Bachmann: Founding fathers ‘worked tirelessly’ to end slavery

ONE more thing to add

Has the US eliminated slavery and indentured servitude?

Well?

No they have not.

Legal definition of indentured servitude-

A condition of compulsory service or labor performed by one person, against his will, for the benefit of another person due to force, threats, intimidation or other similar means of coercion and compulsion directed against him.

In considering whether service or labor was performed by someone against his will or involuntarily, it makes no difference that the person may have initially agreed, voluntarily, to render the service or perform the work. If a person willingly begins work but later desires to withdraw and is then forced to remain and perform work against his will, his service becomes involuntary. Also, whether a person is paid a salary or a wage is not determinative of the question as to whether that person has been held in involuntary servitude. In other words, if a person is forced to labor against his will, his service is involuntary even though he is paid for his work.

However, it is necessary to prove that the person knowingly and willfully took action, by way of force, threats, intimidation or other form of coercion, causing the victim to reasonably believe that he had no way to avoid continued service, that he was confronted by the existence of a superior and overpowering authority, constantly threatening to the extent that his will was completely subjugated.

Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 1584, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to willfully hold another person in involuntary servitude.

A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

First: That the person held the victim in a condition of 'involuntary servitude';

Second: That such holding was for a 'term,'; and

Third: That the person acted knowingly and willfully.

It must be shown that a person held to involuntary servitude was so held for a 'term.' It is not necessary, however, that any specific period of time be proved so long as the 'term' of the involuntary service was not wholly insubstantial or insignificant.

Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 1581(a) is the peonage law cited in the indictment.

The specific facts which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in order to establish the offense of peonage include each and all of the three specific factual elements constituting involuntary servitude as previously stated and explained in these instructions, plus a fourth specific fact; namely, that the involuntary servitude was compelled by the person in order to satisfy a real or imagined debt regardless of amount.

Emphasis on certain components mine, but no modification to the definition has been made.

By the way, both SLAYER and I have proven that the tenet of the OP is false and this thread should be put into the HOAX bin.

Also, since indentured servitude is still legal in the US of A, slavery is STILL NOT abolished. How bout THEM APPLES?

edit to add- Forgot to add the 13th Amendment-

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.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


Your definition clearly states that indentured servitude is a crime. Yet you then say that indentured servitude is still legal in the United States while citing proof that the opposite is the case, which leads me to conclude that you:

are either engaging in satire to illustrate an otherwise unstated point

or

You have a difficult time comprehending legal terminology.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Also, since indentured servitude is still legal in the US of A, slavery is STILL NOT abolished.

OK, if I follow your logic (short trip) you are insisting thread title be changed due to this startling new revelation?

Bachmann: Founding fathers ‘worked tirelessly’ to extend slavery

OK, works for me.

BTW, just kurious about something. Do you flail your arms in the air wildly while making extreme hand gestures when speaking? (Like the way you post?)

All you and others have proven in this thread is that there is some sort of agenda to scrub our nation's history of unpleasant facts.

reply to post by clay2 baraka


What, you have reading comprehension problems?

Let me post it again-

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.

Notice-that slavery or indentured servitude can be used as punishment for a crime.

So tell me, by the DEFINITION of indentured servitude, is the ENTIRE population of the US indentured servants?

Look AGAIN and the definition, just a couple components-

A condition of compulsory service or labor performed by one person, against his will, for the benefit of another person due to force, threats, intimidation or other similar means of coercion and compulsion directed against him.

Hmmmm, that sounds familiar, what could that be?

In considering whether service or labor was performed by someone against his will or involuntarily, it makes no difference that the person may have initially agreed, voluntarily, to render the service or perform the work. If a person willingly begins work but later desires to withdraw and is then forced to remain and perform work against his will, his service becomes involuntary. Also, whether a person is paid a salary or a wage is not determinative of the question as to whether that person has been held in involuntary servitude. In other words, if a person is forced to labor against his will, his service is involuntary even though he is paid for his work.

Hmmmm, that sounds AWFULLY FAMILIAR, what could that be?

I could continue, but why bother right?

reply to post by kinda kurious


Are you saying that being metaphoric or descriptive is a bad thing?

What, you do not like FLAMBOYANT rhetoric? Are you prejudicial or biggotted against such flagrant verbiage?

You sir are being redundant.

By the way, been having fun on this thread. It is fun to argue facts with those that argue emotion. Logic ALWAYS wins out.

You do realize that anyone that is NOT a member, does not see all the flamboyance. I keep the flamboyance because it gives FLAIR. Wink wink, say no more, say no more. LOL

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
What, you do not like FLAMBOYANT rhetoric?

Me? Everyone knows I love flamboyance.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5f7396b5c490.jpg[/atsimg]

I keep the flamboyance because it gives FLAIR. Wink wink, say no more, say no more. LOL

I also like flair.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4f7aaf4bb184.jpg[/atsimg]

Either you know me so well or hacked my IP.

reply to post by kinda kurious


NO, we had this discussion before the end was near. LOL

I think the last time you posted the exact same pics. LOL

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


OK so I'm repeating myself, sorry. How about a riddle then?

Why are your posts like a pun?

A pun is a shift of wit and your posts are a wift of........nevermind.

reply to post by kinda kurious

Why are your posts like pun?

To be or not to be, that is the overcompensation. I have ALWAYS overcompensated. LOL

A pun is a shift of wit and your posts are a wift of........-------.

An overcompensation in an alteration of intelligence and your espousement is a bereavement of nourishment.

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
What, you do not like FLAMBOYANT rhetoric?

Me? Everyone knows I love flamboyance.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5f7396b5c490.jpg[/atsimg]


Oh my god, I made a pee pee all over mi heels

#1

reply to post by Janky Red


Yes, KK has humor. I appreciate his rhetoric. He is almost on the list. He needs a few more threads like this one.

By the way, the last time I said that, BH got all freaked.

What I mean by list, is those that I can discuss things with. It is not a target list.........OMG!

JANKY!

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


Noooooooooo!

I'm not worthy.

Originally posted by kinda kurious
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

 

Noooooooooo!

I'm not worthy.

You two crazy kids

KK, who does yer hair?

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


OK, I'll bite.

Indentured servitude not slavery, is only legal in the States when applied by the Government, to criminals. Whee. Criminals lose many rights after conviction, such as the right to vote.

I am pretty sure this thread was dealing specifically with the subject of slavery. You are throwing the straw man of "indentured servitude" in to prove a tangential point.

here is the legal definition of slavery (the actual subject of this thread):

-CITE-

18 USC CHAPTER 77 - PEONAGE AND SLAVERY 01/06/03

-EXPCITE-

TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I - CRIMES

CHAPTER 77 - PEONAGE AND SLAVERY

.

-HEAD-

CHAPTER 77 - PEONAGE AND SLAVERY

-MISC1-

Sec.

1581. Peonage; obstructing enforcement.

1582. Vessels for slave trade.

1583. Enticement into slavery.

1584. Sale into involuntary servitude.

1585. Seizure, detention, transportation or sale of slaves.

1586. Service on vessels in slave trade.

1587. Possession of slaves aboard vessel.

1588. Transportation of slaves from United States.

1589. Forced labor.

1590. Trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery, involuntary

servitude, or forced labor.

1591. Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion.

1592. Unlawful conduct with respect to documents in furtherance of

trafficking, peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced

labor.

1593. Mandatory restitution.

1594. General provisions.

Note that there is a separate definition for slavery vs. indentured servitude. Thank you for your tangent however, you learn something new every day.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

ETA: Keep editing your above replies, It's no sweat off of my pair.

edit on 1-2-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

I edited my post immediately and added specific dates for reference....I also edit posts to correct spelling.

That is why there is and edit marker indicating the edit.

I did not change the theme or phrasing of my post, just gave more specific dates.

To imply that I behaved unethically by doing so is in keeping with your dishonest manner.

BTW...Just edited this post to correct "fro" to "for"...still don't understand your issue.

Originally posted by clay2 baraka
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

 

OK, I'll bite.

Indentured servitude not slavery, is only legal in the States when applied by the Government, to criminals. Whee. Criminals lose many rights after conviction, such as the right to vote.

I am pretty sure this thread was dealing specifically with the subject of slavery. You are throwing the straw man of "indentured servitude" in to prove a tangential point.

Half right. Genealogy is a hobby of mine so I have read up on indentured servitude more than most.

You are right that it is not slavery and irrelevant to the debate.

But it is not just criminals. Indentured servants also included vast numbers of immigrants who could not afford the expensive trip to the new world. Agents would pay their way, food and travel, in return for them signing a contract of servitude to plantation owners in the new world for a given amount of time, usually a couple of years.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

ETA: Keep editing your above replies, It's no sweat off of my pair.

edit on 1-2-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

By the way...I do appreciate the irony in the above.

Hint...read what you wrote...and then notice your "edit" tag that immediately follows.

Too funny.

OMG pg 14 is soooo funny!! I do love the wit! I've always said, a sense of humor is a sign of intelligence. Keep the planet laughing, people!

reply to post by maybereal11


Man...

You're still butt hurt over that?

reply to post by clay2 baraka


If indentured servitude is soooo tangential, I wonder why it was included in the very same Amendment to the Constitution?

I guess being a 50% slave is alright?

I just included the component to say that indentured servitude is still legal in the US for punishment.

Hmmmm, are we all punished because we are citizens as defined in the 14th Amendment, but I digress.