Iraqi constitution, Islamic law, human slavery, etc.

[Sanford Levinson]

Doug is almost certainly right on the specific point that rejection of
the Constitution would not have meant the end of slavery, but, rather,
perhaps, separate countries, in one of which slavery would have been
completely protected.  My question, though, goes to the question of
political morality.  One had a choice whether or not to climb in bed--to
compromise--with the slavocracy or not.  It is quite arguable, of
course, that the correct choice was made, all things considered.  But
the other point I made is that that choice was far easier to make given
the non-participation of the principal affected party, a "luxury" that
is not present in Iraq.  I doubt that Doug (or anyone else) would
disagree.

sandy 

-----Original Message-----
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 12:20 PM
To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Iraqi constitution, Islamic law, human slavery, etc.

Sandy is fond of questioning whether the Constitution was worth the
continuation of slavery, but that was not the choice.  The choice was
between a unified government that protected slavery, or a separate
government or governments in the south thath proteted slavery.  Had that
course been chosen, there is no reason to think that slavery would have
ended by 1865.  The north had neither the will nor the power to end
slavery in 1787.  Acquiring the will required political and moral change
and perhaps economic change; acquiring the power required a national
government.


Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX  78705
   512-232-1341 (phone)
   512-471-6988 (fax)

-
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu To subscribe,
unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
or wrongly) forward the messages to others.