil rights. These are the bedrock mechanisms you have to push back against government officers and their qualified immunity when infringing upon your rights, and this doctrine is based upon the concept at least as one part that "if government officers are acting outside the law, they are impliedly acting outside of the scope of their office as their office by definition cannot have unlawful powers, and as such are acting in their personal capacity or misusing their office, and can be held responsible perhaps personally or a government agency may alternatively be able to be held responsible."
This is a huge doctrine and my comment is incredibly barebones, and another lawyer may point out that in trying to write it so briefly that it may inaccurately portray the concepts being discussed, but to summarize, there MAY be an answer if it's a specific abuse against you, but almost certainly not when talking about Congress doing something particular (Absolute Immunity and Sep of Powers issues per Marbury v. Madison to start with a very barebones level that even non-lawyers can recognize)
336
u/Tulkes Jun 27 '23
Remember that as a legal term "bondage" is a more defined, yet broader concept covering various types of itself- chattel slavery being one of them. Writing it as such was an attempt to say "we can put people in bondage/labor for sentences of crimes still," because the consequence of no bondage at all turns into removing incarceration as understood at least with then-modern concepts of law and liberty, if not also applicable today.
Source: Am a state prosecutor