{"id":4260,"date":"2022-10-04T11:34:08","date_gmt":"2022-10-04T15:34:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/?p=4260"},"modified":"2024-03-14T19:16:31","modified_gmt":"2024-03-14T23:16:31","slug":"slavery-removing-the-exception","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/index.php\/2022\/10\/04\/slavery-removing-the-exception\/","title":{"rendered":"Slavery: Removing the Exception"},"content":{"rendered":"

 <\/p>\n

See our\u00a0Peace & Life Referendums<\/a>\u00a0website.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

by Rachel MacNair<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

State constitutions from the late 1800s often followed the example of the times by prohibiting slavery\u00a0except for those convicted of a crime<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Measures to remove this exception were placed on the ballot by the legislature in Nebraska and Utah for the November 3, 2020 ballot. Both passed resoundingly. Colorado had already passed such a measure in 2018, which also passed resoundingly.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

For 2022:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Alabama<\/a><\/p>\n

The\u00a0Alabama<\/a>\u00a0legislature has put a recompiled state constitution on their ballot, in which the section on slavery and involuntary servitude makes the prohibition complete.<\/p>\n

\"Louisiana<\/a><\/p>\n

The\u00a0Louisiana<\/a>\u00a0legislature has put removing the exception on their ballot.<\/p>\n

\"Oregon<\/a><\/p>\n

The\u00a0Oregon<\/a>\u00a0legislature has put removing the exception on their ballot.<\/p>\n

\"Tennessee<\/a><\/p>\n

The\u00a0Tennessee<\/a>\u00a0legislature has put removing the exception on their ballot.<\/p>\n

\"Vermont<\/a><\/p>\n

The\u00a0Vermont<\/a> legislature has put removing the exception for indentured servitude on their ballot. In Vermont, the exception isn\u2019t for crime but for debt.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Current Status<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

As of early 2022, the states that still have the exception for slavery in their state constitutions are:<\/p>\n

Arkansas,\u00a0Article II, Section 27<\/a>
\nIndiana,\u00a0Article I, Section 37<\/a>
\nKentucky,\u00a0Article I, Section 25<\/a>
\nMinnesota,\u00a0Article I, Section 2<\/a>
\nMississippi,\u00a0Article III, Section 15<\/a>
\nNevada,\u00a0Article I, Section 17<\/a>
\nNorth Dakota,\u00a0Article I, Section 6<\/a>
\nOregon,\u00a0Article I, Section 34<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 on the ballot 11\/8\/2022
\nTennessee,\u00a0Article I, Section 33<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 on the ballot 11\/8\/2022
\nWisconsin,\u00a0Article I, Section 2<\/a><\/p>\n

In addition, these states prohibit \u201cinvoluntary servitude\u201d with an exception for those convicted of a crime:<\/p>\n

Alabama,\u00a0Article I, Section 32<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 on the ballot 11\/8\/2022
\nCalifornia,\u00a0Article I, Section 6<\/a>
\nGeorgia,\u00a0Article I, Paragraph XX<\/a>
\nIowa,\u00a0Article I, Section 23<\/a>
\nKansas,\u00a0Bill of Rights, Section 6<\/a>
\nLouisiana,\u00a0Article I, Section 3<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 on the ballot 11\/8\/2022
\nMichigan,\u00a0Article I, Section 9<\/a>
\nNorth Carolina,\u00a0Article I, Section 17<\/a>
\nOhio,\u00a0Article I, Section 6<\/a><\/p>\n

This all follows what\u2019s said in the\u00a013th<\/sup>\u00a0amendment<\/a> to the U.S. constitution: “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.”<\/p>\n

On June 18, 2021, in anticipation of Juneteenth being declared a federal holiday, an\u00a0Abolition Amendment<\/a>\u00a0was introduced.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s been a long-standing tradition of pro-lifers comparing abortion to the way slavery was practiced in the United States, on the grounds that both require dehumanizing. The dehumanization is so\u00a0extreme that killing human beings \u2013 unborn children and enslaved people \u2014 is legally allowed. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in both the\u00a0Roe v. Wade<\/em> and the Dred Scott <\/em>decisions<\/a>\u00a0that certain classes of human beings were outside legal protection.<\/p>\n

While abortion defenders object to the analogy, they do so by defending abortion, not by defending slavery. Naturally \u2013 they share the understanding that holding people in slavery is appalling.\u00a0 Nowadays, that\u2019s the common attitude in the United States.<\/p>\n

People generally understand that the\u00a013th<\/sup>\u00a0amendment<\/a> to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1865, abolished slavery. Several state constitutions, drafted in the years soon thereafter, did the same. These were well after the principle was established nationally. They simply added such a provision to the state constitution.<\/p>\n

But neither the nation nor many of these states abolished slavery\u00a0entirely<\/em>. They had an exception: people duly convicted of a crime.<\/p>\n

The immediate impact in the U.S. was that slavery was able to continue. African Americans would be arrested for \u201cvagrancy,\u201d which means essentially being arrested for being unemployed. If that\u2019s the \u201ccrime\u201d that got a person into prison, and someone in prison could be enslaved, then slavery hadn\u2019t really ended.<\/p>\n

More recently, the use of cheap prison labor for manufactured goods used by government and nonprofits has meant that prisoners are slaves. In some states, they\u2019re paid nothing; in most states, they get a few cents per hour, and the highest is $2 an hour.<\/p>\n

There was a\u00a0prisoners\u2019 strike against these conditions in 2018<\/a>.<\/p>\n

While their lives are legally protected, they\u2019re still being exploited. The working conditions can include physical harm and even avoidable deaths. Such is the nature of treating people as slaves. People in prison should be treated as\u00a0people<\/em>\u00a0in prison.<\/p>\n

Kinds of harm are all connected when dehumanizing is done. If prisoners must do involuntary servitude, they have little pay for themselves, and no pay to send their families. They haven\u2019t always developed the kind of working skills that will help them get employment once out of prison.<\/p>\n

Anything that harms families this way will harm a spirit of welcoming new members to the family. That is, these conditions increase the danger of abortions being done in an atmosphere where they\u2019re so readily available.<\/p>\n

=============================<\/p>\n

For more of our comment on the Dred Scott decision, see<\/em><\/p>\n

Our Experience with Overturning Terrible Court Decisions<\/a><\/p>\n

For more of our posts on referendums, see:\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Referendums to Reduce Poverty and Their Impact on Abortion & Euthanasia<\/a><\/p>\n

What History Shows: The Consistent Life Ethic Works for the Pro-life Side in Referendums<\/a><\/p>\n

For more extensive information and updates on referendums involving consistent-life issues for upcoming elections, see our website:\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Peace and Life Referendums<\/a><\/p>\n

\n
Get our SHORT Biweekly e-Newsletter<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Email & Social Media Marketing by VerticalResponse<\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<\/form>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

  See our\u00a0Peace & Life Referendums\u00a0website.\u00a0   by Rachel MacNair   State constitutions from the late 1800s often followed the example of the times by prohibiting slavery\u00a0except for those convicted of a crime. Measures to remove this exception were placed on the ballot by the legislature in Nebraska and Utah for the November 3, 2020… <\/p>\n