Ofcourse it is anarchy.
That is why the Articles of Confederation had to be replaced with the Constitution, the nation was falling into anarchy.
I said that the States were not too happy with turning over the slaves, but the Federal gov't was enforcing the act. Gee, what happened to State rights? I presume you mean the rights of the Northern states to do as they chose, as in not returning fugitive slaves? If so, you do not understand states rights. Why am I not surprised?
Oh, so now a human being is property that must be returned to their Southern ówners'.
And who do the Southern State righters run to, why the Feds ofcourse.
States rights concerns the rights and powers of the states not delegated or assigned to the Federal government in the Constitution, not the right to violate the Constitution or go back on their word. Northern states agreed that fugitive slaves should be returned when they ratified or accepted the Constitution.
And the South agreed to abide by the results of elections when they entered into the Consitution, but it seems they have a very subjective view of 'rights'
Do you argue that under states rights Northern states were free to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution they would obey and which they would not? If so, how is it that I am for anarchy in your opinion, but you are not?
No, I am not arguing that the Northern states had a right to break the law.
I would be against them if they chose to secede from the Union over it.
Although if they did they would have had a much stronger moral claim then the South with its crying over not being allowed to take slavery whereever it wished or the unfair tarriffs.
I am not defending States breaking the Constitution, you are.
And that is simply anarchy.
Daniel Webster made a cogent statement about this issue in 1851 when he was Secretary of State: If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing, year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer bound by the rest of it? And if the North were deliberately, habitually, and of fixed purpose to disregard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations? I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side. Good on ya, Daniel. This is fun, but I'm heading to bed. Will address the rest of your post tomorrow.
Yea, and I agree with him.
That is why Federal troops were used against Northern states to uphold the law.
Yet, even that was not good enough for the South who were looking for an excuse to spread the cancer of slavery into the rest of North America.
If you wish to be oblivious to history, there's nothing much I can do to help you.
It was the law at the time. Consider this from the 1856 Bouvier Law Dictionary (Link).
SLAVE. A man who is by law deprived of his liberty for life, and becomes the property of another.
2. A slave has no political rights, and generally has no civil rights. He can enter into no contract unless specially authorized by law; what he acquires generally, belongs to his master. The children of female slaves follow the condition of their mothers, and are themselves slaves.
3. In Maryland, Missouri and Virginia slaves are declared by statute to be personal estate, or treated as such. Anth. Shep. To. 428, 494; Misso. Laws, 558. In Kentucky, the rule is different, and they are considered real estate. 1 Kty. Rev. Laws, 566 1 Dana's R. 94.
4. In general a slave is considered a thing and not a person; but sometimes he is considered as a person; as when he commits a crime; for example, two white persons and a slave can commit a riot.
The Dred Scott ruling of that same period reflected the law and reality of the time concerning whether slaves were property or not.
The treaty by which we obtained the Louisiana Territory states that people can move their property (which included slaves at that point in time) anywhere in the territory. I thought treaties were the law of the land. But I see that Lincoln wanted to reserve the territories for "free whites" and exclude Negroes. That, of course, flies in the face of the Supreme Court ruling and the Louisiana Purchase treaty.
I am not defending States breaking the Constitution, you are.
?? I'm not defending the Northern states refusing to return slaves. Oh, perhaps you are referring to secession. Show me where in the Constitution the right of secession is denied.
Yea, and I agree with him [Webster].
There is hope for you yet.