How does it legally do that? If it could not prohibit slavery in it's own capitol city, how could it do so in a territory? Did not the constitution require all states to respect Article IV, section 2? How could this apply less in a territory than to a state?
It could also repeal or stop enforcing fugitive slave laws.
You have read article IV, Section 2, have you not? How can congress pass a "law" that overrides a constitutional clause? Is not the constitution the highest law in the land? What you are proposing they do sounds completely unconstitutional.
It could seat judges who would overturn Dred Scott.
Now here you might have something. And who appoints the Judges? Yes, of course, Liberal judges would overturn real and actual law with a creative "interpretation" of it that would mean the exact opposite of what the law said.
But does this not make the Judiciary a sort of never ending constitutional convention, and aren't we supposed to oppose creative or flexible interpretations of law?
Eventually, it could vote a system of voluntary compensated emancipation that might begin to unravel the slave system.
The slave system was going to unravel anyways, it was just going to take awhile. Yes, Congress could offer to buy the slaves, but considering a slave was around $1,000 dollars in 1860 currency (close to $100,000.00 in Modern equivalence) it would have been a very expensive scheme.
But saying that the government couldn't abolish slavery doesn't refute the fact that Southerners feared that Lincoln's election meant the eventual end of slavery.
I think his election signaled to them that they would always be the rump and their concerns and interests would always be dismissed.
Here's an article I picked out more or less at random from an 1860 issue: "The Issues of 1860." The article just gets crazier and crazier as you go along. When you think you've seen it all, it dives deeper into nonsense and madness. But that was how a lot of people thought at the time.
Harper's Ferry scared the sh*t out of them. When you have the potential for a massive slave rebellion aided by Liberal kooks from the North (not unlike liberal kooks of today) trying to arm and lead them, it can make you paranoid.
There was a kind of domino theory at work here. If Kansas goes, so does Missouri, so does the Indian Territory, and so eventually do Arkansas and Texas.
If the Constitution could not protect their institution in the territories, it would eventually not be able to protect it in the states either, so they weren't all that far wrong in this perception. Eventually the territories would become states, and outvote them. They would likely face the loss of their billions of dollars of investments in slavery if the trend continued.
The thought of losing virtually all your wealth would also tend to make people a little crazy.
Slavery was abolished in DC by Congress in 1862. For the rest, take it up with the Continental Congress which abolished slavery in the Northwest Territory. It was Thomas Jefferson's idea (one of his better ones). Nobody questioned it until Dred Scott, and once the old prune-faced, slave-owning judges died off, that wouldn't be a problem.
You have read article IV, Section 2, have you not? How can congress pass a "law" that overrides a constitutional clause? Is not the constitution the highest law in the land? What you are proposing they do sounds completely unconstitutional.
Congress could reduce the incentives for hunting down slaves and the punishments for hiding them. While there was an obligation to return fugitives "held to service or labour" to the state they came from Congress and the states didn't have to make that easy. And that was what secessionists feared.
Yes, of course, Liberal judges would overturn real and actual law with a creative "interpretation" of it that would mean the exact opposite of what the law said.
Taney was the liberal judge who overturned state laws with a sweeping interpretation of the Constitution that nobody accepted before him. More responsible judges could be appointed who wouldn't try to overturn decades of laws made by the free states.
But does this not make the Judiciary a sort of never ending constitutional convention, and aren't we supposed to oppose creative or flexible interpretations of law?
That's what Taney's interpretation was. Creative and flexible.
The slave system was going to unravel anyways, it was just going to take awhile.
More BS about slavery going to unravel anyway. People didn't know that at the time, and if they did, why not let it unravel? Why work so hard to keep it in place?
Yes, Congress could offer to buy the slaves, but considering a slave was around $1,000 dollars in 1860 currency (close to $100,000.00 in Modern equivalence) it would have been a very expensive scheme.
D-uh. It's about political and cultural power. You buy the slaves from the poorer slave owners and free them. This weakens the political basis for slavery and the culture of slave-owning. Just what would happen with the slaves afterwards would be difficult for Americans of the time to work out, but reducing the number of slaves and slave owners would really help to unravel slavery. And that was what slave owners were afraid of.
I think his election signaled to them that they would always be the rump and their concerns and interests would always be dismissed.
Always? Slave owners were riding high for decades. They wrote the laws. Even after Lincoln was elected, it was a matter of arguing well and using their power wisely to preserve some of their privileges. They didn't want to do that. They wanted independence and a monopoly on power in their own country.
If the Constitution could not protect their institution in the territories, it would eventually not be able to protect it in the states either, so they weren't all that far wrong in this perception. Eventually the territories would become states, and outvote them. They would likely face the loss of their billions of dollars of investments in slavery if the trend continued.
So it was all about slavery.
Thank you.