Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

For the record, I'd like to acknowledge that Dominions Son got it right (and I got it wrong) about the ratification process for the Constitution. State conventions did the ratifying. There was not a vote by the people, nor by counties, in the ratification process.

Dominions Son
12/19/2020, 6:18:26 PM
Updated: 12/19/2020, 6:20:27 PM

@PotomacBob

And I guess I was absent the day they taught that it was counties (instead of state legislatures), that ratified the Constitution.

Is the fictional Ernest right?

Actually, you are both wrong.

https://www.ushistory.org/US/16c.asp

The ratification process started when the Congress turned the Constitution over to the state legislatures for consideration through specially elected state conventions of the people.

So... since I'm a little hazy on that particular issue, who elected representatives to the state conventions?

So... since I'm a little hazy on that particular issue, who elected representatives to the state conventions?

I rather doubt that there was a uniform process across all the states for selecting members of the ratifying convention.

You'd have to check the historical records of each individual state convention.

So... since I'm a little hazy on that particular issue, who elected representatives to the state conventions?

The information is hardly complete, but this should give you someplace to start if you are really interested.

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/resources/ratification/stageone/

Interesting. Found a few things I hadn't seen before.

The state legislatures did the formal ratification. However, according to the reports and records of the time the state legislature bodies were to put the proposed constitution to the people to be voted on as a convention of some sort.

You are incorrect. The formal act of ratification of the constitution was given to the state conventions. The only role of the state legislatures was in organizing the conventions for their states.

The formal approval was by the state legislature after the citizens voted on the issue - that's why is starts with 'We the citizens ...'

If you are referring to the US constitution, it does not start with "We the citizens..." it starts with "We the people...".

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/full-text

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You can't even get something that simple and easy to verify right.

So both are correct. The formal approval was by the state legislature after the citizens voted on the issue

There was never a vote of all the citizens. They used representative conventions, just like the one used to write the constitution.

So both are correct. The formal approval was by the state legislature after the citizens voted on the issue - that's why is starts with 'We the citizens ...' and not 'We the states of ...' as the prior documents did.

Can you please define just who these "Citizens" were.

Can you please define just who these "Citizens" were.

Of course he can't, since that's not actually what the US Constitution says.

Of course he can't, since that's not actually what the US Constitution says.

I could have used the word "People" also. My point would be that many of the "People" would not have been allowed to vote anyway.

The Third simply should never have been put into the Constitution in the first place. It has never been the basis of a case before the Supreme Court, and has not been used in a legal case in almost 40 years.

This is not true. There was an unsuccessful case in 2013.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/03/23/federal-court-rejects-third-amendment-claim-against-police-officers/

Back in 2013, a lot of attention focused on a Third Amendment claim against Henderson, Nevada police officers. I wrote about the case here. The Third Amendment, which forbids the "quartering" of "soldiers" in private homes without the owner's consent, is often the butt of jokes because it is so rarely litigated. But in this case, a Nevada family claimed that local police had violated the Amendment by forcibly occupying their home in order to gain a "tactical advantage" against suspected criminals in the neighboring house.

The thing I love about the supporters of the Civil War is that they live in a state of perpetual denial.

Which supporters of the Civil War? The ones who think it was justified to preserve the Union or the ones who wish the Confederacy had won?

Which supporters of the Civil War?

In the South it isn't "the Civil War". Its the "War of Northern Aggression."

In the South it isn't "the Civil War". Its the "War of Northern Aggression."

They lost, they don't get to control what it's called.

No, actually 'revisionist history' is all about rewriting what, traditionally, was written by the winners.
For example, if you looked at the history of Canada now, you'd be reasonable believing the French won, but let the english have the parts they didn't want.

It has never been the basis of a case before the Supreme Court, and has not been used in a legal case in almost 40 years.

So, the fact that congress at least seemed to take that amendment seriously enough not to violate it means it shouldn't have been included? (I suspect it was probably violated numerous times immediately following the conquest of the Confederacy, but there'd have been little chance of any court case originating with southern appellants reaching SCOTUS.)

If successful, I think it will have an effect on the residents of each county.

The odds of it being successful are somewhere in the vicinity of 0.000000.

