Replies

In essence the 1780 Act did ban slavery. The only slaves recognized were those then existing as slaves of residents, and when they died off, there would never be any more. It was an orderly process. The Act did not presume to encroach on ownership of wagons, et al.

It is perfectly reasonable for a state to ban the creation of new slaves within it's borders and in accordance with it's own laws, but it does not seem reasonable to construe this power to extend to governing the status of the citizens of other states and their slaves governed by the laws of other states, should they chose to come to a non slave state.

If you can't prohibit slave owners and their slaves from coming into your state, by what legal argument can you prohibit slavery in non slave states?

I'm glad slavery is gone in the United States, (I wish it were gone from the rest of the world as well,) but I am not seeing any good legal arguments for being able to stop it beyond banning the creation of new slaves within a state.

Another thing to remember is that the supreme Court had yet to find the full force of it's self-anointed eminence. That would come later when the supreme Court turned into The Supremely Eminent Tribunal (under Taney, the former Attorney General under President Andrew Jackson).

Again, I am not seeing an error on Tanney's part here beyond his statement that no blacks can be citizens. (Which as I said is a non sequitur and goes too far) That the Declaration was not comprehended to apply to slaves is absolutely correct. That article IV makes it virtually impossible to ban slavery in non slave states also appears to be correct. (Even George Washington skirted the laws of Pennsylvania as you have related.)

To reiterate from a previous post, a very key point implied by Article IV was the recognition that there were slave-states and there were free-states and that they needed to recognize each other's rights.

I don't see that clause as doing anything useful for the non slave states. It seems wholly one sided, and I cannot help but think it was put in there simply to reassure the states in which slavery was still popular in 1787.