That only became somewhat true in 1857 with the Supreme Court's Dred-Scott decision which said, in effect, Africans could never be citizens and slaves remained slaves regardless of which state they lived in.
However, before Dred-Scott it was understood by all, including President Washington, that each state could make its own laws regarding slavery & abolition.
Yes, fugitive slaves must be returned, but slave holders could not permanently bring their slaves into free states or territories.
DiogenesLamp: "Only through a constitutional amendment could any law overturn or undermine Article IV Section II."
Sure, that's why the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865.
However, the accepted interpretation of the Constitution before Dred-Scott did not rule out states' abolition and Congress outlawing slavery in territories.
Your suggestions otherwise are pure historical revisionism.
DiogenesLamp: "Funny thing is, they promised them they wouldn't interfere with Slavery, they even went so far as to offer to pass an amendment protecting it in perpetuity, (Corwin Amendment) and yet the first thing they did when they actually achieved power over the South was to do exactly the thing that they said they wouldn't do."
When the Confederacy first provoked war, then started, formally declared and waged war against the United States it effectively released the Union from any such promises.
DiogenesLamp: "Their stated reasons for doing so was "moral reasons", but I cannot help but notice that it not only evaporates 4.5 billion dollars worth of Capital in the South, it crippled them economically as well."
Yes, it's true by 1860 the Deep South especially was booming like no other economy in history.
White slave-holders there, of which nearly 50% of families did, were much better off than even their own Northern cousins.
After the Civil War, not so much.
However, over the next 50+ years the US economy as a whole doubled, re-doubled, re-doubled and doubled yet again from GDP of $4 billion in 1860 to $40 billion in 1914.
Yes, the South lagged behind, but it did participate in the overall expansion, for example, cotton production compared to 1860 grew by 20% in 1870 and 50% by 1890.
DiogenesLamp: "Money/Power. Money/Power. Money/Power. It all comes back to money and power."
Sure, possibly for a committed Marxist like DiogenesLamp.
But most Americans then and now recognize both a Higher Power and nobler causes.
DiogenesLamp: "Of course the next thing that happened was massive corruption in Washington DC and that has lingered in that City ever since."
No, since Democrats were in charge before 1860 and "Democrats" are one definition of the word "corruption".
There's no evidence -- none, zero, nada -- that the percentage of corruption was any different after 1865 than it was before 1860.
Of course the US economy did grow, from $4 billion to $40 billion, and that may explain something.
It was always true. It's just that most of the Northern states had gotten into the habit of ignoring it and pretending it had no effect on them. It was still constitutional law (which they agreed to upon Union) but they didn't like it so they pretended it wasn't there. (Kinda like liberals do with the Second Amendment, and lately the first.)
...which said, in effect, Africans could never be citizens and slaves remained slaves regardless of which state they lived in.
The first part is incorrect, and demonstrably so with the available evidence at the time. The Second part is correct according to the clear meaning of the law at the time.
The Article made it clear that the laws of the State where the labor was due applied. So long as the laws of another state compelled the labor, no law of any other state could gainsay it.
However, before Dred-Scott it was understood by all, including President Washington, that each state could make its own laws regarding slavery & abolition.
I don't know whether they understood it to mean that or not, but the clear text of the law says that the laws of the state which compels the labor is to apply.
Yes, fugitive slaves must be returned, but slave holders could not permanently bring their slaves into free states or territories.
How does the law ban that which is legal in a state from a Territory? Sounds like sophistry to me. Even if Congress passed a law banning slavery in the Territories, I think the Supreme Court would have struck it down as unconstitutional, because the Constitution clearly says the laws of the state to which the labor is due are to be applied. Dred Scott did in effect do that.
It also sounds like a violation of the "takings" clause.
Sure, that's why the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865. However, the accepted interpretation of the Constitution before Dred-Scott did not rule out states' abolition and Congress outlawing slavery in territories.
The tolerated (after Prigg v Pennsylvania) interpretation. Tolerated until Dred Scott, that is. Sure, states had the right to ban the creation of new slaves in their state, but they could do nothing about slaves created elsewhere. So long as someone brings in Slaves from outside their state, Article IV requires the States to effectively leave them alone.
Your suggestions otherwise are pure historical revisionism.
They are refutations of existing historical revisionism. They are correcting the false claims of both modern people, and people in the past.
When the Confederacy first provoked war, then started, formally declared and waged war against the United States it effectively released the Union from any such promises.
Or put another way, We don't have to keep our promises so long as we are strong enough to beat you to death. Just stop with your moral justifications already. A promise is never weighed upon to whom it is given, a promise is a measure of the giver, not the receiver.
People of Honor keep their promises, and dishonorable people break theirs. I also reject your premise that it was the Confederacy who started the war. Holding land of no use to you and sending a war fleet to hold it further are themselves justification enough for war.
Yes, it's true by 1860 the Deep South especially was booming like no other economy in history. White slave-holders there, of which nearly 50% of families did, were much better off than even their own Northern cousins. After the Civil War, not so much.
And it wasn't love of the Black people that caused the Economic wreckage in the South. As i've said numerous times, New York was Rome and Charleston was Carthage, and it was hatred of an economic rival that motivated the conquerors to sow salt into the economic soil of the South. They evaporated 4.5 billion dollars worth of Capital out of revenge and to prevent future rivalry. They would guarantee that the South would never threaten them economically again.
It was all about Money and Power.
Sure, possibly for a committed Marxist like DiogenesLamp.
You still pushing that Marxism crap? Grow up.
But most Americans then and now recognize both a Higher Power and nobler causes.
Sure. That's why Illinois had laws preventing Black people from living in Illinois. Sure, a "higher power" and a noble concern for the plight of Black people is what motivated them. It had nothing to do with the money at all. It was just a coincidence that Lincoln intended to send all the Black people back to Africa, or Brazil (where they still had slavery)) or anyplace but the United State and it's a coincidence that he was an officer of an organization in Illinois dedicated to deporting Black People.
The "Noble Cause" stuff was for the gullible. Power Barons of the North East looked at the economics. They could not allow the South to become independent because that would upend their rice bowls.