Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: mac_truck
Having entered in a perpetual union, secession from the United States by the slave powers was not supported in the constitution.

Can you provide the exact portion/clause of theConstitution acknowledging this alleged fact?

If the framers contemplated states coming and going from the union, they would have provided structure for it.

See Amendment X.

The confederacy was formed to protect and expand slavery, which is tyranny in its purest form.

I certainly disagree. The same situation existed in 1776, when the founding fathers and the several states dissolved their former relationship with Great Britain, and again in 1787 when the Constitution was drafted, which did not prohibit slavery, it expressly protected it.

Territories purchased by the federal government or ceded to it by the several states, must be held in trust for the benefit of all states, not just those desiring a lily-white west (free from ALL blacks, not just slaves). By denying the slaveholders the right to emmigrate west, they were violating the Claims Clause (Article IV, §3, Clause 2 which states, "nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State".

According to Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 6th ed., 1856, prejudice is defined as:

To decide beforehand; to lean in favor of one side of a cause for some reason or other than its justice.

166 posted on 01/25/2003 10:33:52 AM PST by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies ]


To: 4ConservativeJustices; mac_truck
Territories purchased by the federal government or ceded to it by the several states, must be held in trust for the benefit of all states, not just those desiring a lily-white west

Agree. Consider the Louisiana Purchase Treaty:

The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights and advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States; and in the meantime they shall be maintained and protected in the enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess.

There were slaves, considered property at that time, throughout the whole length of the Mississippi Valley in 1803. They didn't have liberty. The treaty would seem to give their owners the right to settle with their slave property anywhere in the Louisiana territory.

170 posted on 01/25/2003 1:18:11 PM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies ]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
It seems the obvious escapes you. There is no mechanism in the US constitution for states to leave the United States, because the framers did not contemplate it happening in a perpetual union.

They did say in Article I Section 10 that "No State shall enter into a Treaty, Alliance or Confederation;"

and Article III Section 2 vests the Supreme court as the judicial power " to all cases in law and equity, arising under this constitution"

But what gives any confederate the right to invoke the United States constitution? Perhaps you could explain why instead of pursuing their so-called claims in the United States Supreme Court, the slave powers chose instead to fire on its flag.

171 posted on 01/25/2003 2:56:07 PM PST by mac_truck (go ahead, mention states-rights. I dare ya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies ]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
Territories purchased by the federal government or ceded to it by the several states, must be held in trust for the benefit of all states, not just those desiring a lily-white west (free from ALL blacks, not just slaves). By denying the slaveholders the right to emmigrate west, they were violating the Claims Clause (Article IV, §3, Clause 2 which states, "nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State"

The Constitution says nothing about territories held in trust for the benefit of the states. On the contrary, the part of the Constitution that you failed to quote says that "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States". Congress decides what constitutes a needful rule and there is nothing in it that requires it to consult the states first.

By denying the slaveholders the right to emmigrate west, they were violating the Claims Clause

Nonsense. If Congress refuses to allow the expansion of slavery in the territories then how does that predjudice the claims of any state? Does it affect their ability to regulate slavery in their own borders? Does it hamper the citizens of that state to own slaves or deal in them? No. It in no way impacts the interest of the state. It may impact the ability of a resident of a state to emigrate to a territory with their chattel in tow, but the Constitution doesn't require that they be able to do that.

177 posted on 01/25/2003 5:09:02 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies ]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
By denying the slaveholders the right to emmigrate west, they were violating the Claims Clause (Article IV, §3, Clause 2 which states, "nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State".

Poor, poor slave holders.

Walt

185 posted on 01/25/2003 7:09:31 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa (To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson