The Danger in Republicans' Fight to Own Lincoln's Legacy

American Thinker ^ | 08/27/2018 | By William Sullivan

[DiogenesLamp]

Sure, fugitive slaves, but Dred Scott was no fugitive.

Here you go mincing definitions of words to try to twist them to agree with your theory.

The word "fugitive" is not in Article 4, section 2. The word "escaping" is, but in the context of saying that no law of any state can prevent a laborer from being returned to the person to whom their labor is due, the operative point would seem to be that the rights of the slaveowner override state laws intended to separate him from his slave.

What Dred Scott attempted was an "escape" by means of those laws that the constitution already said could not override the right of the slave owner to the slave.

You just don't want to face the fact that Dred Scott could not prevail because of Article 4, section 2.

You want to use creative interpretation to get the result you want, rather than accept the Constitution's plain words on the subject.

colluded to overturn 70 years of legal precident.

Legal indulgence of defying the law. "Precedent" means nothing if previous cases were decided wrongly from the beginning, and they clearly were.

[BroJoeK]

spintreebob: "Democrats care not only about other Democrats, they truly care about Republicans and want to force us to do things that are for our own good."

Hopefully, you mean that sarcastically.
Naturally the one thing Democrats care most about Republicans is that we should unburden ourselves of any monies necessary to support their even greater care for their own voters.

Just guessing, that's part of what you intended.

[DiogenesLamp]

I have hit upon an idea. I shall ask you to explain what this means.

"No Person ...shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour...

What does that section mean?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "You are trying to legitimize the deliberate thwarting of the will of the people of those states.
No, the Federal Government does not get to decide who is a citizen and who has the rights of a citizen."

Sorry, but you have it exactly backwards.
Confederates declared themselves non-citizens of the United States, then declared & waged war against the United States.
So there was never a question of Confederates voting in 1865, it was impossible once they'd declared themselves non-citizens.
Congress used its Constitutional authority (see Article 1, section 8) to establish rules for ex-Confederates' naturalization.

DiogenesLamp: "Those people who were citizens of those states, could not legally be deprived of their right to vote. "

Except if they had declared themselves non-citizens, then declared & waged war on the United States.
Then Congress's authority to establish rules of naturalization came into effect.

DiogenesLamp: "The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments could not have been ratified if legal process was followed.
They could only be "ratified" by a trick of declaring the valid voters disenfranchised, and then creating new voters out of thin air and contrary to the laws of those states. "

But there was no "trick" since Confederates had long before declared themselves non-citizens and waged war on the United States.

DiogenesLamp: "But as with many liberals, they don't care how they get what they want, so long as they get what they want."

Obviously you refer here to Democrats like yourself who'll use any trick in the book (or out of it) to defeat the US Constitution, when that serves their own higher interests.

A Harper's Weekly image of post-war South:

[DiogenesLamp]

Confederates declared themselves non-citizens of the United States, then declared & waged war against the United States.

What does it matter to the adherents of the US Constitution what they declare? Do they run things? Should not the acts of the United States Government be controlled by the US Constitution, and not the pronouncements of others?

So there was never a question of Confederates voting in 1865, it was impossible once they'd declared themselves non-citizens.

You are granting them the authority to declare themselves non-citizens, while rejecting their authority to be non-citizens?

That doesn't make any sense at all. They are either the one thing or the other. They cannot be both at the same time, so you will have to pick one or the other.

Except if they had declared themselves non-citizens, then declared & waged war on the United States. Then Congress's authority to establish rules of naturalization came into effect.

Congress cannot declare citizens of Virginia to be not citizens of Virginia. As citizenship of that era was dependent upon being the citizen of a state, it was beyond the power of the Federal government to say who were or were not citizens of Virginia or any of the other States.

You either have to eject the state from the Union, or you have to accept the State's law on who is or is not a citizen of that state.

Or you could point guns at the citizens, declare them to be non citizens, and tell them you will shoot them if they disagree with you, and you can by this means overthrow every law legitimately enacted by their legislature. Of course that is extra-constitutional dictatorship.

But there was no "trick" since Confederates had long before declared themselves non-citizens and waged war on the United States.

They don't get to decide. They are citizens of the States in which they were born, and no one can declare them non-citizens. You can't strip someone's citizenship by decree, especially en masse . You have to go through "due process".

You are doing that "Living Constitution" crap again.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The word "fugitive" is not in Article 4, section 2.
The word "escaping" is, but in the context of saying that no law of any state can prevent a laborer from being returned to the person to whom their labor is due, the operative point would seem to be that the rights of the slaveowner override state laws intended to separate him from his slave. "

"Would seem to be"??
To whom would it "seem to be"?
Not to our Founders, no Founder ever expressed such an opinion.
Not to Southerners themselves in 1860, since no "Reasons for Secession" document argues such a ridiculous point.

Indeed, to my knowledge not even crazy Roger Taney argued such a nonsensical opinion.
Check it out, FRiend, that's not what Taney said.
What Taney said instead was: blacks were not people, could not be freed and had no rights that needed to be respected.
Taney's words:

[Black Africans imported as slaves] "...had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations;
and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect;
and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.
He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic... "

Lincoln responded accurately:

"We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free; and we shall awake to the reality, instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State."

But none of Taney's opinion is in the Constitution, or Declaration, it's all just Democrats doing what Democrats do -- making it up as they go along, whatever works for them!

DiogenesLamp: "What Dred Scott attempted was an "escape" by means of those laws that the constitution already said could not override the right of the slave owner to the slave. "

Now you've slid from the ridiculous to the absurd.
That is a complete crock of nonsense which not even Roger Taney himself dared to argue.

DiogenesLamp: "You just don't want to face the fact that Dred Scott could not prevail because of Article 4, section 2. "

Nobody at the time except slaveholders themselves believed Roger Taney's opinions represented anything other than a gross abuse of the Constitution.

DiogenesLamp: "Legal indulgence of defying the law.
"Precedent" means nothing if previous cases were decided wrongly from the beginning, and they clearly were."

Precedent based on Founders' Original Intent.
No Founders expected their words to be grossly distorted by the likes of Roger Taney and DiogenesLamp

[x]

"Natural History of the Prognathous Race of Mankind"

Go easy on the "Prognathous."

That "Amish" thing was funny at first, but it got tired fast.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "What does it matter to the adherents of the US Constitution what they declare?
Do they run things?
Should not the acts of the United States Government be controlled by the US Constitution, and not the pronouncements of others? "

If by "others" you mean Confederates, then of course you're right, those "others" should have no say in government until they'd been "naturalized" by Congress or pardoned by the President.

In due time both naturalization and pardons happened and so Confederates were successful in nullifying the 13th, 14th & 15th for the next ~100 years.
Aren't you proud of them for that?

DiogenesLamp: "You are granting them the authority to declare themselves non-citizens, while rejecting their authority to be non-citizens?
That doesn't make any sense at all."

No, I've granted nothing -- Confederates took authority illegitimately, then got back their citizenships in due time, legitimately.

DiogenesLamp: "They are either the one thing or the other.
They cannot be both at the same time, so you will have to pick one or the other. "

I "pick" that DiogenesLamp has drawn up a false dilemma.
Having declared themselves non-citizens and war against the United States, they required either "naturalization" by Congress or pardon by the President.
In the end they got both.

DiogenesLamp: "Congress cannot declare citizens of Virginia to be not citizens of Virginia."

Some citizens of Virginia declared themselves to be non-citizens of the United States and waged war on the US.
As a consequence, they were (temporarily) not recognized as legitimate voters by Congress.

DiogenesLamp: "As citizenship of that era was dependent upon being the citizen of a state, it was beyond the power of the Federal government to say who were or were not citizens of Virginia or any of the other States. "

Except when Confederates declared themselves to be non-citizens, they could no longer vote for congress or President.
Others who had not waged war against the US voted instead.

DiogenesLamp: "You either have to eject the state from the Union, or you have to accept the State's law on who is or is not a citizen of that state."

Except when certain "combinations" declare themselves non-citizens and wage war against the United States.
Those non-citizens don't get to vote until they've been either "naturalized" or pardoned.

DiogenesLamp: "Or you could point guns at the citizens, declare them to be non citizens, and tell them you will shoot them if they disagree with you, and you can by this means overthrow every law legitimately enacted by their legislature.
Of course that is extra-constitutional dictatorship. "

You've rather well described the behavior of Confederates in declaring themselves non-citizens of the USA and forcing their fellow Southerners to go along with them.
After the war, in due time, those Confederates were permitted naturalization or pardon and most took one or the other.

DiogenesLamp: "They don't get to decide.
They are citizens of the States in which they were born, and no one can declare them non-citizens."

They declared themselves non-citizens of the United States and waged war against US citizens.
As such they lost their franchise in the United States, temporarily.

DiogenesLamp: "You can't strip someone's citizenship by decree, especially en masse .
You have to go through "due process". "

Or through Civil War, that counts as "process" too, you know.
So, to repeat for the umpteenth time: Confederates stripped themselves en masse of their citizenship, then to seal the deal they declared & waged war on the United States.
Getting their US citizenships back took both time and "due process", but did eventually happen.

[BroJoeK]

LOL

I was just looking for a photo with Taney & Scott side by side, didn't read the article.

What does that even mean, "Prognathous race"?

Amish thing?

[spintreebob]

No! Most Democrats really think that Republicans would be better with single payer medicare for all.
Most Democrats reall think that Republicans would be better off with government subsidy of renewable energy.
Most Democrats really believe that they can run your life better than you can yourself.

And they want to do it as they are really concerned that you get the best. I am not being sarcastic. They reall think this way. Most of them want the best for you..and they think they know what it is.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "What does that section mean?"

It means what it says:

"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof,
escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein,
be discharged from such Service or Labour,
But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

It means exactly what it says, "escaping into another" -- the fugitive slave clause.
It says nothing about slaves taken permanently into a free-state not being subject to that states abolition laws.
And everybody, even crazy Roger Taney, understood that until DiogenesLamp came along to claim differently.

[BroJoeK]

spinetreebob: "And they want to do it as they are really concerned that you get the best.
I am not being sarcastic.
They reall think this way.
Most of them want the best for you..and they think they know what it is."

Oh well... I'd be near the top of their "deplorable & irredeemable" list, so the only thing they'd want for me is to... oh, maybe Bork/Thomas/Kavanaugh (BTK) me.

;-)

[jeffersondem]

“It’s not just this one question, over time there are dozens you’ve refused to answer forthrightly, beginning with: are you even American, much less Southern?”

Your attempt to make this thread about me instead of Lincoln is part of your galloping goalpost strategy.

I’m just a schoolboy and it doesn’t matter which zip code my construction worker father was welding in when his wife had their third son.

I anticipate your next attack. Yes, I threw an ice cube at my best friend Freddy in school.

[jeffersondem]

“No Founders expected their words to be grossly distorted by the likes of Roger Taney . . .”

It was a 7-2 decision if I recall. Not even close.

But it was said to be a controversial decision, then as now. Somewhat surprisingly, no northern Congress member introduced a proposed constitutional amendment to abolish slavery before the war (Lincoln’s War).

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Your attempt to make this thread about me instead of Lincoln is part of your galloping goalpost strategy."

Naw, it's just nice to have some small idea of who or what we're "talking" to, especially for a poster as... ah... unusual as yourself.

jeffersondem: "I’m just a schoolboy and it doesn’t matter which zip code my construction worker father was welding in when his wife had their third son."

If that's really true then I am really beyond impressed, I'm amazed.
But "schoolboy" means what, exactly, and what type of school?
I doubt if the ideas you post & defend here can be picked up in any public school today.
So what extracurricular activity brings you to Free Republic's CW threads?

FWIW, my Dad was a third son and a very remarkable person.
I've also lived in many states, half in the South, the other half split between western & northern, plus overseas in the Army.
But obviously your sympathies are with the Confederacy so that implies your family is Southern and you yourself have lived in Southern states.
Still, you've never posted that, exactly.
Instead, even your post here leaves room that your "construction worker father" may have been working in... oh, maybe, Australia.
If that's not the case, why not just say so?

jeffersondem: "Yes, I threw an ice cube at my best friend Freddy in school."

Oh, dear... ;-)

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem on Dred Scott: "It was a 7-2 decision if I recall.
Not even close."

Thus demonstrating beyond all reasonable dispute that Southern Democrats ruled over Washington, DC, certainly in 1857 and arguably until secession in 1861.

jeffersondem: "Somewhat surprisingly, no northern Congress member introduced a proposed constitutional amendment to abolish slavery before the war (Lincoln’s War)."

Not surprising, since pro-slavery Southern & Northern Democrats ruled both houses of Congress, the Presidency, Supreme Court and most state legislatures, so no such proposal would go anywhere.
And unlike, for example, today's Democrats, Republicans then were not big on empty gestures.

(Davis' war)

;-)

[jeffersondem]

“Instead, even your post here leaves room that your “construction worker father” may have been working in... oh, maybe, Australia.”

No - far as I can tell none of our people ever got down that far. It is a beautiful country though from what I’ve read in the books. Like to visit Vienna one day that’s for sure.

[jeffersondem]

“I doubt if the ideas you post & defend here can be picked up in any public school today.”

I guess that’s about the nicest thing anyone ever said to me.

And to think it came from someone way up north.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: " Like to visit Vienna one day that’s for sure."

Thus lending credence to your claim of being a mere "schoolboy".
I was never in Vienna, but did visit some wonderfully beautiful country in the western states of Tyrol & Salzburg.

And if you truly are a mere "schoolboy" then I'd highly recommend you visit there the same way I did -- courtesy of Uncle Sam's Army. ;-)

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "And to think it came from someone way up north."

When I was a mere "schoolboy" many of the ideas you defend here were indeed taught throughout the South.
It's the reason I think of most Lost Cause defenders as being in more-or-less the same stage of life as myself.

Today your claim to being a "schoolboy" means either A) you exaggerate your youth or B) you are not learning history from public schools.
That leaves what, homeschool?
Your parents are teaching you what they learned, back in the day?