For that to happen it would need the approval of the US Congress, the Oregon state legislature and the Idaho state legislature. Good luck with that.

And any future movements like the State of Jefferson will likely have to follow the same rules.

No, efforts to secede from a state will take a very different path. There is actually something in the US constitution for this.

It would not go to a vote of the people. It would require approval from the US Congress and the state legislature of the state losing territory.

US Constitution Article IV Section 3:
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/article/article-iv

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

That said, I agree with you that it's not going to happen.

Which is exactly what the courts decided in the San Fernando Valley case. That the people in the entire area in question, as well as those in the area they are trying to remove themselves from.

An equivalent to what's in the US constitution would be to put it to the municipal government counsel of the city they are trying to leave and the state legislature, not a vote of the people in the whole city.

Which is exactly what the courts decided in the San Fernando Valley case.

what court case are you talking about?

Every boundary line within a state is a matter of state law.
There have been a great many divisions and mergings of municipalities. Generally, states require both municipalities to agree, but I have read of municipalities seceding without the larger municipality agreeing.
States splitting the early USA. Kentucky was once a single county of Virginia, and Maine was part of Massachusetts.
There once was a city which spanned the IL-IN border.
NYC is still IIRC, legally called, "Th City of Greater New York. The boroughs are coterminous with counties -- most habe the same names, but Manhattan Borough is New York County.

but I have read of municipalities seceding without the larger municipality agreeing.

The opposite is out there too.

Wisconsin used to, I think they changed this, large municipalities (cities) to forcibly annex territory from smaller surrounding municipalities.

That said, I agree with you that it's not going to happen.

It did happen once before however. Actually it technically happened a few times depending on how you consider the land west of Appalachia.

The State of Maine became the State of Maine as a consequence of the Missouri compromise as the abolitionists needed a new non-slave-holding state to offset the introduction of slave-holding state of Missouri. Massachusetts gave up its claim on Maine in order to provide that state.

In the present day, with Puerto Rico looking to join as a State, it may end up with the compromise being that a new state is created from within the borders of a state(or combination of states) to offset the likely political leanings of Puerto Rico.

A not quite directly comparable thing happened with Alaska and Hawaii. Neither one could join until the other was ready to join because the Democrats didn't want to admit Hawaii because it was controlled by Republicans at the time, and the Republicans didn't want to admit Alaska because it was controlled by Democrats. But admitting both of them at once? As they cancelled each other out, that was found to be acceptable.

Although more likely at this stage is probably Texas petitioning to be split off into three parts, with Austin and it's Liberal Bubble being one state, and the other two parts of Texas being created to offset the change. If another entity outside Texas gets involved (like say, Washington DC or Puerto Rico) then increase the piece count by one or two to further the offset.

Although more likely at this stage is probably Texas petitioning to be split off into three parts, with Austin and it's Liberal Bubble being one state, and the other two parts of Texas being created to offset the change. If another entity outside Texas gets involved (like say, Washington DC or Puerto Rico) then increase the piece count by one or two to further the offset.

Texas can unilaterally do that, actually. I believe it was allowed to become up to five separate states, as part of the deal made when joining.

Five separate states. Not a separate country.

It did happen once before however. Actually it technically happened a few times depending on how you consider the land west of Appalachia.

Sure when politicking around admission of a new state from completely new territory, that happens.

Simply letting several counties secede from one state and either join another or form their own state because they are politically at odds with the rest of the state, never going to happen.

The best answer there is to tell them to go read the official statements by official representatives of the seceding states and officials of the new Confederate government. All mention slavery as the principle issue at stake.

So anybody that claims it was not about slavery is an idiot. Or a liar.

It was certainly part of it, but not the whole reason in and of itself.
I am neither a liar or an idiot, though anyone who claims it was a singular reason is in fact full of shit.

https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/american-civil-war-history

https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/civil-war-economic-causes-issue

That's just two links. Any student of history, or even barfly with a penchant for trivia, can figure out slavery was 'not' the only reason.

It was certainly part of it, but not the whole reason in and of itself.

Slavery was at least 80% of it.

I think maybe 40% if that. All of which is a moot point.

The agrarian south verses the industrial north was another 40%. If in 1850 slavery went away in its entirety, the civil war would have still happened.

