Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

February 1857
Harper's Magazine archives (subscription required) ^ | February 1857

Posted on 02/01/2017 4:52:50 AM PST by Homer_J_Simpson

1

 photo 0201-harpers_zpsgqdwbafb.jpg

2

 photo 0201-harpers2_zpshoej5qbb.jpg

3

 photo 0201-harpers3_zpstwagadkm.jpg

4

 photo 0201-harpers4_zpstqoiinc2.jpg

5

 photo 0201-harpers5_zpscyqxrfmt.jpg

6

 photo 0201-harpers6_zpsuvmeb1ec.jpg

7

 photo 0201-harpers7_zpsrwdsidvh.jpg

8

 photo 0201-harpers8_zpse4f31q0t.jpg

9

 photo 0201-harpers9_zpskiywdspt.jpg

10

 photo 0201-harpers10_zpsu8eecobv.jpg

11

 photo 0201-harpers11_zps4qoskvkm.jpg

12

 photo 0201-harpers12_zpsazhvi5bc.jpg

13

 photo 0201-harpers13_zpsakjf2dqa.jpg

14

 photo 0201-harpers14_zpshuvbv8gq.jpg

15

 photo 0201-harpers15_zps9lzkcmn9.jpg

16

 photo 0201-harpers16_zpsowqljqz1.jpg

17

 photo 0201-harpers17_zps3qpfogg9.jpg

18

 photo 0201-harpers18_zpsxk3d06so.jpg

19

 photo 0201-harpers19_zpspcju2rjg.jpg

20

 photo 0201-harpers20_zpse2667ils.jpg

21

 photo 0201-harpers21_zps0g4tra0q.jpg

22

 photo 0201-harpers22_zpsbqcq7nyh.jpg

23

 photo 0201-harpers23_zps5pri5izq.jpg

24

 photo 0201-harpers24_zpsuualytcv.jpg

25

 photo 0201-harpers25_zpsvgn6jawg.jpg

26

 photo 0201-harpers26_zpsonsnl6pd.jpg

2



TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: civilwar
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 241-259 next last
To: Homer_J_Simpson
Once the subject of a suit for freedom was raised, anyone familiar with Missouri law could have told the Scotts that they had a very strong case. Again and again, the highest court of the state had ruled that a master who took his slave to reside in a state or territory where slavery was prohibited thereby emancipated him.

State courts are not the highest authority. A state law in conflict with a Constitutional law will be struck down by the Federal Courts, and that is what essentially occurred with the Dred Scott Decision.

121 posted on 02/20/2017 9:29:05 AM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216
Despite Taney's somewhat convoluted reasoning, I don't see how the slave-owner's property, Scott, could be taken from him justifiably by operation of law because of Scott's brief presence in Illinois.

Likewise with an extended presence. Article IV says nothing about duration of presence in a "free state."

If the slaveowner has a right to go to a different state, and if he has a right to take his "property" with him, than like it or not, the state is obligated to abide by the requirements specified in the Federal Charter.

They don't get to modify it with conditions.

122 posted on 02/20/2017 9:32:54 AM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Art IV talks about an escaped slave which isn’t relevant to Dred Scott. I changed my mind about Dred Scott because I can’t get around the fact that slavery was a states’ issue until the Reformation Amendments and there was due process in the Missouri Supreme Court to deprive the owner of his slave. So IMO Derd Scott was wrongly decided.


123 posted on 02/20/2017 9:40:14 AM PST by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216
The federal courts should not have taken the case as there was no federal question unless there was diversity (don’t know).But even if there was diversity, I don’t see what authority or constitutional basis Taney had to reverse the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling.

The Federal issue at stake was Article IV section 2. Your argument that "Illinois was a free state regardless of the Missouri Compromise " is tantamount to putting conditions on Article IV section 2 which are not in the text of the law.

The agreement of the founders and the signatory states was to clearly allow slavery consistent with the laws of the member states which had slavery laws. Changing the rules so that they can no longer exercise the same rights as they had when the agreement was signed, represents a breach of contract.

124 posted on 02/20/2017 9:42:59 AM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

I don’t see how Art IV, Sec 2 has any bearing here. Illinois was a free state before the Missouri Compromise (MC), so Illinois was not affected by the MC. And the State of Missouri decided that Dred Scott was a free man.

Don’t see any relevant application of Art IV, Sec 2, Cl 1 (P&I), Cl 2, or Cl 3 (escaped slave).


125 posted on 02/20/2017 9:53:37 AM PST by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Homer_J_Simpson

Chimney swept clean where there may be been traces of woolen filaments from burned clothes.

CSI-1857


126 posted on 02/20/2017 9:54:00 AM PST by Rebelbase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Rebelbase

Detective Murdoch would solve it!


127 posted on 02/20/2017 9:58:52 AM PST by Tax-chick ("I prefer to think of myself as ... civilized." ~Jonathan Q. Higgins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216; DiogenesLamp

Having finally looked up Article IV, Sec 2 to read it for myself, I have to join those saying it doesn’t bear on Dred Scott’s case. He was not a fugitive. If the text of the section is your highest guide that should be what matters.


128 posted on 02/20/2017 10:14:57 AM PST by Homer_J_Simpson ("Every nation has the government that it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Rebelbase; Tax-chick
These guys would solve the case in time to start a second investigation on the same episode.

 photo csi new york_zpsngzgw3cb.jpg

129 posted on 02/20/2017 10:32:24 AM PST by Homer_J_Simpson ("Every nation has the government that it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: HandyDandy; rockrr
HandyDandy: " I wonder how much Taney was paid by the Southern Slave Power."

