Posted on 02/25/2004 11:52:26 AM PST by 4CJ
THOMASVILLE -- Nelson Winbush knows his voice isn't likely to be heard above the crowd that writes American history books. That doesn't keep him from speaking his mind, however.
A 75-year-old black man whose grandfather proudly fought in the gray uniform of the South during the Civil War, Winbush addressed a group of about 40 at the Thomas County Museum of History Sunday afternoon. To say the least, his perspective of the war differs greatly from what is taught in America's classrooms today.
"People have manufactured a lot of mistruths about why the war took place," he said. "It wasn't about slavery. It was about state's rights and tariffs."
Many of Winbush's words were reserved for the Confederate battle flag, which still swirls amid controversy more than 150 years after it originally flew.
"This flag has been lied about more than any flag in the world," Winbush said. "People see it and they don't really know what the hell they are looking at."
About midway through his 90-minute presentation, Winbush's comments were issued with extra force.
"This flag is the one that draped my grandfathers' coffin," he said while clutching it strongly in his left hand. "I would shudder to think what would happen if somebody tried to do something to this particular flag."
Winbush, a retired in educator and Korean War veteran who resides in Kissimmee, Fla., said the Confederate battle flag has been hijacked by racist groups, prompting unwarranted criticism from its detractors.
"This flag had nothing to with the (Ku Klux) klan or skinheads," he said while wearing a necktie that featured the Confederate emblem. "They weren't even heard of then. It was just a guide to follow in battle.
"That's all it ever was."
Winbush said Confederate soldiers started using the flag with the St. Andrews cross because its original flag closely resembled the U.S. flag. The first Confederate flag's blue patch in an upper corner and its alternating red and white stripes caused confusion on the battlefield, he said.
"Neither side (of the debate) knows what the flag represents," Winbush said. "It's dumb and dumber. You can turn it around, but it's still two dumb bunches.
"If you learn anything else today, don't be dumb."
Winbush learned about the Civil War at the knee of Louis Napoleon Nelson, who joined his master and one of his master's sons in battle voluntarily when he was 14. Nelson saw combat at Lookout Mountain, Bryson's Crossroads, Shiloh and Vicksburg.
"At Shiloh, my grandfather served as a chaplain even though he couldn't read or write," said Winbush, who bolstered his points with photos, letters and newspapers that used to belong to his grandfather. "I've never heard of a black Yankee holding such an office, so that makes him a little different."
Winbush said his grandfather, who also served as a "scavenger," never had any qualms about fighting for the South. He had plenty of chances to make a break for freedom, but never did. He attended 39 Confederate reunions, the final one in 1934. A Sons of Confederate Veterans Chapter in Tennessee is named after him.
"People ask why a black person would fight for the Confederacy. (It was) for the same damned reason a white Southerner did," Winbush explained.
Winbush said Southern blacks and whites often lived together as extended families., adding slaves and slave owners were outraged when Union forces raided their homes. He said history books rarely make mention of this.
"When the master and his older sons went to war, who did he leave his families with?" asked Winbush, who grandfather remained with his former owners 12 years after the hostilities ended. "It was with the slaves. Were his (family members) mistreated? Hell, no!
"They were protected."
Winbush said more than 90,000 blacks, some of them free, fought for the Confederacy. He has said in the past that he would have fought by his grandfather's side in the 7th Tennessee Cavalry led by Gen. Nathan Bedford Forest.
After his presentation, Winbush opened the floor for questions. Two black women, including Jule Anderson of the Thomas County Historical Society Board of Directors, told him the Confederate battle flag made them uncomfortable.
Winbush, who said he started speaking out about the Civil War in 1992 after growing weary of what he dubbed "political correctness," was also challenged about his opinions.
"I have difficulty in trying to apply today's standards with what happened 150 years ago," he said to Anderson's tearful comments. "...That's what a lot of people are attempting to do. I'm just presenting facts, not as I read from some book where somebody thought that they understood. This came straight from the horse's mouth, and I refute anybody to deny that."
Thomas County Historical Society Board member and SVC member Chip Bragg moved in to close the session after it took a political turn when a white audience member voiced disapproval of the use of Confederate symbols on the state flag. Georgia voters are set to go to the polls a week from today to pick a flag to replace the 1956 version, which featured the St. Andrew's cross prominently.
"Those of us who are serious about our Confederate heritage are very unhappy with the trivialization of Confederate symbols and their misuse," he said. "Part of what we are trying to do is correct this misunderstanding."
As far as the history of this discussion goes, I don't believe you've ever defined your main point beyond lobbing a few names at Spooner and arbitrarily inserting rowboat analogies. In fact, I'm not even certain what you are trying to demonstrate. But that's just what I've seen so far...
You make the two points of view more important the the base issue, which was that Abolition was a necessity.
Eventually, yes. And from that point the next question to arise is by what means it may be achieved. An important corrollary to that question is if you work with the constitution or against the constitution...which brings us back to the two schools within the abolitionist movement, or my point about the proper context of Spooner's argument.
The two real groups of Abolitionists were better distinguished by those who wanted to send Americans of African heritage back to Africa, and the much smaller group who behaved as reasonable humans.
That's a different issue and a different set of categories entirely. If you look at it you will find that members of the constitution/anti-constitution dispute from both sides had varying views on either side of colonization...but that doesn't alter the internal debate over the constitution any and is thus of little importance to this discussion.
Fine, but that line of argument was largely considered irrelevant, as Wilson readily notes.
Once again, Wilson had no basis for making that judgment. What Sen. Wilson said to be irrelevent was praised by Sen. Seward, praised by Gov. Royce, praised by Rep. Smith, and praised by virtually every prominent figure in the abolitionist movement including Garrison who, despite being the main abolitionist figure in disagreement with the argument itself, conceded that it was a work of importance. So who do we believe? Do we believe Senator Wilson who, despite a relative friendliness to the anti-slavery position was NOT an abolitionist and who also has a bit of a reputation for being unreliable when it comes to issues of trust (read: he was a 19th century Bill Clinton)? Or do we believe dozens upon dozens upon dozens of testimonies by prominent abolitionists and anti-slavery politicians who, despite their own problems (and Seward had many), were generally more reliable in their relationship to that cause.
No, not at all. Senator Brown noted the logic of the argument was solid, but that the premises were not to be accepted at all.
...yet he never challenges those premises, of which it is his burden to do. Furthermore it is evident in his statement that he considers the argument of Spooner's to be substantially more threatening as a counterargument to his own position than the ramblings of a simpleton.
Then he adds the line about Spooner being harebrained.
Surely you can quote that line for us as it is not in the immediate vicinity of the line I quoted. What Brown does say, however, directly affirms what I said previously and what you denied - that Brown considered Spooner's argument to be the stronger of the two.
"The Senator (Wilson) did not say what I am willing to say myself - that book is ingeniously written. No mere simpleton could ever have drawn such an argument. If his premises were admitted I should say at once that it would be a herculean task to overturn his argument."
Brown continues: "I am glad, in this connection, to hear the Senator from Massachusetts say distinctly that he repudiates this book. I hope Lysander Spooner and his followers will take note of that declaration. But I hear no response from any quarter to my declaration, that the leading Fremont organ in the State of New York appealed to the Garrison and Fred Douglass school of northern politicians to come to Fremont's response under a promise that when the proper time came, the whole Republican party would go with them for attacking slavery in the States."
That is the end of Brown's remarks on Spooner's book. From there he goes on to criticize Garrison's arguments, which he clearly considered inferior. But the "hairbrained" caveat you keep mentioning is either located at a different place from the quote I provided from Brown about Spooner's book or simply does not exist. Not really. You may rest assured all copies of his book brought to the South were promptly put to the flame.
Seeing as he read it and took note of it, Brown's copy evidently wasn't and you have yet to provide evidence that others were. Absent that evidence no reason exists to take your assertion as fact and thus it stands unsubstantiated. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
They burned Dickens. They burned Helper. They burned anything and everything that hinted at Abolition.
Perhaps they did, perhaps they did not. It still remains that you have still failed to show anything indicating their treatment of Spooner was with flames. Meanwhile the evidence that has been shown demonstrates a prominent southern senator took the time to read his copy.
Got any to cite outside of Congress? I bet not.
You bet wrong then. Spooner's theories were mentioned in DeBow's Review, the most widely circulated southern magazine of the time. DeBow's was also heavily pro-slavery. Come to think of it, in 1866 DeBow's even printed a few guest articles by Spooner himself when he extended a hand of sympathy to the south's plight after the war (each identified him, of course, as the old abolitionist adversary who was offering legal advice in friendship at what was literally their darkest hour - reconstruction).
Certainly. That's why the South burned them.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
It was too a possibilty in 1861 because Sumner told Lincoln how to do it.
Sumner was a raving and ineffective fool who most of Congress, including his allies, could not stand to be around. Nor could he have enacted abolition on the federal level in 1861 because Lincoln had just pushed through a constitutional amendment permanently recognizing slavery where it already existed and permanently barring the federal government from ever interfering with it in those states (this amendment was fortunately never ratified because the war broke out and state's attentions shifted elsewhere, but it certainly did exist and you can see Lincoln's first inaugural address where he publicly endorsed it's ratification!).
