Chapmanesque

Post by **Joey Smith** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 9:34 pm

http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates17.html

ASITStands · Post by **ASITStands** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:34 am

Part of the error appears to be a misunderstanding of direct/indirect.

A forcible direct tax on the labor of a human being is in violation of this right as stated in the 13th Amendment.

Or, at least, that's a good place to start unraveling the argument.

silversopp · Post by **silversopp** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 5:33 pm

"Finally, it is clear that when most people talk about slavery, they are referring to chattel slavery, the overt practice of buying, selling and owning people like farm animals or beasts of burden."

Has Yates ever thought that maybe the 13th amendment was referring to the historical and most frequently used definition of "slavery"?

Likewise, if we had a guarantee that "Everyone will be free", would Yates believe that a plantation owner letting his slaves do whatever they wanted one day a year complies with the guarantee?

ASITStands · Post by **ASITStands** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 6:55 pm

Since there was a nexus with South Carolina and Georgia [no offense to rational residents or citizens of those States], I wondered if there might also be a nexus with Clarkson or Chapman?

Or, maybe that's just good for a chuckle.