[BroJoeK]

woodpusher: "These "abolitionists" never abolished their own slave ownership.
The "powerful" abolitionists never abolished slave trading in Washington, D.C. down the road from the White House until 1862.
D.C. was under the sole legislation of the federal Congress."

Sure, but Founders did support abolition of international slave imports and abolition in the Northwest Territories.
Similar Republican anti-slavery views were used by 1860 Democrat Fire Eaters to argue for secession from the "anti-slavery" United States.

woodpusher: "A slave taken to a free state, while in that free state, might successfully sue for his freedom, but should he return to a slave state, as did Etheldred Scott, he resumed his status as a slave.
This was upheld in English as well as American law. "

Missouri courts before Dred Scott were known to have recognized claims of freedom by slaves kept too long in free-states.

"It was expected that the Scotts would win their freedom with relative ease since Missouri courts had heard more than ten other cases in which they had freed slaves who had been taken into free territory.[14]
Furthermore, the case had been assigned to Judge Alexander Hamilton, who was known to be sympathetic to slave freedom suits.[13]"

[woodpusher]

woodpusher: "The Confederacy did not surrender in April 1865.

The Army of Northen Virginia surrendered at Appomatox."

Johnson surrendered to Sherman in April 1865, so the war was effectively over, though it's true that some Lost Causers to this very day continue the battle to redefine Civil War issues and its outcome.

As detailed in my #100, and by the U.S. Supreme Court as quoted from The Protector, the Civil War was most certainly did NOT end with the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia.

As is your crazed wont, you now appear to maintain that the U.S. Supreme Court is a Lost Causer. Desperate measures for a desperate mythologer.

woodpusher: "I am not a Lost Causer but a Yankee who insists on history being based on facts and not the fictional, ahistoric tales partican hacks, such as yourself, persist in spinning."

And that is yet another total lie -- in fact you are a committed Lost Causer, to the core, here to sell us the whole panoply of Lost Cause lies by wrapping them up in lengthy quotes and specious arguments.

Of course, you are a blustering mythologer, incapable of defending your regurgitated mythology on its merits.

woodpusher: "The United States Supreme Court in the case of The Protector, 79 U.S. 700 (1870)

there were two proclamations declaring that the war had closed, one issued on the 2d of April, 1866..."

Since when has any Lost Causer ever respected a SCOTUS ruling regarding the Civil War?

As the Supreme Court opinion in The Protector demolishes your mythology, you must resort to claiming that your mythology somehow overrules the U.S. Supreme Court, because Lost Cause.

The Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution to hold that abortion (Roe) and same-sex marriage (Obergefell) are rights protected the Constitution. After Plessy, seperate but equal was the law of the land. After Brown, sepearate but equal was unconstitutional. Regardless of your opinion, or that of anyone else, the Supreme Court opinion is the law of the land.

The fact is that, first, Lincoln's Emancipation declared all slaves in rebel regions freed and, second, by the time of Confederate surrenders in April 1865, slavery itself was declared abolished in every state except two: Kentucky and Delaware.

[...]

In the 1860 census New Jersey reported 18 slaves.

Of those 18, 16 remained to be freed by the 13th Amendment in 1865.

If 16 slaves remained in New Jersey, to be freed by the 13th Amendment, it is obvious even to a moron that slavery continued in New Jersey until the 13th Amendment.

Lincoln's proclamation NEVER proclaimed all slaves in rebel regions to be free. It exempted the entire state of Tennessee, various parishes of Louisiana, and 55 counties of Virginia. It did not even pretend to have any affect on slaves in states not in rebellion.

It was a proclamation, not a law. It has no more legal significance than your beloved Joe Biden bestowing the National Medal of Freedom to Corn Pop.

The 13th Amendment was adopted to free the slaves who had not been freed by the war; to ensure the legal status of those who had been freed; and to avoid a legal challenge in court to the proclamation.

woodpusher: "During the war, it was declared that slaves were considered property and could be seized as contraband property.

Slaves seized as property became Union property and were set free by their new owner.

Slaves not seized as contraband property had no legal status as free.

The end of the war (the actual end) signified the end of any authority to seize any slave as contraband, and it ended any Federal government authority to seize slaves as contraband property and set them free."

