Posted on 05/04/2018 6:42:25 AM PDT by Bull Snipe
Leading elements of Union Major General George G. Meade's Army of the Potomac cross the Rapidan River. With a few hours they would clash with General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia in the Battle of the Wilderness. Lieutenant General Grant's Overland Campaign had begun.
Geeze! How many times do I have to post this?
It is article IV, Section 2.
All the states agreed to the fugitive slave article of the Constitution, and then the Northern states deliberately ignored it and refused to abide by it. They then went to court and got a liberal judge to make up a ridiculous ruling that States could ignore the enforcement of Federal law.
DiogenesLamp: That is nowhere in the US Constitution, but I will tell you what is.
There is an explicit clause requiring the Federal government to return slaves to their masters so long as they are held by the laws of a state. (Article IV, Section 2)
So once again, we have liberals making up constitutional laws that do not exist, and ignoring very explicit laws that do in fact exist."
Please note my review of this in post #252 above.
Contraband material was recognized and claimed by both sides with Confederate armies seizing Northern freed-blacks for return to slavery in the South.
Northern armies didn't seize Confederate slaves, but did protect runaways and employ them under category of "contraband".
Naturally, DiogenesLamp wishes us to apply constitutional protections to states in rebellion, but nobody in the 1860s expected that.
It’s OK, I’m following along. There are so many lies coming out of their mouths, but not even an original one.
DiogenesLamp: "It was unconstitutional for Lincoln to free slave in any states prior to the passage of an amendment which would allow him to do this.
The Constitution has a clause that explicitly requires slaves to be returned to their masters so long as the slaves are held by the laws of a state. You can't hand wave this away.
The constitution doesn't have any wiggle room.
It doesn't have a "except in the case of" clause in there.
Lincoln broke this constitutional clause, and there is no getting around it."
No, nowhere did the Constitution require, or our Founders expect, full protections for states in rebellion, just the opposite.
And once again, "contraband" was claimed & used by both sides including Confederate armies in Union states who seized Northern horses, ammunition, railroad equipment and, yes, any freed-blacks they could catch for return & use in the Confederacy.
Northern armies never seized Confederate slaves, but they did protect and employ runaways as contraband.
Naturally, like any good Democrat, DiogenesLamp wishes us to recognize one set of rules to govern the Union and an entirely different set (or better, no rules) to govern themselves.
In this particular case, DiogenesLamp believes it entirely acceptable, even commendable, for Confederate armies to seize Northern freed-blacks but oh, so deplorable for Union armies to protect & employ (for pay!) Confederate runaway slaves.
Typical.
OIFVeteran: "In 1861 Congress passed the confiscation act it reads as follows;"
DiogenesLamp: "Constitutional law cannot be overturned by acts of congress.
I would think conservatives would be aware of this fact."
Fortunately no constitutional law is at play here, only the fantasies of our Lost Causer regiment.
Confederate slave owners in rebellion against the US could hardly make such claims under the US Constitution, could they?
“No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due”
This article only requires return of a run-away slave. Where is the Constitutional article that “Specifically prohibits state law from interfering with slavery”. Interference such as outlawing the institution within a states boundary. Like the majority of States of the Union had done so prior to 1860.
Naw, just more Lost Causer rubbish & nonsense.
Lincoln never said nor intended the meaning you here claim.
In that same quote Lincoln said:
Sounds clear to me.
Sounds like I zinged you pretty good with that one! :)
I have made no effort to study much about the emergence of the Klan, but I can say that bad behavior on the part of one group does not excuse bad behavior on the part of another.
The Northern Black codes were every bit as racist and horrible as the Klan, and they were there first.
“Sure, but a pretext can’t work unless some people take it seriously. I am suggesting that what you call “pretext” was in fact taken very seriously by many, indeed arguably by most.”
Reminder: the term “pretext” in this thread refers to the argument that the North was fighting for freedom and equality for slaves.
Don’t we all still love to gustily sing, “as He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free . . .”
Lincoln said as much in the Gettysburg Address and, of course, every school child today believes the North “fought to free the slaves.”
Maybe they did. There are many conflicting claims.
For the purpose of this post, let’s stipulate the North was using the military to violently overthrow slavery because it would have been difficult and time consuming to do it with a peaceful constitutional amendment.
If that is the case, Lincoln and the North were doing what the constitution forbids.
That's an even most atrocious lie.
When I was young boy and first learning about Lincoln (I went to "Lincoln grade school") it was emphasized how much he agonized over the war. We also learned that his son died while he was in the white house and that his wife went insane.
Even as a kid I did not understand this. If he was doing the work God wanted done, why was he "agonizing", and why did his son die and his wife go crazy?
This seems like a poor reward for doing what God wanted done, and it never made any sense to me.
It makes more sense to me now.
I never saw that coming.
Yes, this self interest serving verbiage is just a mystery, isn't it? Who would ever think that someone would justify what they have done?
"And yet more rubbish & nonsense..."
And then I stopped reading. It did get a laugh out of me though. :)
Yes the run-away slave must be returned. The Constitution does not prevent MA from prohibiting MA citizens from owning slaves within the boundaries of the State of Massachusetts. It only requires MA citizens return a run-slaves provided the owner or agent claims such run-away.
Ooooooooohhhhh. That's clever. Yes, he may very well have been alive and expressing opinions on the subject back in 1775.
He always plays the "Marxist" card. Funny thing is, Marx was supporting Lincoln! :)
Well which side was enforcing constitutional law?
What Federal Law prevented them from voting?
That's a big "Only".
Where is the Constitutional article that “Specifically prohibits state law from interfering with slavery”.
Didt you skip over the part "... in consequence of any law or regulation therein.." ?
Interference such as outlawing the institution within a states boundary.
That denies a citizen of a slave state his privileges and immunities that exist under Federal law.
Like the majority of States of the Union had done so prior to 1860.
"Rights" are not subject to the will of a simple majority. You have to have a 3/4ths majority to overturn those.
What the liberal Northern states wanted to do is to amend the constitution without going through the actual process of amending the constitution. It's the same thing they've been doing for years with Liberal Judges.
The Constitution looks far different now than it did when we started. Now we have homosexual marriage and abortion as protected rights, while Prayer in Public schools and denial of citizenship to illegal aliens is now prohibited.
But this is what happens when you play games with original intent.
Per the appropriate section of the Constitution, the owner must make a claim for the run-away. The Army is not bound by the Constitution to go search for the owner. If the owner of a run-away slave does not come forward to claim a run-away, the Army may employee them as they seem fit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.