Replies

Sorry, I’m on the road again, posting from allegedly “smart” phone, which really means: not so smart.

Two points: first, all my responses are calibrated to your comments.
In other words, where you make a serious remark involving both real facts and logic, my response will be on the same level.
Where you indulge in ridiculous assertions, my response will simply turn them back on you.
Clear?

Second, to repeat: it appears that you are trying to defend Roger Tanney’s Dred-Scott ruling, and I’m saying it’s just not defensible, on so many levels, that no serious scholar or historian since, to my knowledge, has done it.
And the key point about Dred-Scott is that in 1860 it outraged so many Northerners who believed slavery should he gradually abolished, they left the Whigs and even Democrats to vote for Lincoln ‘ s Republicans.

But, if you’re looking for a full legal disertation on “what’s wrong with Dred-Scott” you’ll need to spend time in a law library where they keep whole volumes on such questions.

Bottom line: several here have already expressed what what I think the Constitution ‘ s Fugitive Slave provision means, and I see no valid reason for you to attempt stretching it’s meaning to justify Tanney’s Dred-Scott ruling.

Where you indulge in ridiculous assertions, my response will simply turn them back on you. Clear?

Are you going to start doing that going forward? Because I haven't noticed you doing any such thing as that so far.

I have never been interested in argumentum ad populum or argumentum ad vericundiam. I believe people should articulate their own arguments for why they believe something instead of trying to pawn the heavy lifting off on "Authorities" or "Popularity."

In other words, you just want to be right, but don't want to go to the trouble of dealing with people showing you where you are wrong.

You articulate a position that does not seem rational. That what was legal at that time, and that specific provisions incorporated into the constitution when it was written to protect the legal status of that peculiar institution, do in fact protect the legal status of that peculiar institution.

They would appear to me to go way beyond the scope which you and the Northern Abolitionists wished to restrict them to.

You're claim that a man cannot take his slave into a free state lest he be freed by that's states laws simply does not seem a reasonable assertion regarding the intent of the 1787 Congress or the Ratifying states legislators.

Can a state pass a law telling a slave owner that he cannot come to their state? I don't think so.

Can a state pass a law telling a slave owner that he cannot bring his slave to their state lest they will free him?

Again, it seems as if the constitution blocks that path.

Indeed, I cannot see your legal argument for claiming that any state can get around that constitutional provision. All any slave owner need do is file suit in federal court asserting the state violated his rights as enumerated in article IV, and what can the state say in rebuttal?

I can see where they could free someone born into their laws, but I cannot see how they can free someone born into the laws of another state, at least not without violating the Union Compact, the breaking of which you seemed to regard as sufficient cause for a group of states leaving the Union.

So tell me how a state can abrogate the laws of another state as applied to their own citizens and their own citizens claims to service due?

I don't see how the constitution leaves you an out.

All I can see of it simply informs me that the Northern states should not have made such a deal if they didn't want to accept the ugly consequences of it.