Historically, slavery (as an institution) dies with the advent of technology that makes that technology more cost effective than the slave labor it replaced. Slavery would not have lasted more than another 2-3 decades, if that as a result.

Sounds cold, but that's the facts.

Every race on the planet has had their turn as a slave at one point in history or another. Even to this day slaves by the hundreds of thousands still exist. The people raising hell about historical slavery are almost uniformly hypocritical. If they actually cared, they'd be moving heaven and earth to help end modern human trafficking.

But no, slavery was 80% of the cause. Technology actually makes slavery more lucrative, because they can then produce even more products with the same amount of effort. Instead of plowing 3 acres per day with a single blade plow, a slave could plow 9 acres per day with a disk plow. And 20 acres per day with early tractors.

And you're going to put a slave that you've grossly mistreated in control of several tons of self-propelled iron with implements attached that could do all kinds of damage to your plantation if they're so inclined?

Nothing bad could conceivably come of that.

Technology actually makes slavery more lucrative,

You really are stretching with that spaghetti logic. Let's simplify it.

1 slave cost a notional 500 up front. Add food and other required elements at a cost of another 10 per day.
1 machine cost 2,000 up front. Add maintenance at a cost of 2 per day.

Work them 365 days at an average of 12 hours per day (sun up to sun down 365). The machine can perform 4x the work of the slave with 1/10th the down time of the slave.

Once you do that math, it becomes crystal clear that slavery doesn't work in a technological society. The north advanced technologically at a much faster pace than the south. Therein is why the northern states began banning slavery earlier than the south by far.

That same advancement set up social, economic, and legal stresses between the north and the South. Enough so that war was inevitable with or without slavery.

Technology does not make slavery more lucrative.

And as I stated already, our technology has advanced even more in the past 160 years. Yet, strange that we have more slaves today than we did 160 years ago. That alone kind of proves your assumption is wrong.

Et

Someone could break out a time machine and show you difference in real time, and you'd still argue to the contrary. The statement quoted above is proof of that. Comparing numbers like that is comparing a mouse to an elephant. The world's population has increased by 6.3 Billion people with no significant increase in numbers. If anything, the number of slaves as defined by hard labor has been reduced by half in that time.

I have a news flash for you, it's not 1860 anymore. How about this then...

Everyone else is wrong, you alone are the king of history and know all about it. Have fun with your crown.

The problem with that automation claim has largely been dismissed, as there are still an estimated 40 million slaves in the world today. More than 14 times the number in the US in 1860.

This is apples and oranges. There was ~1.2 billion people in the world in 1860. There are currently 7.4 billion people now. Assuming your number is correct (which it isn't), that 40m is 0.54% of the world population.

Slavery was much more prevalent in 1860 around the world.

https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/global-slavery-by-the-numbers/

That btw severely differs with your number of slaves, but just for giggles, I'll stay with your number.

It was estimated that there were 25 million slaves worldwide in 1860. That's 2.08%. That's a big difference even using your largely inflated number.

Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance is eating your lunch.

ETA: slavery in modern times is not always about labor either. In 1860, the vast majority of it was hard labor. Today, the majority of it is sexual slavery. In particular the trafficking of young women and children (and some boys).

The Cotton Gin.

That was the heart of the problem.

See, Whitney patented the Gin in the US. International respect of foreign patents, however, was negligible. So the cotton that the South grew, which was the variety that the Gin was really needed for (as opposed to the varieties that were grown elsewhere) was more valuable to processors in Europe (who were buying cheaper, 'knockoff' Cotton Gins) than it was to the processors in the North, who were paying inflated prices for theirs due to the patent.
The industrial North, who looked to the South for feedstock for the textile industry, were furious that they couldn't buy the raw cotton for next to nothing due to foreign processors being willing to buy the South's cotton (especially since those processors had the unfair advantage of not paying royalties to Whitney). So the North tried to force the South to only sell to the North. That wasn't appreciated much.

The variety grown in the South needed the cotton gin to be useful for textiles. The cotton gin did nothing to improve cotton from India. I didn't phrase that clearly the first time.

The variety grown in the South needed the cotton gin to be useful for textiles.

This is true, but it would have been run through a gin before being baled for shipping, not exported raw, so cheaper gins being available in Europe would not have mattered, at least not in the way you suggest.

Indian and Egyptian long staple cotton could be processed easily using technology that had been developed centuries earlier. Whitney's cotton gin allowed the easy processing of upland short staple cotton - the only variety that could grow in most of the US.
The problem with association of the cotton gin invention and the spread of slavery is the time gap. The cotton gin was in common use by first years of the 19th it was at least 25 years later that serious discussion about abolition ended in the south. Until then the issue wasn't so much that slavery was an economic necessity but a question of what to do with freed slaves.
Slavery would have eventually collapsed in the US even without the war. It simply was not a financially viable system in a capitalist society: slave labor was more expensive than free labor.

slave labor was more expensive than free labor.

What the hell is free labor?

What the hell is free labor?

Labor that is freely contracted.

Labor that is freely contracted.

Ok it made it sound like they wouldn't be paid thereby being cheaper then slave labor.

Ok it made it sound like they wouldn't be paid thereby being cheaper then slave labor.

It would have been cheaper. A slave has to be housed and fed and needs medical care, all of which has to be provided by the owner.

Free(in the sense of not slave)labor especially back then had to pay all of it's own expenses out of it's wages.

That was the heart of the problem.

See, Whitney patented the Gin in the US. International respect of foreign patents, however, was negligible. So the cotton that the South grew, which was the variety that the Gin was really needed for (as opposed to the varieties that were grown elsewhere) was more valuable to processors in Europe (who were buying cheaper, 'knockoff' Cotton Gins) than it was to the processors in the North, who were paying inflated prices for theirs due to the patent.
The industrial North, who looked to the South for feedstock for the textile industry, were furious that they couldn't buy the raw cotton for next to nothing due to foreign processors being willing to buy the South's cotton (especially since those processors had the unfair advantage of not paying royalties to Whitney). So the North tried to force the South to only sell to the North. That wasn't appreciated much.

Um, did you read that somewhere or only make it up?

1) Whitney made almost nothing from the gin. Much os that was a grant from southern state in gratitude for changing the market
2) Cotton is ginned before baling, not at the mill.
3) There was no restriction on the export of cotton before the Civil War. (And such a law would have been countered if it had been proposed. Article I, section 9 is one of the longer articles of the Constitution, but the entire document is not all that long.)
4) The actual exportation of cotton i recorded until planters withdrew from the trde at the beginning of the war.

3) There was no restriction on the export of cotton before the Civil War. (And such a law would have been countered if it had been proposed. Article I, section 9 is one of the longer articles of the Constitution, but the entire document is not all that long.)

Of the sections of Article one, sections 7 and 8 are longer than 9. Section 8 is the powers enumerated to congress.

I'm wondering what in section 9 you think would be relevant to restrictions on exporting cotton?

I'm wondering what in section 9 you think would be relevant to restrictions on exporting cotton?

"No tax or duty shall be levied on articles exported from any state." That would be a stretch, obviously. Greater stretches have been argued, though. Greater stretches have been won.

@Uther_Pendragon

"No tax or duty shall be levied on articles exported from any state."

That is talking about interstate commerce.

No, it's not. Basically Congress has the power to levy duties/tariffs on imports, but not on exports.

However, that restriction would not be relevant to an outright ban on exporting some particular good.

No. the Congress cannot impose tariffs or other fees that work as tariffs on exports. That provision has been strictly enforced since the adoption of the Constitution. Attempts to evade that clause have uniformly been held to be invalid.

So kindly explain to me how exactly an ability clearly stated in the Constitution (I stated where) is against the Constitution.

Because a different section of the constitution says they can't do that.

Exactly, a different section, that is only talking about issues between states.

No, Article 1 Section 9 has nothing to do with issues between states. It is entirely things Congress/the federal government is explicitly prohibited from Doing.

Us Constitution Article 1 Section 9 Clause 2

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

Exactly, a different section, that is only talking about issues between states. Where the US is prohibited from imposing any excises, tariffs, or duties.

The Export Clause, found in Article I, Section 9, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, directly states "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." The Clause represents one of the few restrictions on Congress's otherwise broad taxing power. Examples of taxes that have been found unconstitutional as applied to exports include the harbor maintenance tax and the excise tax on domestically mined coal.

And what was the last court case that involved International (not Interstate) export duties?

Once again, following that logic, it would also make illegal import tariffs.

No it wouldn't because the clause in questions explicitly prohibits export duties but does not mention import duties/tariffs.

IBM plainly stated that the Export Clause's simple, direct, unqualified prohibition on any taxes or duties distinguishes it from other constitutional limitations on governmental taxing authority. The Court there emphasized that the "text of the Export Clause ... expressly prohibits Congress from laying any tax or duty on exports." 517 U. S., at 852; see also id., at 861 ("[T]he Framers sought to alleviate ... concerns [that Northern States would tax exports to the disadvantage of Southern States] by completely denying to Congress the power to tax exports at all."). United States v. United States Shoe Corp., 523 U.S. 360 (1998) at 367.

The last case at the Supreme Court? It involved IBM in 1996.

And what was the last court case that involved International (not Interstate) export duties?

As a general matter of constitutional interpretation, the terms import and export only apply to commerce with foreign nations, they do not apply in any way to interstate commerce.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-i/clauses/758

Congress can't circumvent the prohibition by taxing surrogates for exports; substance controls over form. For example, in United States v. IBM (1996), the Supreme Court held that an excise on premiums paid to foreign insurers was unconstitutional as applied to insurance on exports. And, in United States v. United States Shoe Corp. (1998), the Court held that the harbor maintenance "tax"—an excise on port use measured by cargo value—was in fact a tax and couldn't be imposed on vessels engaged in exportation.

Not all governmental charges are taxes for these purposes, however—hence the issue in U.S. Shoe. For example, a congressional charge for use of a port isn't a tax if the charge approximates the value of services provided. A legitimate user fee may therefore be applied to vessels carrying exports. Penalties affecting exportation also aren't precluded by the Clause.

In this way, it is similar to what has troubled California for decades now. Where as the legislature was for decades prohibited from creating or raising taxes, they simply called everything a "fee".

Those kinds of games don't help Congress get around the restriction on export duties.

You clearly missed this part:

And, in United States v. United States Shoe Corp. (1998), the Court held that the harbor maintenance "tax"—an excise on port use measured by cargo value—was in fact a tax and couldn't be imposed on vessels engaged in exportation.

For example, a congressional charge for use of a port isn't a tax if the charge approximates the value of services provided. A legitimate user fee may therefore be applied to vessels carrying exports. Penalties affecting exportation also aren't precluded by the Clause.

4) The actual exportation of cotton i recorded until planters withdrew from the trde at the beginning of the war.

You recorded it personally? You were there in the 1860s?

You recorded it personally? You were there in the 1860s?

When I post answers, my writing is full of typos. I'm guessing that "I" was intended to be "is."

The right to sell their production on the global market rather than be forced to sell cheap to the North, to start with. The war was about slavery...the north wanted the south to be their slaves.

The right to sell their production on the global market rather than be forced to sell cheap to the North, to start with.

Sadly for the south, international commerce, and even inter-state commerce, falls under the domain of the Federal Government. Clearly stated as such no less. Trying to make a states rights claim on that is an immediate failure.

In my opinion, a detailed search regarding the history of the Chicago Board of Trade would be eye opening; assuming that person can keep an open mind and apply critical thinking skills. Some folks in Boston got a bit annoyed by similar goings on ~75 years prior to the creation of CBOT.

As for slavery, it was on its way out before the civil war ever began. If for no other reason than pure economics. So why was slavery front and center? It was an emotional trigger. Enough of one to rally the self-righteous indignation of a large portion of the population.

Lincolns idea was to ship all the former Africans back to Africa. He wasn't exactly enamored with the east Asians/Chinese either. He and his backers couldn't make up their minds as to what to do with my people either. They never did decide on running us further west or completing their genocide.

Most people are aware that the African decendents first gained citizenship in 1868. What they are mostly unaware of is the native peoples, you know the un-hyphenated natural born Americans, were not granted citizenship until 1924.

At some point history has to be put in its place. You know, in the past. It should never be forgotten lest we make the same mistakes again, but at the same time, it shouldn't be relived time and again. No good purpose is served reliving the past.