Marylander Roger Taney was a Jacksonian Democrat who manumitted his own slaves in the 1820s.
But Taney's opinions on Africans were as racist as possible and he did not believe they deserved rights of citizenship.
So Dred Scott was not out of character based on Taney's previous decisions.

It appears that Taney's decision needed only permission from the newly elected President, Doughfaced Pennsylvania Democrat James Buchanan, permission Buchanan was happy to give.

130 posted on 02/20/2017 11:01:03 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; HandyDandy
DiogenesLamp: "I am not vague on it at all.
I note the clause says that the slave will be returned.
I see no qualifications that says 'under certain conditions.' "

In fact, as HandyDandy & others have point out, and you obtusely refuse to acknowledge, the Constitution refers specifically and only to "escaping" slaves, and places no limits on states-rights to declare legally transported slaves freed after certain time limits.

That understanding was acknowledged and obeyed by President Washington in Philadelphia, so Founders' Original Intent in the matter is utterly clear, regardless of Roger Taney's lunacies.

131 posted on 02/20/2017 11:06:51 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
DiogenesLamp: "I think Washington did what was prudent to avoid conflict....
I think he deferred to the state as a courtesy, not a necessity. "

No, it was far more than that, since George Washington was president of the Constitutional Convention and fully understood all the compromises & deals made there.
Washington understood exactly what those words meant, and never challenged that they referred to Fugitive Slaves, not to the rights of states to legislate abolition.

132 posted on 02/20/2017 11:11:40 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216
There were 27 specific legal grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence from England’s rule.

If you read the text of the Declaration of Independence, it makes it clear that the listing of grievances is a courtesy, not a requirement.

...a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

The Declaration of Independence states that people have a God given right to leave for whatever reasons they so choose.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

133 posted on 02/20/2017 11:15:58 AM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; HandyDandy
DiogenesLamp: "As the Devil's advocate, I argue that a slave can 'escape' just by being in a 'free state' and claiming the right under those state laws."

Your overly-clever lawyering here cannot erase the fact that nobody at the time understood it that way.
Indeed, if anybody in the world could successfully challenge Pennsylvania's right to abolish slavery in, say 1790, it would be President Washington, who knew exactly what the Constitution's words were intended to mean.

And Washington did not attempt to impose your too-clever interpretation of the Constitution's plain words.
Instead he obeyed Pennsylvania's abolition laws.

134 posted on 02/20/2017 11:17:33 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; Jim 0216
DiogenesLamp: "If the slaveowner has a right to go to a different state, and if he has a right to take his "property" with him..."

But no slaveholder had such rights before Dred Scott.
Like President Washington, they were allowed to keep slaves in free-states temporarily, but not for any extended time.

135 posted on 02/20/2017 11:21:06 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Homer_J_Simpson
Having finally looked up Article IV, Sec 2 to read it for myself, I have to join those saying it doesn’t bear on Dred Scott’s case. He was not a fugitive. If the text of the section is your highest guide that should be what matters.

Once again, this all hinges upon what you mean by the word "escape." Escaping the "labor due" is the bottom line. How it is accomplished isn't really relevant.

You want to specify "fugitive" and in this context meaning someone who has ran away to another state, but the same concept applies to someone who tries to "escape" through guile, through the use of other states laws.

It's still an "escape." You are interpreting the word "escape" with too much specificity regarding the type of escape being committed, and likewise contrary to the manner that the slave states of the time would have understood it.

136 posted on 02/20/2017 11:21:50 AM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; Jim 0216
DiogenesLamp: "Changing the rules so that they can no longer exercise the same rights as they had when the agreement was signed, represents a breach of contract."

Which is exactly what DiogenesLamp argues for -- a change in Founders' Original Intent based on Roger Taney's 70-year later reinterpretation.

Before Dred Scot no slave-holder and no slave-state considered it a "right" to take slaves into free-states permanently without freeing them.

So DiogenesLamp's arguments otherwise are pure sophistry.

137 posted on 02/20/2017 11:26:15 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

The Declaration of Independence (D of I) is basically a treatise to the world about what justified the colonists’ secession. It is probably the most elegant and well reasoned justification for secession maybe in the history of the world. It offers justifications of that which “Prudence, indeed, will dictate...” offered for consideration to a “candid world.”

The D of I gives instruction and guidance, not legal or constitutional dictates, for valid secession. However, IMO, the D of I has persuasive authority because of its integrity and influence in American law and culture.

The D of I shows the steps to valid secession and that secession:

1) should not be “for light or transient causes”

2) requires a certain “patient sufferance” while “evils are sufferable”

3) involves notifying and submitting the facts of abuse “to a candid world” (27 specific abuses are listed in the D of I) and finally

4) “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government.”

The colonists suffered many decades of harm from George III and continually notified him of his wrongs and pleaded for redress. In contrast, the South had not yet suffered any unconstitutional acts from the feds regarding slavery. The South should have first notified the feds of what acts were unconstitutional and why they were unconstitutional. Instead they ceded in anticipation of federal acts. There was really no “patient sufferance” and no attempt to notify the feds with reasonable constitutional arguments.

So the South’s cessation was invalid IMO. I believe the North had a constitutional right to fight them and get them back into the Union.


138 posted on 02/20/2017 11:53:59 AM PST by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Homer_J_Simpson

They look like they’re afraid aliens will snatch them off the roof!


139 posted on 02/20/2017 12:30:20 PM PST by Tax-chick ("I prefer to think of myself as ... civilized." ~Jonathan Q. Higgins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216
so it appears the South was short on constitutional grievances against the North

Northerners have been taking note of that since the Compromise of 1850 and Fugitive Slave Act.

140 posted on 02/20/2017 2:02:02 PM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 241-259 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson