[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird on Crittenden Compromise items: "Discussions started in late 1860 right after the election and everyone knew secession was coming."

No, however, specific proposals from Mississippi Democrat Sen. Davis -- which had been rejected by Congress in February, 1860 -- were in December dusted off and reconsidered, and again mostly rejected, in the Crittenden Compromise of December 1860.
As a result of these rejections, Mississippi led other Deep South states into secession.

FLT-bird: "Slave owners had the right of transit already as per the Dred Scott decision.
There was nothing to decide, as the Supreme Court had already ruled."

Contrary to your claims here, the issue in 1860 was far from settled, which is why:

1. Northern courts totally ignored Crazy Roger's insane rantings, except to condemn them and reaffirm their own anti-slavery laws.

2. Mississippi Sen. Davis's February 1860 proposal -- that Congress act to guarantee a "right of any citizen of the United States to take his slaver property into the common Territories" -- clearly implied the SCOTUS Dred Scott ravings did not settle the matter.

3. In December 1860, in Congress the Crittenden Committee looked at many proposed "compromises" to stop secessions, including the "right to sojourn", many such rejected by Republicans.

4. In March 1861 the CSA constitution again asserted a slaveholder's "right of sojourn" with his slaves, thus revealing the issue was far from settled, even in the new Confederacy.

FLT-bird: "The idea of a constitutional amendment expressly protecting slavery was one that occurred to lots of people - not just Davis as you would have it.
Had Southern states really been concerned about the continuation of slavery, they could have simply accepted the Corwin amendment - yet they did not."

Contrary to your repeated claims, the Montgomery Constitutional Convention totally accepted and embraced the idea of Corwin and so inserted it into their own CSA constitution.
Any suggestion otherwise is just crazy.

FLT-bird quoting BROJOEK: "Confederates loved Corwin and copied and pasted it into their Montgomery constitution"

FLT-bird: "The Corwin Amendment came out before the Confederate Constitution.
Your timeline is backwards."

Read what you quoted me as saying again.
The fact remains -- all your denials notwithstanding -- that Confederates loved and embraced Corwin so much they copied and pasted it directly into their own Montgomery CSA constitution.

FLT-bird: "Lest anyone think it was, explicit protection of slavery in the US Constitution was a bargaining chip the North was quite happy to offer.
The original 7 seceding states turned it down."

Naw... Confederates didn't "turn it down" because that was never even a question for them.
They did fully accept, embrace and then copy and paste the Corwin idea into their own Montgomery CSA constitution, along with several other pro-slavery provisions which Republicans had rejected in December 1860.

FLT-bird: "This was not contrary to the majority opinion of the US Supreme Court in the Dred Scott ruling.
All a slave owner could do was transit with his slaves.
He could not reside in a state that had abolished slavery.
He could not employ his slaves in an enterprise there."

Those are all lies.
The truth is that Crazy Roger Taney (why do you think I call him "Crazy Roger"??) abolished all such restrictions on the alleged "right to sojourn" in free states and territories!!!

Crazy Roger claimed there were no limits on a slaveholder's rights to take his "property" into other states and stay there as long as he wanted.

Consider the case of Dred Scott, the man, a slave taken from the slave-state of Missouri to the free-state of Illinois and lived there for six years!!, from 1830 to 1836, and then was taken to the free-territory of Wisconsin for another four years!!, from 1836 to 1840.
So Dred Scott had lived in free-states or territories for 10 years and yet Crazy Roger still claimed that was not long enough to declare the man, Dred Scott (or his family), freed.

Indeed, the lunatic Crazy Roger Taney and his insane Democrat fellow SCOTUS justices declared that not only could Dred Scott never be freed by living in free states & territories, but also, that even if Dred Scott were voluntarily freed, as an African-American, the man could never become a US citizen with all the rights and privileges of other US citizens, i.e., voting, juries, military service, etc.

How is you do not yet grasp the depths of depravity in Crazy Roger Taney's Dred Scott opinions??

FLT-bird: "And yet, and yet, that was the majority opinion of the US Supreme Court.
Not litigated or decided by the Dred Scott case was how long a slave owner could have to transit with his slaves.
States could enact laws governing that and declare that any state on its territory longer than a reasonable period for transit were thereby deemed to be legally emancipated."

Again, those are lies.
The truth is that Crazy Roger's Dred Scott ravings effectively declared all such laws unconstitutional and invalid, and removed all limitations on the lengths of time slaveholders could "sojourn" with their "property" in free-states & territories.

See my link above for actual Crazy Roger quotes.

FLT-bird: "There is eyewitness testimony from numerous sources that Lincoln worked directly with Republicans in Congress to draft the Corwin Amendment, get it introduced in Congress and get it passed both by Congress as well as by multiple Northern states."

None of which you've presented here for closer inspection.

FLT-bird: "No matter how much you or anybody else does not like it, that was the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States and as such was the law of the land.
Your incessant childish namecalling changes nothing."

Nooo... "Crazy Roger" is not "name-calling", it is a factual description of a raving lunatic, as were his fellow Democrat SCOTUS justices, as are Democrats today.
Indeed, the very word, "Democratic" from the beginning in the 1790s meant, "stark raving Jacobin lunatics" of the French Revolution.
So, while Thomas Jefferson called himself a small-r republican, his Federalist opponents called his party the Democratic-republicans, by which they meant "lunatics".
And, of course, Jeffersonians were perfectly happy with the designation and so kept the name "Democratics".

So, Democrats always were, and remain insane, none more so than Crazy Roger Taney.

FLT-bird: "That might've affected politics.
Then again, most people were far more concerned about the Morrill Tariff which was working its way through Congress at this time."

And yet nobody in any document of the time mentioned the Morrill Tariff as a reason for secession.
What every such document did mention, some of them exclusively, was slavery.

FLT-bird: "Wrong.
Rhode Island and Connecticut passed bills banning slavery in 1843 and 1848, respectively, and New Hampshire passed a final abolition bill in 1857.
Vermont was not admitted as a state until 1791.
Massachusetts had abolished slavery in 1783-84."

Again, you're just lying.
The truth is that all of those states, plus the entirety of the Old Northwest Territories had begun to abolish slavery before the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

1. 1777 Vermont
2. 1780 Pennsylvania
3. 1783 Massachusetts
4. 1783 New Hampshire
5. 1784 Conncecticut
6. 1784 Rhode Island
7. 1787 Old Northwest Territories, which became Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and about 1/3 of Minnesota.

Further, by the time of the 1787 Convention, over half of the delegates did not own slaves.

So, bottom line: your repeated claims -- that our Founders didn't care about slavery and weren't working to abolish it -- those claims are simply untrue.

[FLT-bird]

BROJOEK: As a result of these rejections, Mississippi led other Deep South states into secession.

No. As a result of Lincoln's election and the certainty that the Morrill Tariff would pass, the states of the Deep South decided to leave. Then the North offered slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment. Then the original 7 seceding states turned it down. Then Lincoln decided to start a war to prevent his cash cows from leaving. Then the states of the Upper South seceded.

BROJOEK: Contrary to your claims here, the issue in 1860 was far from settled,

Contrary to your BS, the matter was already decided. The Supreme Court had already ruled. Temper tantrums by lower courts were null and void.

BROJOEK: implied the SCOTUS Dred Scott ruling did not settle the matter.

No it didn't. It was settled law after the SCOTUS ruling.

BROJOEK: In March 1861 the CSA constitution again asserted a slaveholder's "right of sojourn" with his slaves, thus revealing the issue was far from settled, even in the new Confederacy.

No it didn't. It just expressly spelled out in the Constitution what was already settled law in the US.

BroJoeK: Contrary to your repeated claims, the Montgomery Constitutional Convention totally accepted and embraced the idea of Corwin and so inserted it into their own CSA constitution. Any suggestion otherwise is just crazy.

I've never said they did not accept the idea of the Corwin Amendment in the Confederate Constitution. I said they did not accept the Corwin Amendment offered by the North in exchange for giving up their independence. Obviously their main concerns were not for the continuance of slavery which many Southerners saw would come to an end - just as it was in the Northern states and just as it already had in several other Western countries.

BROJOEK: Read what you quoted me as saying again. The fact remains -- all your denials notwithstanding -- that Confederates loved and embraced Corwin so much they copied and pasted it directly into their own Montgomery CSA constitution.

The fact remains that the Corwin Amendment came out before the Confederate Constitution AND the original 7 seceding states rejected it in exchange for giving up their independence when offered it by the North.

BROJOEK: Naw... Confederates didn't "turn it down" because that was never even a question for them.<

Nah. They turned it down because slavery was not their main concern. Their real concern was gaining their independence so they'd be free of the grasp of imperial Washington and so they could set their own economic policy for their own benefit rather than be taxed for others' benefit.

BroJoeK: Those are all lies.

Nope! They're all 100% true.

BroJoeK: The truth is that Crazy Roger Taney (why do you think I call him "Crazy Roger"??) abolished all such restrictions on the alleged "right to sojourn" in free states and territories!!!

Nope. That is pure fiction. Firstly, Taney did not decide the case himself. The entire SCOTUS decided the case. The ruling was that a slave owner had the right of transit with his property and could not be excluded from the territories. Nowhere in the ruling did it say that states that had abolished slavery or which did not have slavery must now accept slavery if somebody brought their slaves in from out of state. That's just your insane little fantasy.

BroJoeK: Crazy Roger claimed there were no limits on a slaveholder's rights to take his "property" into other states and stay there as long as he wanted.

False. Your knowledge of the law is as faulty as your knowledge of history. The ruling by the majority of the SCOTUS was that slaveowners and their slaves could not be excluded from a territory. As for a state, it was never ruled that a slave owner could reside in a non slave state with his slaves. He could transit yes, but nowhere does it say he could reside. Dred Scott's lawyers argued that because he had resided in Wisconsin and Illinois he therefore should be emancipated but he was a resident of Missouri at the time where slavery was legal. Had he still been an Illinois or Wisconsin resident, THAT would be a different set of facts and almost certainly a different ruling by the SCOTUS.

BroJoeK: Consider the case of Dred Scott, the man, a slave taken from the slave-state of Missouri to the free-state of Illinois and lived there for six years!!, from 1830 to 1836, and then was taken to the free-territory of Wisconsin for another four years!!, from 1836 to 1840. So Dred Scott had lived in free-states or territories for 10 years and yet Crazy Roger still claimed that was not long enough to declare the man, Dred Scott (or his family), freed.

Not exactly. He didn't sue when he lived in those states. Had he done so, that would have been an entirely different set of facts. Effectively, he "sat on his rights" when he was a resident of those two states and lost them when he moved to Missouri where slavery was legal and he only then brought his lawsuit. The way the SCOTUS ruled in this case is consistent with many other cases in which there is a similar fact pattern.

BroJoeK: Indeed, the lunatic Crazy Roger Taney and his insane Democrat fellow SCOTUS justices declared that not only could Dred Scott never be freed by living in free states & territories, but also, that even if Dred Scott were voluntarily freed, as an African-American, the man could never become a US citizen with all the rights and privileges of other US citizens, i.e., voting, juries, military service, etc.

Nope. You didn't understand the ruling. They ruled that since he was in Missouri where slavery was legal, he couldn't make his case that he should be free. Obviously he should have sued when a resident of Wisconsin or Illinois. The Supreme Court did rule that Blacks could not be citizens. That was a majority opinion in most of the country at the time including in Illinois and Wisconsin.

BroJoeK: How is you do not yet grasp the depths of depravity in Crazy Roger Taney's Dred Scott opinions??

What I grasp is that you not only don't know history, you also don't know the law and furthermore, you are incapable of discussing this without grade school level namecalling of anybody you disagree with.

BroJoeK: Again, those are lies.

Again, no they're not.

BroJoeK: The truth is that Crazy Roger's Dred Scott ravings effectively declared all such laws unconstitutional and invalid, and removed all limitations on the lengths of time slaveholders could "sojourn" with their "property" in free-states & territories.

The truth is you don't know what the hell you're talking about - as usual. The ruling of the SCOTUS did not "remove all limitations on the lengths of time slaveholders could remain in free states".

BroJoeK: None of which you've presented here for closer inspection.

LOL! Feel free to look it up yourself.

BroJoeK: Nooo... "Crazy Roger" is not "name-calling", it is a factual description of a raving lunatic, as were his fellow Democrat SCOTUS justices, as are Democrats today. Indeed, the very word, "Democratic" from the beginning in the 1790s meant, "stark raving Jacobin lunatics" of the French Revolution. So, while Thomas Jefferson called himself a small-r republican, his Federalist opponents called his party the Democratic-republicans, by which they meant "lunatics". And, of course, Jeffersonians were perfectly happy with the designation and so kept the name "Democratics". So, Democrats always were, and remain insane, none more so than Crazy Roger Taney.

More childish namecalling and ahistorical gibberish.

BroJoeK: And yet nobody in any document of the time mentioned the Morrill Tariff as a reason for secession. What every such document did mention, some of them exclusively, was slavery.

And yet, 3 of the 4 states that issued declarations of causes for secession talked extensively about tariffs (general not just the current one working its way through congress at the time) and grossly unequal federal pork barrel spending EVEN THOUGH THIS WAS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. WAS NOT. No matter how much they hated it, thought it exploitative and totally unfair, Southerners could not argue any of this was illegal or in any way violated the compact between the states. What did actually violate the compact was the Northern states violations of the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution. So naturally, they cited that. When offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment - but no relief from the absolutely crushing tariffs to be imposed - the original 7 seceding states said No.

BroJoeK: Again, you're just lying.

Again, no. You are lying. I provided the link which said exactly that.

BroJoek: The truth is that all of those states, plus the entirety of the Old Northwest Territories had begun to abolish slavery before the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

The truth is they had not abolished slavery by 1787 with the lone exception of Massachusetts....though Massachusetts was more than happy to keep trading in slaves. They just didn't want any brought back to their territory.

BroJoeK: 1777 Vermont 1780 Pennsylvania 1783 Massachusetts 1783 New Hampshire 1784 Conncecticut 1784 Rhode Island

None of them had abolished slavery by those dates except Massachusetts - see above.

BroJoeK: So, bottom line: your repeated claims -- that our Founders didn't care about slavery and weren't working to abolish it -- those claims are simply untrue.

Here you're making a strawman argument. I never said the Founding Fathers "didn't care" about slavery. I said it wasn't nearly as big of a deal and was something that could be compromised over and which they thought would die out on its own - which they were undoubtedly right about. Just look at everywhere else in Europe, the Western Hemisphere, the European colonial Empires around the world, etc. It did died out in the 19th century in all those places.

The Founding Fathers were working to limit it. That's all. They didn't try to abolish it. They didn't believe they needed to try to do so.