Because the standards of argumentation make it incumbent upon him. If you make an argument that I disagree with I cannot simply say "I don't like your argument so it must be wrong" and then proceed to call your argument disproven. Rather, it would be my burden to make a counterargument against yours - that is, to make my case as to why yours is wrong - before I could declare it in error.
He refuted them all absolutely.
Where? The version of the Congressional Globe that I am looking at contains the quote exactly as I excerpted it in my last post. Nowhere in that quote does he make an attempt to rebut the premises. He simply says that he disagrees with them and that he is glad to hear Wilson disagree with them as well. Then Brown moves on to Garrison. If you know of some other quote then by all means post it and do so in full context. Otherwise don't make claims that you cannot demonstrate.
Nothing could be clearer than that in establishing his opinion of Spooner and the irrelevancy of you trying to credit him with accepting Spooner's arguments in any way shape or form.
When did I credit Brown with accepting Spooner's arguments? To the contrary, I have made many explicit assertions that Brown DENIED Spooner's premises (though he never made a case for what was wrong with them). What I did note of Brown is exactly what is stated by Brown himself - that he recognized Spooner's argument to be (a) a stroke of genius and (b) logically sound as an argument. That doesn't mean he had to accept it as something can be perfect as a matter of logic yet denied if you dispute the premises (which Brown apparently did).
Just the same, I make no reservations in stating that I am at odds with practically every one of Abe Lincoln's war policies and consider them a crime against human liberty (i.e. habeas corpus suspensions, mass arrests, executions without trial and the sort). That said, I cannot deny that Lincoln was one of the most gifted originators of spoken prose in all of human history. Does that mean I cannot continue to denounce what Lincoln did WRT the aforementioned civil liberties as great and terrible crimes against humanity? Of course not. And neither must one endorse Spooner's argument to admit its brilliance and strong logical quality.
As for Sumner, he was the greatest Senator of the 19th Century, and the single one to which the nation most owes it's gratitude for it's enlightenment. He led us out of the dark.
If you truly believe that then you are a loon. Sumner was universally despised by both his friends and opponents in Congress for the simple fact that he was such a nasty person to be around. He was a bitter, grouchy, crude, arrogant, immoral, and stubborn old man who went out of his way to intentionally offend, insult, and degrade people he didn't get along with (which meant practically everybody else in congress). Sumner's all around vulgar personality earned him disgust from even those who would otherwise be his natural political allies. William Seward regularly referred to Sumner as "that damned fool." Henry Adams once remarked that Sumner was so arrogant that "God himself could not move the man." Spooner wrote that it was Sumner's hands that the blood of the civil war stained because his arrogance and hypocrisy had rendered any aversion to the conflict impossible.
Sumner once even stood on the senate floor and did something that is considered unconscionable both by the standards of today and back then - he attacked the physical handicaps of a colleague (That same speech is also what got him beaten in 1856 by the nephew of the man he had mocked). Sen. Andrew Butler had suffered a recent stroke that left him partially immobilized and unable to speak without impediment. Sumner went to the floor and, spewing saliva from his mouth in mockery, proceeded to lampoon the way that Butler spoke in front of the United StatesSenate.
To use a modern comparison what Sumner did in 1856 would be comparable to Chuck Schumer (a man who personality wise is not all that dissimilar to Sumner) getting on the Senate floor in modern times and pretending to use a motorized wheelchair to mock Jesse Helms. It would be comparable to Barney Frank or Nancy Pelosi or some other Democrat sleazebag going to the floor and mocking John McCain or Sam Johnson for the years they spent being tortured as POW's. You may think of a man like that as a hero and for that matter you may think of Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi et al as heroes as well. I'll simply note that you would have been better served even if you picked Benedict Arnold as a hero than the wretched and vile man named Charles Sumner.
Truly sad, non-seq. You've immersed yourself so deeply into the Wlat brigade that you no longer even realize that it is composed of liberal democrats, lunatics, big government sycophants, and at least one Jessica Lynch stalker with whom you were conversing recently.
That's what the captain's letter says, read it and weep.
If these "fighting sailors" needed arms they were sadly out of luck. The arms were with the soldiers, the soldiers were in USS Powhatan and that ship went to Florida.
The fighting sailors were sent elsewhere. Lincoln probably knew that as soon as word got out that he was going to provision Sumter that the rebels would attack immediately and so he sent the ship elsewhere. Good planning on his part because the rebels attacked before the ship ever arrived.
As for the excerpt, so-called, it provides no citation, no link, and does not even identify the speaker. It should at least provide a link to a signed copy of the first edition.
LOL! So it's a fake, huh? That's the trouble with you neoconfederates, anything that doesn't show the rebels as holy angels is tossed out as some grand conspiracy. You can't accept that people of the South are sinners just as everyone in the world are sinners. That's what causes you to have a screwed up view of history and causes you to hate everyone. And speaking of documentation, where's that signed armistice? Without that signed armistice, none of this matters. You jump my case for showing a letter that doesn't meet some kind of weird standard, but you base your whole argument on an armistice that we haven't even read or seen.
Looks like he knew the rebels would attack before the ship ever arrived. Lincoln was a good judge of character.
The link is in post #442. I'm sure you'll dismiss it as a grand conspiracy though. lol
There were TWO men named Charles Pinckney at the Constitutional Convention. I believe the Charles Pinckney who first called for a Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution was the cousin of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney.
Pinckney, Charles (1757-1824) Cousin of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney; father-in-law of Robert Young Hayne; father of Henry Laurens Pinckney. Born in South Carolina, October 26, 1757. Democrat. Delegate to Continental Congress from South Carolina, 1785-87; member, U.S. Constitutional Convention, 1787; Governor of South Carolina, 1789-92, 1796-98, 1806-08; U.S. Senator from South Carolina, 1798-1801; U.S. Minister to Spain, 1801-04; U.S. Representative from South Carolina 1st District, 1819-21. Episcopalian. Died October 29, 1824.
Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth (1746-1825) Son-in-law of Henry Middleton; cousin of Charles Pinckney. Born February 25, 1746. Lawyer; planter; colonel in the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War; member of South Carolina state senate, 1779-1804; member, U.S. Constitutional Convention, 1787; U.S. Minister to France, 1796-97; received one electoral vote, 1796; candidate for Vice President of the United States, 1800; candidate for President of the United States, 1804 (Federalist), 1808. Episcopalian. Member, Society of the Cincinnati. Died August 16, 1825.
Let us not forget that the author of the pamphlet is neither Charles Pinckney, nor his cousin Charles Cotesworth Pinckney.
The author, Maria Henrietta Pinckney, expounds at length about the complaints of South Carolina, be they real or imagined. The complaint is clearly set forth as state sovereignty or state's rights, rather than slavery.
[[Silas Hardacre] Since you did post this classic Calhounistic trivia, woudl you care to expound on how nullification and the Fugitive Slave Act are in any way compatible? As Sumner noted in 1854, one couldn't really call it a law, as there was nothing legal about it.
As the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 is constitutional, in accordance with the Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution, it would appear legal, Sumner trivia about one not being able to call it a law notwithstanding. One need not agree with everything that was adopted in the Constitution to recognize that it was there. What was there was, in fact, the agreement that was made.
[[Silas Hardacre] So too, as Steven Douglas so often notes in the Lincoln Douglas debates, there was only one topic that every really set parts of the country in true opposition to each other, and that was slavery.
Slavery was certainly not the only issue that set the parts of the counrty in true opposition to each other. State sovereignty was an issue and slavery was but a part of that issue. Eliminating slavery freed slaves (good thing). Eliminating state sovereignty fundamentally changed our form of government from Federal to National and enabled the creation of this big, all-powerful central government that we have today (not such a good thing).
Quoting a politician in a political debate does not prove very much, especially quoting an Illinois politician expounding the discontent of the South. Lincoln said quite a few things in those same debates.
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS 1, August 21, 1858, Ottawa, Illinois
[Page 11] (Mr. Douglas) They assert the Dred Scott decision to be monstrous because it denies that the negro is or can be a citizen under the Constitution. Now, I hold that Illinois had a right to abolish and prohibit slavery as she did, and I hold that Kentucky has the same right to continue and protect slavery that Illinois had to abolish it. I hold that New York had as much right to abolish slavery as Virginia has to continue it, and that each and every State of this Union is a sovereign power, with the right to do as it pleases upon this question of slavery, and upon all its domestic institutions. Slavery is not the only question which comes up in this controversy. There is a far more important one to you, and that is, what shall be done with the free negro? We have settled the slavery question as far as we are concerned; we have prohibited it in Illinois forever, and in doing so, I think we have done wisely, and there is no man in the State who would be more strenuous in his opposition to the introduction of slavery than I would; (cheers) but when we settled it for ourselves, we exhausted all our power over that subject. We have done our whole duty, and can do no more. We must leave each and every other State to decide for itself the same question. In relation to the policy to be pursued towards the free negroes, we have said that they shall not vote; whilst Maine, on the other hand, has said that they shall vote. Maine is a sovereign State, and has the power to regulate the qualifications of voters within her limits. I would never consent to confer the right of voting and of citizenship upon a negro, but still I am not going to quarrel with Maine for differing from me in opinion.
