Posted on 08/11/2015 1:11:21 PM PDT by iowamark
All my "assertions" are based on facts, yours are based on overheated fantasies.
DiogenesLamp: "If you take the words of the US Constitution at face value, they seem to say that any law freeing a slave is null and void."
Seem to say? They don't seem so to me, nor did they seem so to any Founder who left a record of it.
DiogenesLamp: "Now you tell me it is only intended to be used in the narrow scope of fugitive slaves, but that is not what the words say."
Of course they do -- the operative phrase is "escaping into another" state, in other words, a fugitive slave.
That much was always fully acknowledged.
What was never asserted before Dred-Scott is that slave-holders could take their slaves to abolition states without being subject to the laws of that state.
DiogenesLamp: "Your problem is not with me... it is with the words chosen by the framers of the Constitution.
They left the meaning open to a much broader interpretation than what you claim was their intent."
No, Founders left nothing about this "open to interpretation" by anyone who read & understood their original intent.
Of course, Tanney and you are not concerned with Founders' intent, but only with how their words can be twisted to support insane ideas.
DiogenesLamp: "And how do you know this?
In 1787, I think only Massachusetts had abolished slavery. The bulk of the nation was still slave holding states."
No, by the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 all Northern states except New York and New Jersey had already passed laws to gradually abolish slavery.
Founders assumed that slavery was, by nature, wicked and evil, a "necessary evil" perhaps, but evil nonetheless, which should be abolished "someday".
They began the process nationally by allowing for abolition of importing slaves from abroad.
Under President Jefferson, they also banned slavery from the Northwest Territories.
The best records of Founders' Original Intent can be found in the Federalist Papers, none of which say that slave-holders can bring their slaves to Free States without obeying the laws of those states.
DiogenesLamp: "How about you give up the childish tactic of asserting that disagreement with you is equivalent to a mental illness?"
Whenever you assert what is patently insane, that must only be a function of some mental malfunction, doubtless driven by a malicious hatred of what is good and right in the US -- in this case our Founders' original intent in their Constitution.
DiogenesLamp: "As I mentioned before, I never spent much time contemplating that clause in the US Constitution until this discussion focused my attention on it.
Now that I read it closely, I'm having a hard time seeing it by even the most Liberal Interpretation as corresponding to what you claim it means."
It's because your brain is seriously malfunctioning, and you need help for that. Go get it, FRiend.
Give over with the Childish assertions. You saying "your opinions are based on facts" is a waste of both our times. You are substituting subjectivity for objectivity. I begin to think you don't understand the distinction.
Seem to say? They don't seem so to me, nor did they seem so to any Founder who left a record of it.
Another subjective statement. Let me show you how this works.
No the founders don't agree with you! They agree with ME!
Now did that impress you? It didn't? Well it doesn't impress me either, so stop doing it.
Show me in the words, and only in the words of that clause of the constitution how the founders agree with you. Don't assert it, Demonstrate it.
Of course they do -- the operative phrase is "escaping into another" state, in other words, a fugitive slave.
Now see there? That's actually a valid point. Usage of the word "escaping" does indeed imply that it is intended to apply to fugitives rather than in general. But does this mean that the clause only applies if a border is crossed? What if the escaping slave happens to be in a free state at the same time that he escapes? (Ala Dred Scott.)
I think the operative point is that he is held to service by the laws of another state, and the usage of the word "escape" in this context encompasses "escape" by legal means of state laws freeing him.
I don't see it as allowing one state to ignore the laws of another state, regardless of where someone escapes from. I can see a state passing a law that says no one born in their state can be a slave, but I don't see how they can apply such a law to people born in states where that is not the law.
What was never asserted before Dred-Scott is that slave-holders could take their slaves to abolition states without being subject to the laws of that state.
State laws in conflict with the US Constitution are rendered Null and Void. What good does it do you to pass a law that the constitution will instantly defeat?
No, by the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 all Northern states except New York and New Jersey had already passed laws to gradually abolish slavery.
Yet they still had it, and it was still legal. Presumably at this time Slave Owners could still travel those states without concern of those states freeing their slaves.
If this was accepted and acknowledged in 1787, then you can't very well argue that such activities can be banned by some future reading of the same Constitution that protected it in 1787.
Sorry, I’m on the road again, posting from allegedly “smart” phone, which really means: not so smart.