And so, here woodpusher comes as close as he dares to confirming DiogenesLamp's claim that slaves freed during the war should have been returned as slaves after Confederate surrenders.

What a steaming pantsload. I have never voiced my support of returning freedmen to their prior owner. You are welcome to quote me doing so if you can find your fictional bullshit.

Congress readily admitted in debate that one of the reasons the 13th Amendment was required was the dubious legality of the Emancipation Proclamation. In addition were those slaves in Union states such as New Jersey, Delaware and Kentucky.

Now therefore I ... by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy ... in time of actual armed rebellion … , and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do … order and designate … the following [as rebellious districts], to-wit:

Try comprehending the authority sought to be invoked by Lincoln. It was that of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, not Chief Executive.

See James G. Randall, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln, University of Illinois Press, 1951, pp. 378-80, footnotes omitted.

In considering the grounds on which Lincoln himself justified the proclamation, we must remember that he really favored emancipation by State action with Fed­eral compensation to the owners, but realized that there was no prospect of this proposal being adopted by the seceded States. We must remember, also, that prior to the issuance of the proclamation he had been “prompt and emphatic in denouncing any interference by the gen­eral Government with the subject.” On various occa­sions he declared his conviction that Congress (even during the war) had no legal power to strike at slavery in the States. He thought, however, that the executive had powers which Congress did not have.

He based his proclamation solely upon the “war power.” He issued it “by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy

Having observed the basis upon which the proclama­tion rested, we must now inquire as to its legal effect and validity. In this connection the limitations within the proclamation itself should be carefully noted. Those portions of Confederate territory which were within the control of the military forces of the Union were, in general, excepted from the terms of the proclamation. These exceptions were made, as President Lincoln said, because “military necessity” did not require the applica­tion of the proclamation in these regions. Largely for this reason, the proclamation has been frequently de­scribed as a measure having little or no effect.

“Immedi­ate practical effect it has none,” said the New York World, “the slaves remaining in . . . the same condition as before.” “So long ... as the present political and military status continues, the freedom declared by this proclamation is a dormant, not an actual freedom. . . . The proclamation is issued as a war measure. . . . But that cannot be a means of military success which pre­supposes this same military success as the condition of its existence.” “We show our sympathy with slavery,” Seward is reported to have said, “by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them, and holding them in bond­age where we can set them free.”

The Emancipation Proclamation is commonly re­garded as a measure which marked a distinct change in the purpose of the war, so that from the time of its issuance the war was pursued with the object of over­throwing slavery. There is truth in this view, and one does note after the proclamation an increasing determination on the part of the Government to conduct the con­flict as a war against slavery; but if the seceded States had done all that Lincoln asked and returned to the Union in response to his preliminary proclamation of September, 1862, there was nothing in the proclamation to prevent the war from ending with slavery still pre­served. Preservation of slavery in non-rebellious regions seemed to be implied in the proclamation. Russell made a true observation when he said that Lincoln’s procla­mation contained “no declaration of a principle adverse to slavery.”

Comments by Lincoln’s critics on the futility of the proclamation were common enough; but we read with wonder the following language of Lincoln himself, uttered after the proclamation had been presented in Cabinet and decided upon as a policy of the administra­tion: “What good would a proclamation of emancipa­tion from me do?” was the President’s question to a church delegation. “I do not want to issue a document that the whole world will see must necessarily be inoperative, like the Pope’s bull against the comet. Would my word free the slaves, when I cannot even enforce the Consti­tution in the rebel States? Is there a single court, or magistrate, or individual that would be influenced by it there?”

It appears you may have to add Abraham Lincoln to your ever growing list of Lost Causers.

Bottom line:

Bottom line: you blather endlessly while remaining utterly ignorant of your chosen subject matter.

[woodpusher]

This was upheld in English as well as American law. "

Missouri courts before Dred Scott were known to have recognized claims of freedom by slaves kept too long in free-states.

Your lack of knowledge of history is only exceeded by your utter anc complete non-comprehension of law. The most RECENT decision of a court prevails as precedent; not the oldest decision you can find.

When the Supreme Court of Missouri ruled in Scott v. Emerson, any prior ruling of any Missouri court in confilct with that decision was struck down. Deal with reality.

See the U.S. Supreme Court in Scott v. Sandford at 452-54:

As Scott was a slave when taken into the State of Illinois by his owner, and was there held as such, and brought back in that character, his status, as free or slave, depended on the laws of Missouri, and, not of Illinois.

It has, however, been urged in the argument, that by the laws of Missouri he was free on his return, and that this case, therefore, cannot be governed by the case of Strader et al. v. Graham, where it appeared, by the laws of Kentucky, that the plaintiffs continued to be slaves on their return from Ohio. But whatever doubts or opinions may, at one time, have been entertained upon this subject, we are satisfied, upon a careful examination of all the cases decided in the State courts of Missouri referred to, that it is now firmly settled by the decisions of the highest court in the State, that Scott and his family upon their return were not free, but were, by the laws of Missouri, the property of the defendant; and that the Circuit Court of the United States had no jurisdictlion, when, by the laws of the State, the plaintiff was a slave, and not a citizen

Moreover, the plaintiff, it appears, brought a similar action against the defendant in the State court of Missouri, claiming the freedom of himself and his family upon the same grounds and the same evidence upon which he relies in the case before the court. The case was carried before the Supreme Court of the State; was fully argued there; and that court decided that neither the plaintiff nor his family were entitled to freedom; and were still the slaves of the defendant; and reversed the judgment of the inferior State court, which had given a different decision. If the plaintiff supposed that this judgment of the Supreme Court of the State was erroneous, and that this court had jurisdiction to revise and reverse it, the only mode by which he could legally bring it before this court was by writ of error directed to the Supreme Court of the State, requiring it to transmit the record to this court. If this had been done, it is too plain for argument that the writ must have been dismissed for want of jurisdiction in this court. …

Upon the whole, therefore, it is the judgment of this court, that it appears by the record before us that the plaintiff in error is not a citizen of Missouri, in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution; and that the Circuit Court of the United States, for that reason, had no jurisdiction in the case, and could give no judgment in it. Its judgment for the defendant must, consequently, be reversed, and a mandate issued, directing the suit to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The stupid, it burns.

Your bullcrap remains irrelevant. Etheldred Scott lost his case in the Supreme Court of Missouri. His case in the U.S. Circuit Court was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court where it was held that Missouri state law prevailed to the exclusion of all other law; and the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to issue any judgment in the case, and the case was remanded to the Circuit Court with mandate directing the Circuit Court to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.

In Missouri, the laws of Missouri are not overruled by the laws of any other state. Your citation of the absurdly ridiculous is expected, but not impressive.

As for "free states," here is a revealing look at the "free state" of Indiana, circa 1864:

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=064/llcg064.db&recNum=625

Congressional Globe, February 10, 1864, page 554, Debate on AbOlition of Slavery

Mr. POMEROY. I think, Mr. President, the Senator is mistaken in saying that Indiana is a free State. I never heard of that, because I have noticed that white men in Indiana are not free. There is a law in that State which prohibits white men from employing colored men unless they were in the State at the adoption of the constitution. Colored men who happened to live in Indiana at the time the State constitution was adopted can be employed as laborers; but if any white man in that State employs a colored man who has gone in since, he is subject to a fine and also to a forfeiture, and I believe imprisonment. If that makes Indiana a free State it is not such a free State as I would make if I were to make one.

Mr. CLARK. I think the Senator from Indiana has mistaken the resolution. I understand him to characterize this as a resolution to force the negro into the cars. I understand it to be a resolution to prevent you from forcing him out—not to force social equality, but to prevent an outrage upon him.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President, I did not intend to say another word, and I should not now say anything except for the remarks of the Senator from Kansas in respect to the policy which Indiana has seen fit to adopt. In this Chamber, sir, it is not a part of my labor to defend the policy that the people of that State see fit to adopt; but I will simply say this: we lie alongside of the State of Kentucky, and free negroes were constantly coming into our State, and our people thought we would have the negro there neither as a free man nor as a slave, and they decided in favor of that policy by the largest vote that was ever given in the State upon any question sub-mitted to the people—by a majority, I think, of ninty-three thousand. That has been the policy of Indiana; and in this connection I will simply add that under that policy the colored population of Indiana between 1850 and 1860 increased but about one and a half per cent., while in the adjoining State of Ohio, in which they had no such protection to free white labor, the negro population increased, I believe, about forty-one per cent.

There's free and there's Indiana Yankee free.