DiogenesLamp to HandyDandy: “...should the issue have come to a lawsuit, a Federal Court might very well have ruled against the State. (Depends on whether they got a Liberal Judge or not.)
I don’t see how they can lawfully deprive a person of what was regarded by the law of that time as “property.”
It would be legally the same as arguing a man forfeits his wagon or his land if he crosses a state border.
I don’t see how that passes constitutional muster.”
But the whole point here is: it’s just ludicrous to fantasize that in *1790* a Federal judge might declare some state’s slavery laws “unconstitutional”.
That would be contrary to the spirit of the times, which George Washington both understood and obeyed.
I suspect you would have gotten different results from different Federal Judges. Those in the South would likely have abrogated such state laws, while those in the North likely would not have done so.
But we must contemplate what an objective judge would have done, had such a case come before him, and I don't see how someone objectively applying the laws of the day could have ignored that provision in article IV.
That would be contrary to the spirit of the times, which George Washington both understood and obeyed.
It also argues states were a lot more autonomous than they are now.
It's odd, but this is a case where you seem to be championing states rights against the Federal Constitution. I expect that soon you are going to argue that the North had a right to secede from the South over slavery. :)
Woulda, coulda, shoulda - that’s all DegenerateLamp has in his quiver.
Here we go again. How many years after the war and we still have beat the brains out of the South. What is the motivation on this, I wonder? To me it is simply sick, sick and sick.