[Page 15] (Mr. Lincoln) When southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery, than we; I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,---to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery, at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough to me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, can not be safely disregarded. We can not, then, make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the south.
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS 2: August 27, 1858, Freeport, Illinois
[Page 40] (Lincoln)
Lincoln reciting and answering questions.
Question 1. ``I desire to know whether Lincoln to-day stands, as he did in 1854, in favor of the unconditional repeal of the fugitive slave law?''
Answer. I do not now, nor ever did, stand in favor of the unconditional repeal of the fugitive slave law.
Q. 4. ``I want to know whether he stands to-day pledged to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia?''
A. I do not stand to-day pledged to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.
Q. 5. ``I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to the prohibition of the slave trade between the different States?''
A. I do not stand pledged to the prohibition of the slave trade between the different States.
Q. 7. ``I desire him to answer whether he is opposed to the acquisition of any new territory unless slavery is first prohibited therein.''
A. I am not generally opposed to honest acquisition of territory; and, in any given case, I would or would not oppose such acquisition, accordingly as I might think such acquisition would or would not agravate the slavery question among ourselves.
[Page 41] Lincoln
As to the first one, in regard to the Fugitive Slave Law, I have never hesitated to say, and I do not now hesitate to say, that I think, under the Constitution of the United States, the people of the Southern States are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave Law. Having said that, I have had nothing to say in regard to the existing Fugitive Slave Law further than that I think it should have been framed so as to be free from some of the objections that pertain to it, without lessening its efficiency. And inasmuch as we are not now in an agitation in regard to an alteration or modification of that law, I would not be the man to introduce it as a new subject of agitation upon the general question of slavery.
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS 4, September 18, 1858, Charleston, Illinois
[Page 145] (Lincoln)
While I was at the hotel to-day an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]---that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS 5, October 7, 1858, Galesburg, Illinois
[Page 235] (Lincoln)
If Judge Douglas' policy upon this question succeeds, and gets fairly settled down, until all opposition is crushed out, the next thing will be a grab for the territory of poor Mexico, an invasion of the rich lands of South America, then the adjoining islands will follow, each one of which promises additional slave fields. And this question is to be left to the people of those countries for settlement. When we shall get Mexico, I don't know whether the Judge will be in favor of the Mexican people that we get with it settling that question for themselves and all others; because we know the Judge has a great horror for mongrels, [laughter,] and I understand that the people of Mexico are most decidedly a race of mongrels. [Renewed laughter.] I understand that there is not more than one person there out of eight who is pure white, and I suppose from the Judge's previous declaration that when we get Mexico or any considerable portion of it, that he will be in favour of these mongrels settling the question, which would bring him somewhat into collision with his horror of an inferior race.
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS 7, October 15, 1858, Alton, Illinois
[Page 317] (Lincoln)
I suppose most of us, (I know it of myself,) believe that the people of the Southern States are entitled to a Congressional fugitive slave law---that it is a right fixed in the Constitution. But it cannot be made available to them without Congressional legislation. In the Judge's language, it is a ``barren right'' which needs legislation before it can become efficient and valuable to the persons to whom it is guaranteed. And as the right is constitutional I agree that the legislation shall be granted to it---and that not that we like the institution of slavery. We profess to have no taste for running and catching niggers---at least I profess no taste for that job at all. Why then do I yield support to a fugitive slave law? Because I do not understand that the Constitution, which guarantees that right, can be supported without it. And if I believed that the right to hold a slave in a Territory was equally fixed in the Constitution with the right to reclaim fugitives, I should be bound to give it the legislation necessary to support it. I say that no man can deny his obligation to give the necessary legislation to support slavery in a Territory, who believes it is a constitutional right to have it there. No man can, who does not give the Abolitionist an argument to deny the obligation enjoined by the constitution to enact a fugitive slave law. Try it now. It is the strongest abolition argument ever made. I say if that Dred Scott decision is correct then the right to hold slaves in a Territory is equally a constitutional right with the right of a slaveholder to have his runaway returned.
