Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: BroJoeK
Point is: there is no possibility that the US Supreme Court in 1790 was going to strike down a Northern state's anti-slavery laws, because that was simply not part of the Founders' Original Intent & understandings.

Speculation and non sequitur. More like they wouldn't come down harsh on anybody in the early days because they didn't want to blow apart the coalition while everyone could still remember that it was joined voluntarily.

It took "four score and seven years" for people to forget that.

In the case of slavery, it is absolutely beyond reasonable dispute that our Founders intended both that Northern states could lawfully abolish slavery, and that the Federal government could pass restrictions against it in, for examples, international waters and US western territories.

So then tell me Mr BroJoeK who spends more time on snark than actually rebuttal, how can you stop slavery in a "free state" when you can't restrict travel to and from slave states? You assert that this is somehow possible, but you have yet to explain how it is possible.

You bitch about my foolish understanding, but all you do is ASSERT that it is foolish, you never demonstrate it to be foolish. You hand wave.

So let's say you are a slave owner living in Georgia, and you decide to take your slave to Massachusetts.

So what happens next? You tell me.

907 posted on 09/06/2015 3:24:46 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 875 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp; rockrr; Ditto
DiogenesLamp: "So let's say you are a slave owner living in Georgia, and you decide to take your slave to Massachusetts.
So what happens next? You tell me."

As you should expect, each state had its own laws governing such matters, with no two exactly the same.
In the particular case of Massachusetts my understanding is that slaves brought into that state remained slaves unless & until they sued in court for their freedom, at which point it would be granted, by Massachusetts, regardless of laws in their "master's" home state.

And Massachusetts' practice was one of the first in the nation, in effect at the time of the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
So there is no possibility that Massachusetts would agree to a Constitution which was intended to restrict Massachusetts from abolishing its own slavery.

DiogenesLamp: "You bitch about my foolish understanding, but all you do is ASSERT that it is foolish, you never demonstrate it to be foolish.
You hand wave."

He says while wildly waving his hands & arms in the air!

Pal, that very word "DiogenesLamp" translates into normal English as: "master of unsubstantiated assertions."
And you wish to claim my points are not demonstrated??

The truth is your reading comprehension is so low, you couldn't even see a substantiation if it were right in front of your wildly waving arms & hands.

950 posted on 09/06/2015 5:45:09 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 907 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson