Replies

We've covered this ground before and you know perfectly well what those words mean, but chose to lie about it. In the years 1787, 1792 and even 1857 those words, regardless of what DiogenesLamp claims today, or what the Supreme Court declared in 1857, those words at the time only referred to Fugitive Slaves, they did not grant "rights" to slave-holders such as President Washington to bring their slaves permanently into non-slave states like Pennsylvania.

So you tell me, but how can a state enforce this interpretation? Can they legally bar slave owners from bringing their slaves into a state? Can they bar him from living on land he owns in the state? Can they bar him from using those slaves to work his land, you know, like George Washington did?

What is the state's recourse if a man simply says "your laws are unconstitutional and I refuse to abide by them?" Whether it's original intent was to deal exclusively with fugitive slaves, it's text requires that a slave be returned back to the person to whom the labor is due according to the laws of the state where he is held in labor.

People can claim a distinction, but the text of Article IV does not support this claim.

Oh, and states routinely violated the "fugitive slave" aspect too, so more or less they just didn't want to obey constitutional law.

The rights of states to abolish or restrict slavery were respected by our most important Founder, George Washington, and that should establish Founders' Original Intent for all time, regardless of what DiogenesLamp likes to pretend today.

He made a pretense of respecting Pennsylvania's law by rotating his slaves in and out of Pennsylvania every six months. But Pennsylvania still had slaves despite the state law. I suspect if they had grabbed one or more of his slaves, and if it had gone to Federal court, the court would have ruled that they have to give them back.

But George Washington was trying to strengthen the coalition, not tear it apart.

Indeed, there is no Founder -- none, zero, nada Founder -- DiogenesLamp can quote to support his ludicrous claim that the US Constitution forbids states from abolishing slavery within their own boundaries.

I don't have to quote George Washington, all I have to do is point out that his actions spoke louder than any words he may have said on the subject, and his actions contradict your claimed interpretation.

DiogenesLamp: "So you tell me, but how can a state enforce this interpretation?"

The same way they enforced every other constitutionally valid law.

"Can they legally bar slave owners from bringing their slaves into a state?"
Permanently without freeing them, yes, they could and did and for 70 (seventy!) years before the Supreme Court's absurd Dred Scott ruling, no Founding Father's statement, no law of Congress or ruling of courts overturned states rights to abolish slavery as they saw fit.
"Can they bar him from living on land he owns in the state?
No but they could and did prevent him from permanently keeping slaves there, and for 70 (seventy!) years before the Supreme Court's absurd Dred Scott ruling, no Founding Father's statement, no law of Congress or ruling of courts overturned states rights to abolish slavery as they saw fit.
"Can they bar him from using those slaves to work his land, you know, like George Washington did?"
Permanently, yes they could and did and for 70 (seventy!) years before the Supreme Court's absurd Dred Scott ruling, no Founding Father's statement, no law of Congress or ruling of courts overturned states rights to abolish slavery as they saw fit."

DiogenesLamp: "What is the state's recourse if a man simply says 'your laws are unconstitutional and I refuse to abide by them?' "

The same as enforcing any other law and for 70 (seventy!) years before the Supreme Court's absurd Dred Scott ruling, no Founding Father's statement, no law of Congress or ruling of courts overturned states rights to abolish slavery as they saw fit."

DiogenesLamp: ""Whether it's original intent was to deal exclusively with fugitive slaves, it's text requires that a slave be returned back to the person to whom the labor is due according to the laws of the state where he is held in labor."

Returning fugitive slaves was all it required and for 70 (seventy!) years before the Supreme Court's absurd Dred Scott ruling, no Founding Father's statement, no law of Congress or ruling of courts overturned states rights to abolish slavery as they saw fit."

DiogenesLamp: "Oh, and states routinely violated the "fugitive slave" aspect too, so more or less they just didn't want to obey constitutional law."

But in this case there was no constitutional law for them to violate, only DiogenesLamps' absurd warped 21st century fantasies.

DiogenesLamp on President Washington: "He made a pretense of respecting Pennsylvania's law by rotating his slaves in and out of Pennsylvania every six months."

But there was no "pretense", Washington obeyed Pennsylvania's law of that time, period.

DiogenesLamp: "But Pennsylvania still had slaves despite the state law."

Like almost every other Northern state, Pennsylvania abolished slavery gradually.

DiogenesLamp: "I suspect if they had grabbed one or more of his slaves, and if it had gone to Federal court, the court would have ruled that they have to give them back.
But George Washington was trying to strengthen the coalition, not tear it apart."

Whatever you may "suspect" there's no historical evidence for your absurd 21st century fantasies.

DiogenesLamp: "I don't have to quote George Washington..."

But you do have to quote some recognized Founders if you wish to establish Founders' Original Intent and that term defines today's Conservatives.
Without it you are not Conservative and don't belong posting on Free Republic as one of us.

DiogenesLamp: "...all I have to do is point out that his actions spoke louder than any words he may have said on the subject, and his actions contradict your claimed interpretation."

But no action by Washington, or any other Founder, supports your 21st century fantasies or opposes Founders' Original Intent.