FUGITIVE SLAVE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION
U.S. Const, Article 4, Sec 2, Cl 3:
No Person held to Service or Labour 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 Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
The Fugitive Slave Law of 1793
ART. 4. For the better security of the peace and friendship now entered into by the contracting parties, against all infractions of the same, by the citizens of either party, to the prejudice of the other, neither party shall proceed to the infliction of punishments on the citizens of the other, otherwise than by securing the offender, or offenders, by imprisonment, or any other competent means, till a fair and impartial trial can be had by judges or juries of both parties, as near as can be, to the laws, customs, and usage's of the contracting parties, and natural justice: the mode of such trials to be hereafter fixed by the wise men of the United States, in congress assembled, with the assistance of such deputies of the Delaware nation, as may be appointed to act in concert with them in adjusting this matter to their mutual liking. And it is further agreed between the parties aforesaid, that neither shall entertain, or give countenance to, the enemies of the other, or protect, in their respective states, criminal fugitives, servants, or slaves, but the same to apprehend and secure, and deliver to the state or states, to which such enemies, criminals, servants, or slaves, respectively below.
The Fugitive Slave Act 1850
Section 1
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the persons who have been, or may hereafter be, appointed commissioners, in virtue of any act of Congress, by the Circuit Courts of the United States, and Who, in consequence of such appointment, are authorized to exercise the powers that any justice of the peace, or other magistrate of any of the United States, may exercise in respect to offenders for any crime or offense against the United States, by arresting, imprisoning, or bailing the same under and by the virtue of the thirty-third section of the act of the twenty-fourth of September seventeen hundred and eighty-nine, entitled "An Act to establish the judicial courts of the United States" shall be, and are hereby, authorized and required to exercise and discharge all the powers and duties conferred by this act.
Section 2
And be it further enacted, That the Superior Court of each organized Territory of the United States shall have the same power to appoint commissioners to take acknowledgments of bail and affidavits, and to take depositions of witnesses in civil causes, which is now possessed by the Circuit Court of the United States; and all commissioners who shall hereafter be appointed for such purposes by the Superior Court of any organized Territory of the United States, shall possess all the powers, and exercise all the duties, conferred by law upon the commissioners appointed by the Circuit Courts of the United States for similar purposes, and shall moreover exercise and discharge all the powers and duties conferred by this act.
Section 3
And be it further enacted, That the Circuit Courts of the United States shall from time to time enlarge the number of the commissioners, with a view to afford reasonable facilities to reclaim fugitives from labor, and to the prompt discharge of the duties imposed by this act.
Section 4
And be it further enacted, That the commissioners above named shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the judges of the Circuit and District Courts of the United States, in their respective circuits and districts within the several States, and the judges of the Superior Courts of the Territories, severally and collectively, in term-time and vacation; shall grant certificates to such claimants, upon satisfactory proof being made, with authority to take and remove such fugitives from service or labor, under the restrictions herein contained, to the State or Territory from which such persons may have escaped or fled.
Section 5
And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of all marshals and deputy marshals to obey and execute all warrants and precepts issued under the provisions of this act, when to them directed; and should any marshal or deputy marshal refuse to receive such warrant, or other process, when tendered, or to use all proper means diligently to execute the same, he shall, on conviction thereof, be fined in the sum of one thousand dollars, to the use of such claimant, on the motion of such claimant, by the Circuit or District Court for the district of such marshal; and after arrest of such fugitive, by such marshal or his deputy, or whilst at any time in his custody under the provisions of this act, should such fugitive escape, whether with or without the assent of such marshal or his deputy, such marshal shall be liable, on his official bond, to be prosecuted for the benefit of such claimant, for the full value of the service or labor of said fugitive in the State, Territory, or District whence he escaped: and the better to enable the said commissioners, when thus appointed, to execute their duties faithfully and efficiently, in conformity with the requirements of the Constitution of the United States and of this act, they are hereby authorized and empowered, within their counties respectively, to appoint, in writing under their hands, any one or more suitable persons, from time to time, to execute all such warrants and other process as may be issued by them in the lawful performance of their respective duties; with authority to such commissioners, or the persons to be appointed by them, to execute process as aforesaid, to summon and call to their aid the bystanders, or posse comitatus of the proper county, when necessary to ensure a faithful observance of the clause of the Constitution referred to, in conformity with the provisions of this act; and all good citizens are hereby commanded to aid and assist in the prompt and efficient execution of this law, whenever their services may be required, as aforesaid, for that purpose; and said warrants shall run, and be executed by said officers, any where in the State within which they are issued.
