Replies

Prepare to be bombarded with excremental nonsense about how the United States Constitution “enshrined” the practice and legitimacy of slavery.

Absolutely. I just saw some writing from this one guy who thought that. I'm glad you are here to set him straight. This is what he wrote.

There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:

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.

It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?
There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?
Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"?

He goes on and on with more of the same sort of drivel about the constitution and the law protecting slavery, but you know more about this stuff than he does i'm sure.

rockrr: "...nonsense about how the United States Constitution “enshrined” the practice and legitimacy of slavery."

DiogenesLamp proving "enshrined" by quoting from Lincoln's 1861 1st Inaugural:

"In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave?"

But Lincoln's meaning here is clear because this passage is remarkably similar to his 1854 Peoria Speech:

"When they

remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully, and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives, which should not, in its stringency, be more likely to carry a free man into slavery, than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one."

In fact Lincoln here agues against then current Fugitive Slave laws precisely because they do too often "carry a free man into slavery"

Clearly, Lincoln did not consider such laws "enshrined", but rather highly defective and in need of revision.