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.
The Northwest ordinance preceded the adoption of the Constitution. It is a conundrum as to why Taney would uphold it's ability to emancipate slaves in 1851, and then rebuke the same ability for a state in 1858.
Okay, I went and looked at the case. It was dismissed because of want of jurisdiction. It also points out that the North West ordinance required the return of escaped slaves.
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.
You mean they could just renege by making the enforcement of the law null and void. Yes they could have done so, and states did in fact start doing this with "Prigg v Pennsylvania." It's still reneging on the agreement.
Taney was the liberal judge who overturned state laws with a sweeping interpretation of the Constitution that nobody accepted before him.
It isn't a liberal interpretation. It states clearly what was the intent of the congress and the ratifying states when they created the constitution.
More responsible judges could be appointed who wouldn't try to overturn decades of laws made by the free states.
The free states were exceeding their authority. They could prohibit the creation of slaves in their own states, but they could not emancipate slaves created by the laws of other states. They had just got so used to doing what they wanted that they were outraged when someone finally told them "no."
That's what Taney's interpretation was. Creative and flexible.
In what way was it creative? The Constitution required slaves to be returned to their owners, and it specifies that such must be done in spite of any laws in any other states. What was creative was believing this was a clause that didn't mean exactly what it said.
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?
I dunno, maybe because they had about 5 billion dollars (In 1860 dollars) invested in it? Who wants to see most of their net worth evaporate?
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.
That is actually a good strategy. You do it enough to make it acceptable and inevitable, and it will build momentum.
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.
I think it would have definitely accelerated it.
And that was what slave owners were afraid of.
I am sure they were afraid of anything that questioned the legitimacy of their wealth, the bulk of which was tied up in slaves.
Always? Slave owners were riding high for decades. They wrote the laws.
And so they were all the less interested in letting other people call the shots, especially if it cost them money and damaged their societal acceptance. Nobody wants to lose power and lose "face."
Even after Lincoln was elected, it was a matter of arguing well and using their power wisely to preserve some of their privileges.
They weren't going to wheedle people into reducing their costs, not so long as it was to the benefit of the majority to keep getting money from them.
They didn't want to do that. They wanted independence and a monopoly on power in their own country.
They definitely wanted independence, and they probably wanted to remain the elite in their own society. So?
So it was all about slavery.
How did you get that from what I said? I didn't say anything remotely like that. Slavery was an indirect factor for the war, because slaves created the export revenue from the European trade, over which they were really fighting. It was all about MONEY, and it was all about the POWER to keep getting the MONEY.
Nobody in power in the North or South gave a sh*t about the welfare of the slaves.
x: "So it was all about slavery.
Thank you. "
Seems it was "all about slavery" to Southerners, until our pro-Confederates tell us it wasn't.