Section 6
And be it further enacted, That when a person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the United States, has heretofore or shall hereafter escape into another State or Territory of the United States, the person or persons to whom such service or labor may be due, or his, her, or their agent or attorney, duly authorized, by power of attorney, in writing, acknowledged and certified under the seal of some legal officer or court of the State or Territory in which the same may be executed, may pursue and reclaim such fugitive person, either by procuring a warrant from some one of the courts, judges, or commissioners aforesaid, of the proper circuit, district, or county, for the apprehension of such fugitive from service or labor, or by seizing and arresting such fugitive, where the same can be done without process, and by taking, or causing such person to be taken, forthwith before such court, judge, or commissioner, whose duty it shall be to hear and determine the case of such claimant in a summary manner; and upon satisfactory proof being made, by deposition or affidavit, in writing, to be taken and certified by such court, judge, or commissioner, or by other satisfactory testimony, duly taken and certified by some court, magistrate, justice of the peace, or other legal officer authorized to administer an oath and take depositions under the laws of the State or Territory from which such person owing service or labor may have escaped, with a certificate of such magistracy or other authority, as aforesaid, with the seal of the proper court or officer thereto attached, which seal shall be sufficient to establish the competency of the proof, and with proof, also by affidavit, of the identity of the person whose service or labor is claimed to be due as aforesaid, that the person so arrested does in fact owe service or labor to the person or persons claiming him or her, in the State or Territory from which such fugitive may have escaped as aforesaid, and that said person escaped, to make out and deliver to such claimant, his or her agent or attorney, a certificate setting forth the substantial facts as to the service or labor due from such fugitive to the claimant, and of his or her escape from the State or Territory in which he or she was arrested, with authority to such claimant, or his or her agent or attorney, to use such reasonable force and restraint as may be necessary, under the circumstances of the case, to take and remove such fugitive person back to the State or Territory whence he or she may have escaped as aforesaid. In no trial or hearing under this act shall the testimony of such alleged fugitive be admitted in evidence; and the certificates in this and the first [fourth] section mentioned, shall be conclusive of the right of the person or persons in whose favor granted, to remove such fugitive to the State or Territory from which he escaped, and shall prevent all molestation of such person or persons by any process issued by any court, judge, magistrate, or other person whomsoever.
Section 7
And be it further enacted, That any person who shall knowingly and willingly obstruct, hinder, or prevent such claimant, his agent or attorney, or any person or persons lawfully assisting him, her, or them, from arresting such a fugitive from service or labor, either with or without process as aforesaid, or shall rescue, or attempt to rescue, such fugitive from service or labor, from the custody of such claimant, his or her agent or attorney, or other person or persons lawfully assisting as aforesaid, when so arrested, pursuant to the authority herein given and declared; or shall aid, abet, or assist such person so owing service or labor as aforesaid, directly or indirectly, to escape from such claimant, his agent or attorney, or other person or persons legally authorized as aforesaid; or shall harbor or conceal such fugitive, so as to prevent the discovery and arrest of such person, after notice or knowledge of the fact that such person was a fugitive from service or labor as aforesaid, shall, for either of said offences, be subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisonment not exceeding six months, by indictment and conviction before the District Court of the United States for the district in which such offence may have been committed, or before the proper court of criminal jurisdiction, if committed within any one of the organized Territories of the United States; and shall moreover forfeit and pay, by way of civil damages to the party injured by such illegal conduct, the sum of one thousand dollars for each fugitive so lost as aforesaid, to be recovered by action of debt, in any of the District or Territorial Courts aforesaid, within whose jurisdiction the said offence may have been committed.
Section 8
And be it further enacted, That the marshals, their deputies, and the clerks of the said District and Territorial Courts, shall be paid, for their services, the like fees as may be allowed for similar services in other cases; and where such services are rendered exclusively in the arrest, custody, and delivery of the fugitive to the claimant, his or her agent or attorney, or where such supposed fugitive may be discharged out of custody for the want of sufficient proof as aforesaid, then such fees are to be paid in whole by such claimant, his or her agent or attorney; and in all cases where the proceedings are before a commissioner, he shall be entitled to a fee of ten dollars in full for his services in each case, upon the delivery of the said certificate to the claimant, his agent or attorney; or a fee of five dollars in cases where the proof shall not, in the opinion of such commissioner, warrant such certificate and delivery, inclusive of all services incident to such arrest and examination, to be paid, in either case, by the claimant, his or her agent or attorney. The person or persons authorized to execute the process to be issued by such commissioner for the arrest and detention of fugitives from service or labor as aforesaid, shall also be entitled to a fee of five dollars each for each person he or they may arrest, and take before any commissioner as aforesaid, at the instance and request of such claimant, with such other fees as may be deemed reasonable by such commissioner for such other additional services as may be necessarily performed by him or them; such as attending at the examination, keeping the fugitive in custody, and providing him with food and lodging during his detention, and until the final determination of such commissioners; and, in general, for performing such other duties as may be required by such claimant, his or her attorney or agent, or commissioner in the premises, such fees to be made up in conformity with the fees usually charged by the officers of the courts of justice within the proper district or county, as near as may be practicable, and paid by such claimants, their agents or attorneys, whether such supposed fugitives from service or labor be ordered to be delivered to such claimant by the final determination of such commissioner or not.