Two points: first, all my responses are calibrated to your comments.
In other words, where you make a serious remark involving both real facts and logic, my response will be on the same level.
Where you indulge in ridiculous assertions, my response will simply turn them back on you.
Clear?
Second, to repeat: it appears that you are trying to defend Roger Tanney’s Dred-Scott ruling, and I’m saying it’s just not defensible, on so many levels, that no serious scholar or historian since, to my knowledge, has done it.
And the key point about Dred-Scott is that in 1860 it outraged so many Northerners who believed slavery should he gradually abolished, they left the Whigs and even Democrats to vote for Lincoln ‘ s Republicans.
But, if you’re looking for a full legal disertation on “what’s wrong with Dred-Scott” you’ll need to spend time in a law library where they keep whole volumes on such questions.
Bottom line: several here have already expressed what what I think the Constitution ‘ s Fugitive Slave provision means, and I see no valid reason for you to attempt stretching it’s meaning to justify Tanney’s Dred-Scott ruling.
Are you going to start doing that going forward? Because I haven't noticed you doing any such thing as that so far.
Second, to repeat: it appears that you are trying to defend Roger Tanney’s Dred-Scott ruling, and I’m saying it’s just not defensible, on so many levels, that no serious scholar or historian since, to my knowledge, has done it.
I have never been interested in argumentum ad populum or argumentum ad vericundiam. I believe people should articulate their own arguments for why they believe something instead of trying to pawn the heavy lifting off on "Authorities" or "Popularity."
Bottom line: several here have already expressed what what I think the Constitution ‘ s Fugitive Slave provision means, and I see no valid reason for you to attempt stretching it’s meaning to justify Tanney’s Dred-Scott ruling.
In other words, you just want to be right, but don't want to go to the trouble of dealing with people showing you where you are wrong.
You articulate a position that does not seem rational. That what was legal at that time, and that specific provisions incorporated into the constitution when it was written to protect the legal status of that peculiar institution, do in fact protect the legal status of that peculiar institution.
They would appear to me to go way beyond the scope which you and the Northern Abolitionists wished to restrict them to.
You're claim that a man cannot take his slave into a free state lest he be freed by that's states laws simply does not seem a reasonable assertion regarding the intent of the 1787 Congress or the Ratifying states legislators.
Can a state pass a law telling a slave owner that he cannot come to their state? I don't think so.
Can a state pass a law telling a slave owner that he cannot bring his slave to their state lest they will free him?
Again, it seems as if the constitution blocks that path.
Indeed, I cannot see your legal argument for claiming that any state can get around that constitutional provision. All any slave owner need do is file suit in federal court asserting the state violated his rights as enumerated in article IV, and what can the state say in rebuttal?
I can see where they could free someone born into their laws, but I cannot see how they can free someone born into the laws of another state, at least not without violating the Union Compact, the breaking of which you seemed to regard as sufficient cause for a group of states leaving the Union.
So tell me how a state can abrogate the laws of another state as applied to their own citizens and their own citizens claims to service due?
I don't see how the constitution leaves you an out.
All I can see of it simply informs me that the Northern states should not have made such a deal if they didn't want to accept the ugly consequences of it.
I should note to you that a search on Amazon Kindle produces over two dozen books on Dred-Scott and related issues, some very legalistic, others more intended for normal people.
And at least one does indeed defend Dred-Scott, based on both Constitution and historical context.
But I’m not sure why I should care enough about the subject to wish to relitigate it now, some 158 years later.
I think it should be plenty enough for everyone to “get” that Dred-Scott was a... well a *dredful* decision which shifted power in favor of slavery, thus causing a strong backlash in the North & West which elected Lincoln ‘ s Republicans and so drove Fire Eaters to declare secession, etc.
HandyDandy has blamed Dred-Scott for starting Civil War, and I agree it was certainly *dredful* enough to take much blame for the *dredful* war which followed.
You are correct for taking me to task for making this statement. Please allow me to "walk it back". The first part of the post I stand behind.
Restrictions on travel of an owner with his slave came into play later than Article IV. For example, in 1790 in Pennsylvania, if a slave spent 6 months in that State, they were automatically free. Even George and Martha were well aware of this:
Washington brought 8 slaves to Philadelphia in November 1790. Four of them, he returned to Mount Vernon in Spring 1791, before the 6-month deadline. Two of them were taken on a short trip to New Jersey by Martha Washington, which interrupted their 6-month residency. Two of them were trusted not to take advantage of the Pennsylvania law to seize their freedom.
This is called "hand waving." Rather than defend your premise, you try to divert the question to other "authorities" with a wave of your hand.
But I’m not sure why I should care enough about the subject to wish to relitigate it now, some 158 years later.
I suspect your waning interest in discussing it is directly proportional to the waxing doubt in your mind as to whether or not you can support your claim.
I'm guessing you don't want to examine that too closely.
Washington brought 8 slaves to Philadelphia in November 1790. Four of them, he returned to Mount Vernon in Spring 1791, before the 6-month deadline. Two of them were taken on a short trip to New Jersey by Martha Washington, which interrupted their 6-month residency. Two of them were trusted not to take advantage of the Pennsylvania law to seize their freedom.
I see two points regarding this. The first one is that should the issue have come to a lawsuit, a Federal Court might very well have ruled against the State. (Depends on whether they got a Liberal Judge or not.) I don't see how they can lawfully deprive a person of what was regarded by the law of that time as "property." It would be legally the same as arguing a man forfeits his wagon or his land if he crosses a state border. I don't see how that passes constitutional muster.
The Second point, is you are demonstrating how a man might continue slavery in a "free" state. What's to stop a man from maintaining a Plantation in Pennsylvania with a regular rotation of slaves in and out of the state?
My current book is William Freehling’s “Road to Disunion” about 1/4 through, reading now the 1850s attempted revival of international slave imports to South Carolina.
Might consider a detailed book on Dred-Scott, but really, how many people think the subject worth debating?
Even 90% of Lost-Causers on these threads wouldn’t know enough to discuss it, much less defend it.
And you also wish to debate Northern abolition laws, and whether they allowed Southern slave - holders to bring slaves North and keep them there?
Doubtless different states had different laws, but one I know of is Pennsylvania ‘ s which required George Washington, when he lived in Philadelphia, to cycle his slaves back to Virginia after a certain time to avoid running afoul of Pennsylvania ‘ s restrictions on slavery.
Point is: it’s obvious that states-rights entitled them to pass anti-slavery laws which even our First Founder, Washington, had to obey.
So for Dred-Scott to deny such states-rights — regardless of how logical you imagine Tanney’s reasoning — simply flies in the face of what our Founders knew & understood.
"The 1780 Act prohibited further importation of slaves into Pennsylvania, but it also respected the property rights of Pennsylvania slaveholders by not freeing slaves already held in the state. It changed the legal status of future children born to enslaved Pennsylvania mothers from "slave" to "indentured servant", but required those children to work for the mother's master until age 28. To verify that no additional slaves were imported, the Act created a registry of all slaves in the state. Slaveholders who failed to register their slaves annually, or who did it improperly, lost their slaves to manumission.
The 1780 Act specifically exempted members of the U.S. Congress and their personal slaves. Congress was then the only branch of the federal government under the Articles of Confederation, and met in Philadelphia.
1788 Amendment
An Amendment, created to explain and to close loopholes in the 1780 Act, was passed in the Pennsylvania legislature on 29 March 1788. The Amendment prohibited a Pennsylvania slaveholder from transporting a pregnant enslaved woman out-of-state so her child would be born enslaved; and from separating husbands from wives, and children from parents. It required a Pennsylvania slaveholder to register within six months the birth of a child to an enslaved mother. It prohibited all Pennsylvanians from participating in, building or equipping ships for, or providing material support to the slave trade.
The 1780 Act had allowed a non-resident slaveholder visiting Pennsylvania to hold slaves in the state for up to six months. But a loophole was soon identified and exploited: if the non-resident slaveholder took his slaves out of Pennsylvania before the 6-month deadline, it would void his slaves' residency. The 1788 Amendment prohibited this rotation of slaves in and out-of-state to subvert Pennsylvania law."
DiogenesLamp to HandyDandy: “...should the issue have come to a lawsuit, a Federal Court might very well have ruled against the State. (Depends on whether they got a Liberal Judge or not.)
I don’t see how they can lawfully deprive a person of what was regarded by the law of that time as “property.”
It would be legally the same as arguing a man forfeits his wagon or his land if he crosses a state border.
I don’t see how that passes constitutional muster.”
But the whole point here is: it’s just ludicrous to fantasize that in *1790* a Federal judge might declare some state’s slavery laws “unconstitutional”.
That would be contrary to the spirit of the times, which George Washington both understood and obeyed.
While their intentions were honorable, how is any of that constitutionally legal?
If a legislature can tell a slave owner how he must conform to the legislature's wishes as to how he should treat or move his slaves, then why don't they just tell him he can't have any in the first place?
What I'm saying is that if they can legally put conditions on it, then by the same principle, and by the same authority, they can legally ban it.
I think there is a dichotomy of principle between the opinions of the legislature and the mandates of the US Constitution. I think they are going beyond their legal authority, but as we have discovered innumerable times by subsequent court decisions, Law often only means what the Judge thinks about something.
I suspect you would have gotten different results from different Federal Judges. Those in the South would likely have abrogated such state laws, while those in the North likely would not have done so.
But we must contemplate what an objective judge would have done, had such a case come before him, and I don't see how someone objectively applying the laws of the day could have ignored that provision in article IV.
That would be contrary to the spirit of the times, which George Washington both understood and obeyed.
It also argues states were a lot more autonomous than they are now.
It's odd, but this is a case where you seem to be championing states rights against the Federal Constitution. I expect that soon you are going to argue that the North had a right to secede from the South over slavery. :)
Woulda, coulda, shoulda - that’s all DegenerateLamp has in his quiver.
Imagine this:
The US Federal government set on enacting strict gun control in violation of current law creates a plan to bring Guam, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands in to full voting States, in the USA. The votes just aren’t there any other way, and these States would tip the balance.
Payoffs (Federal aid and tax breaks) are planned to the new States. The new States (politicians) all agree to vote against the second amendment and prohibit personal gun ownership.
The Federal government sets the ball rolling, but the plan gets out. Texas and Wyoming secede based on the anti-gun wave coming. Other States follow, and 6 months later Civil War II breaks out, when the Federal government positions ships to block the port of Houston/Galveston. (Gun control is stressed in the secession documents of all the states.)
Is the cause of Civil War II gun control? or Federal over-reach?
Imagine this:
The US Federal government set on enacting strict gun control in violation of current law creates a plan to bring Guam, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands in to full voting States, in the USA. The votes just aren’t there any other way, and these States would tip the balance.
Payoffs (Federal aid and tax breaks) are planned to the new States. The new States (politicians) all agree to vote against the second amendment and prohibit personal gun ownership.
The Federal government sets the ball rolling, but the plan gets out. Texas and Wyoming secede based on the anti-gun wave coming. Other States follow, and 6 months later Civil War II breaks out, when the Federal government positions ships to block the port of Houston/Galveston. (Gun control is stressed in the secession documents of all the states.)
Is the cause of Civil War II gun control? or Federal over-reach?
Whether slavery is viewed as a legal, political, or social problem, then describe the problem the Northern states had with it after secession.
I am not interpreting it that way. I'm interpreting it to prohibit the undermining of the laws of other states regarding slavery as applied to citizens of those other states.
As states ban slavery to those born inside their borders, slavery would eventually atrit to nonexistent, but unfortunately, the laws of other states regarding slavery cannot be ignored just because they are unpopular in the states where it is no longer practiced.
This whole thing reminds me of the same sort of social dynamics involving "gay marriage" and other liberal causes du jour. Liberals get social "enlightened" and then can't leave everyone else well enough alone.
For some reason they feel the need to spread their moral enlightenment to other people who aren't interest in their latest greatest moral epiphany.
Now we have transgenders beating down the door of our Military, and the latest Liberal Morality is that they deserve to serve in our Military.
What I'm saying is that if they can legally put conditions on it, then by the same principle, and by the same authority, they can legally ban it.
In essence the 1780 Act did ban slavery. The only slaves recognized were those then existing as slaves of residents, and when they died off, there would never be any more. It was an orderly process. The Act did not presume to encroach on ownership of wagons, et al.
Another thing to remember is that the supreme Court had yet to find the full force of it's self-anointed eminence. That would come later when the supreme Court turned into The Supremely Eminent Tribunal (under Taney, the former Attorney General under President Andrew Jackson).
To reiterate from a previous post, a very key point implied by Article IV was the recognition that there were slave-states and there were free-states and that they needed to recognize each other's rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.