The fact that early legislatures are not primarily lawyers gives a reshuffle of sorts. And combined with some good luck along the way provides an early phase out of slavery.
Please paint me a picture.
Please paint me a picture.
Thank you for an excellent straightforward question, in fact, it’s the obvious question.Who else are you going to send to make laws then lawyers?
Or maybe, Rev. War is the same but . . .runup to ARW plays out differently. . .
And it’s a good gimmick, right?. . . if you insist on that gimmick.
I still like the example of Mississippi leading on industry, because then the motives aren’t all good, but also include regional jealousy and a chance to hurt Mississippi more than the rest. Even if gradual emancipation is “wave of the future,” it’s maybe more abrupt than what we in the rest of the South would have voted for otherwise.If you want gradual phaseout there's always Virginia doing it in the 1820s or 1830s, . . .
Firstly, it simply provides a reshuffle.. . . but I don't see any special connection to the law profession and slavery. . .
Three imaginary brothers for purposes of AH!. . . And who are these three brothers in Mississippi you're referring to? . . .
Firstly, it simply provides a reshuffle.
And then, business people are more about looking forward to the future, whereas the law profession is more about justifying a current system.
Plus, law students and lawyers are really proud of being smart, and that dovetails all too easily with justifying slavery by saying that the “race” we relegate to slavery are less intelligent that we are.
Now I will freely admit that this is a bit of a bugbear of mine, but there is a widespread, and deeply mistaken, obsession with simplifying the legal system. There is, frankly, little to no benefit in simplifying the legal system and rather a lot of disadvantages. People want the legal system to be fair and they usually want it to be flexible. Both of those things necessitate a complex legal system to account for the variety of situations that the law will encounter. The desire for a “simple” legal system seems to come from the belief that “ordinary people” (read non-specialists) should be able to understand and handle the system in it’s entirety. That’s never going to happen. Any legal system that actually does it’s job is going to be complex and is going to require specialists.And one substantial advantage is that the law is kept simpler and more straightforward, with a heck of a lot fewer Latin phrases!![]()
Honestly, I’m not sure how to address this. To me, the problem with linking these things together is pretty apparent.And then, business people are more about looking forward to the future, whereas the law profession is more about justifying a current system.
Plus, law students and lawyers are really proud of being smart, and that dovetails all too easily with justifying slavery by saying that the “race” we relegate to slavery are less intelligent that we are.
Firstly, it simply provides a reshuffle.
And then, business people are more about looking forward to the future, whereas the law profession is more about justifying a current system.
Plus, law students and lawyers are really proud of being smart, and that dovetails all too easily with justifying slavery by saying that the “race” we relegate to slavery are less intelligent that we are.
And people range at how much they’re bothered by inconsistencies. Persons who gravitate toward the profession of law tend to be among those more bothered.. . . declared that all men were created equal, but hardly anyone, North or South, could seriously see the Negro as an equal. . .
Thank you for an excellent post, even though I suspect we have a fair amount of disagreement.. . . Any legal system that actually does it’s job is going to be complex and is going to require specialists. . .
I like this. Change the order of tech and the industrial revolution so that one or several somethings receive a profitable upsurge before cotton.It would take several POD's. First, you need to delay the cotton gin. . .