Section 9
And be it further enacted, That, upon affidavit made by the claimant of such fugitive, his agent or attorney, after such certificate has been issued, that he has reason to apprehend that such fugitive will he rescued by force from his or their possession before he can be taken beyond the limits of the State in which the arrest is made, it shall be the duty of the officer making the arrest to retain such fugitive in his custody, and to remove him to the State whence he fled, and there to deliver him to said claimant, his agent, or attorney. And to this end, the officer aforesaid is hereby authorized and required to employ so many persons as he may deem necessary to overcome such force, and to retain them in his service so long as circumstances may require. The said officer and his assistants, while so employed, to receive the same compensation, and to be allowed the same expenses, as are now allowed by law for transportation of criminals, to be certified by the judge of the district within which the arrest is made, and paid out of the treasury of the United States.
Section 10
And be it further enacted, That when any person held to service or labor in any State or Territory, or in the District of Columbia, shall escape therefrom, the party to whom such service or labor shall be due, his, her, or their agent or attorney, may apply to any court of record therein, or judge thereof in vacation, and make satisfactory proof to such court, or judge in vacation, of the escape aforesaid, and that the person escaping owed service or labor to such party. Whereupon the court shall cause a record to be made of the matters so proved, and also a general description of the person so escaping, with such convenient certainty as may be; and a transcript of such record, authenticated by the attestation of the clerk and of the seal of the said court, being produced in any other State, Territory, or district in which the person so escaping may be found, and being exhibited to any judge, commissioner, or other office, authorized by the law of the United States to cause persons escaping from service or labor to be delivered up, shall be held and taken to be full and conclusive evidence of the fact of escape, and that the service or labor of the person escaping is due to the party in such record mentioned. And upon the production by the said party of other and further evidence if necessary, either oral or by affidavit, in addition to what is contained in the said record of the identity of the person escaping, he or she shall be delivered up to the claimant, And the said court, commissioner, judge, or other person authorized by this act to grant certificates to claimants or fugitives, shall, upon the production of the record and other evidences aforesaid, grant to such claimant a certificate of his right to take any such person identified and proved to be owing service or labor as aforesaid, which certificate shall authorize such claimant to seize or arrest and transport such person to the State or Territory from which he escaped: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as requiring the production of a transcript of such record as evidence as aforesaid. But in its absence the claim shall be heard and determined upon other satisfactory proofs, competent in law.
Approved, September 18, 1850.
Consider the merits of carrying on with someone who does not understand this.
I understand what 'reserved to the People' means. What is it about 'delegated to the United States' or 'prohibited by it to the States' don't you understand?
Nope. Where does it say that, once ratified, that a state can walk out on a whim?
And the other side has you. So...my choice is what again?
Please cite the relevent powers from the Constitution which were delegated or prohibited which would invalidate secession.
(*sigh*) How many times do I have to repeat myself? Secession per se is not unconstitutional. However, Article IV, Section III makes it clear the Congressional approval is needed for change in the status of a state. And Article I, Section 10 makes it clear that unilateral action when such actions impact the interests of other states are forbidden. So it is the unilateral aspect of the southern action which made it illegal.
Odd then, that there was no attempt to peacefully deal with the illegality of their actions prior to initiation of the war by the Federal actions at Sumter. Even more strange that the peace commissioners were denied even a meeting with the president.
Not odd at all. The peaceful intent of the North was clear. There were no hostile actions taken by the Lincoln administration prior to Sumter. The south, on the other hand, had fired as Northern ships on more than one occasion. And what would have been the purpose of meeting with the southern envoys? If you believe, as Lincoln did, that the southern actions were illegal then why meet with the envoys when the cost of doing so was agreeing that the southern actions were legal? The southern envoys were there to establish recognition of southern independence. Nothing else was open for discussion unless that was first agreed to. The prospect of an end to secession and a return to the Union was not part of their instructions and was not a possible outcome of the talks. So Lincoln was given no choice other than renouncing his position on secession. In other words, he was given no choice at all. No purpose would have been served by meeting with any representative of the Davis regime under those circumstances.
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.