As for slavery, it was on its way out before the civil war ever began. If for no other reason than pure economics. So why was slavery front and center? It was an emotional trigger. Enough of one to rally the self-righteous indignation of a large portion of the population.

If you read statements written at the time of secession by Jefferson Davis (President of the Confederacy), General Lee and the official secession statements issued by the seceding states, they all explicitly cite slavery as first and foremost among the reasons for secession.

Lincolns idea was to ship all the former Africans back to Africa. He wasn't exactly enamored with the east Asians/Chinese either.

Lincoln was a fence sitter on the issue of Slavery until after the slave states seceded.

If you read statements written at the time of secession by Jefferson Davis (President of the Confederacy), General Lee and the official secession statements issued by the seceding states, they all explicitly cite slavery as first and foremost among the reasons for secession.

Explain to me how that conflicts with this statement;

So why was slavery front and center? It was an emotional trigger. Enough of one to rally the self-righteous indignation of a large portion of the population.

Explain to me how that conflicts with this statement;

So why was slavery front and center? It was an emotional trigger. Enough of one to rally the self-righteous indignation of a large portion of the population.

To me that comes off specifically as a reference to the abolitionist movement.

If you read statements written at the time of secession by Jefferson Davis (President of the Confederacy), General Lee and the official secession statements issued by the seceding states, they all explicitly cite slavery as first and foremost among the reasons for secession.

It doesn't change the fact that Remus is right. Slavery was on the way out, its days were numbered. The people in the Confederacy just didn't know it at the time.

Kind of like people thought the Soviet Union had won the cold war by the 1970's, until they fell apart over the course of the 1990's and collapsed completely by 1991.

After all, in 1971 the Soviets were ahead of the United States in just about every meaningful metric. It just didn't last.

The right to sell their production on the global market rather than be forced to sell cheap to the North, to start with.

Sadly for the south, international commerce, and even inter-state commerce, falls under the domain of the Federal Government. Clearly stated as such no less. Trying to make a states rights claim on that is an immediate failure.

If the fuel you use to run the tractor you use to grow your crops was shipped to you across state lines the Fed. govt. claims it has the authority to regulate the sale of your crop.

More than the people who wrote the Constitution intended? Probably.

If the fuel you use to run the tractor you use to grow your crops was shipped to you across state lines the Fed. govt. claims it has the authority to regulate the sale of your crop.

It's worse than that.

They claim the authority to regulate you producing your own fuel for your own use because now you aren't buying fuel that travels in interstate commerce, and you abstaining from interstate commerce affects interstate commerce.

But even that's not the worst.

Most federal criminal statutes are written to only apply if the crime happens on land under the direct control of the federal government or if the crime crosses state lines.

However, the DOJ currently claims that if any tool (crowbar, gun, getaway car) used to commit the crime once traveled in interstate commerce (even if that was decades before the crime was committed) that is enough for federal criminal jurisdiction to attach.

You should look into what the Feds are doing with power production. In particular solar, geothermal, and wind on private property. I give it less than ten years before they have nominal control over it nationwide.

https://www.epa.gov/repowertoolbox/solar-interconnection-standards-policies

It's in its nacent form at the moment, but there are some keywords to watch. "Distributed Solar Market" and "Distributed Power Generation" being two of the more important phrases.
There is a reason many locations do not allow stand alone generation aka off grid. Many locations are required to be participating in Net Metering.
On the surface, it sounds like a good deal, and in the short term it is. What many are missing is what's happening at the Federal level.

When enough people are connected with roof top panels, wind, etc, how long until the Feds consider it as part of the "Distributed Power Generation" grid? As of 2020 California requires all new homes to have solar. Existing structures are soon to follow.

They claim the authority to regulate you producing your own fuel for your own use because now you aren't buying fuel that travels in interstate commerce, and you abstaining from interstate commerce affects interstate commerce.

Consider what that means in light of your quoted statement.

If the fuel you use to run the tractor you use to grow your crops was shipped to you across state lines the Fed. govt. claims it has the authority to regulate the sale of your crop.

I imagine since odds are very good your tractor was obtained through an act of interstate commerce(it wasn't built in your state), they can regulate that too.

That interpretation is extremely twisted, and shouldn't have been allowed to stand in the courts, but it is the mess we have to deal with right now.

I imagine since odds are very good your tractor was obtained through an act of interstate commerce(it wasn't built in your state), they can regulate that too.

That interpretation is extremely twisted, and shouldn't have been allowed to stand in the courts, but it is the mess we have to deal with right now.

Even if you live in the same state as the tractor factory is located in, the steel it is made from probably came from somewhere else, the tires probably came from somewhere else, etc., etc......

It is the nature of politicians to grab more and more power, this is true in any political system.

There were two basic factions at the constitutional convention.

The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. And these two factions were backwards from the way most people today think of "federalism" and Federalists.

The Federalists wanted an all-powerful national government, to eliminate the states outright or reduce them to mere corporations.

The Anti-Federalists wanted to amend the Articles of Confederation to make the national government marginally more powerful.

Anti-Federalists who weren't at the convention were pissed off when it came out with a whole new constitution.

The "Necessary and Proper" clause was proposed by the Federalists and it has acted as a one way ratchet, allowing the courts to stretch the meaning of the commerce clause, and for the Federal government to grow in power over time at the expense of the states.

The right to sell their production on the global market rather than be forced to sell cheap to the North, to start with. The war was about slavery...the north wanted the south to be their slaves.

The problem with htis fiction is that southerners not only had the right to sell on the global market, they quite generally exercised the right. The blockade was enforced after the shooting started.
Before the blockade was effective, southern planters agreed to delay England exports of their cotton to blackmail them into supporting the Confederacy.

The people of the era leading up to the war thought of themselves as belonging to their state first and then belonging to either the North or the South, rather than thinking of themselves as being Americans.

Even that is a simplification. Public opinion in the south thought of themselves as southerners, With what exceptions is hard to discover. (Sam Houston was certainly one.) nobody wrote about himself as a "northerner." A large number thought of themselves as "New Englanders."
The east coast, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis were industrialized, huge swaths of the North were agricultural. (When the south cut off cotton shipping, the Russian wheat harvest failed. England and France needed Midwest wheat one hell of a lot more than they needed Southern cotton.)
Tbe southern leaders thought of north and south; the Midwest populace thought of the United States, and they went to war to keep it together.

Slaves would build their own housing at very little cost to the owner and then be crammed into it unlike a free man that would have to pay someone rent

A free man's rent isn't an expense to his employer.

Where do you imagine that the slaves would get the tools and materials to build their own housing?

they would grow most of their own food or get scraps from the owner's leftovers that don't cost the owner much

Again, where do they get the tools and materials needed to grow their own food?

If they are growing their own food, the time they spend on that task is a cost to the owner in terms of lost productivity.

As for feeding them scraps from the owner's table, that might work for a small sharecropper with one or two slaves. It won't work for a large cotton plantation where the slaves could outnumber the owner's family and the overseers by ten to one.

It may not be that much of an expense to their owner, but the relevant expense (for comparison) to the employer of free labor would be zero.

as for medical care that would most likely be done by another slave.

There would still be expenses for medicines and materials (such as bandages).

I think you underestimate the incentive to bring in a real doctor. A slave that is too sick or injured to work is producing nothing but still has to be housed and fed. And some of the labor of other slaves would have to diverted to caring for the sick/injured slave, magnifying the loss in productivity.

And again, the relevant expense for comparison to the employer of free labor in the mid 19th century is zero.

And a free laborer who is too sick or too injured to work costs the employer nothing beyond the lost productivity.

So are you saying that a free man would accept being treated worse then a slave?

Nowhere did I say anything like that. At that point you are getting into value judgements about what is better and what is worse, and the perspective and value judgements of people living in the 19th century are likely to be very different than yours.

A free laborer is not treated like a slave. If he doesn't like his boss or the terms of his employment he can quit and seek other employment under better terms.

A 19th century free laborer was not being treated worse than a slave because his employer didn't provide him with room and board or with medical care.

And a free laborer, likely would have required considerably less medical care than a slave.

An unskilled free laborer in early to mid 19th century was better off then a slave, but probably by a much narrower margin than most people today would imagine.

Which is not to say that there haven't historically been effort to lock nominally free laborers into slave like conditions. The company town model is a good example of this.