Replies

again, no. the point of the constitution is to expressly limit the powers granted to the common government. if they had no right expressly delegated to them to confiscate people’s property, then they had no such right. there are no such “implied by the whims of the day” rights within a rule of law that chains the actions of men.

Do you believe that states had the power to regulate slavery within their borders?

you argued IV.3 in the context of the federal government having a right to abolish an institution that was NOT abolished anywhere in the constitution or laws at that time

I argued that the clause gives the federal government the right to govern the territories, and that includes regulating slavery within them.

and of course dred scott was a constitutionally-accurate ruling

So you agree then, that blacks, at least until the 14th amendment was passed, had "no rights that the white man was bound to respect."

And for the third time, have you bothered to read the Record of the Constitutional Convention to which I provided a link?

Do you believe that states had the power to regulate slavery within their borders?

As it wasn't a power the States delegated to the common federal government, with whom else would that reside? Or are we mixing legal vs "moral" questions again?

I argued that the clause gives the federal government the right to govern the territories, and that includes regulating slavery within them.

And therein lies the fallacy. Their right to govern could not infringe upon the rights of the States or citizens within them. Since the territories were "commonly" owned by the states, the common government could not pass a law that allowed Massachusetts men to legally reside within them while excluding (slaveholding) men from Virgina.

So you agree then, that blacks, at least until the 14th amendment was passed, had "no rights that the white man was bound to respect."

Nope, and neither did Taney. That excerpt prefaced his statement about how it came to be that blacks became slaves in the first place centuries earlier; it was not a commentary of the laws of that day, except federally speaking. As non-citizens, they held no federal status, so their protection was a State issue. And States had plenty of laws on their books to exact justice for crimes against blacks, and some of the strictest were in the South.

If you want to have a philosophical, ethical, etc. debate instead of legal, please explain what that would have to do with the overall discussion that Lincoln unconstitutionally usurped his powers and unilaterally waged war on law abiding citizens. But a warning, you'll have to address the morality of using the the most evil of means (a bloody, lawless war) to achieve "good" ends (keeping a political union intact). As the historical record unfortunately shows, Lincoln's "end" waging war on the South was "Union", not slavery.

have you bothered to read the Record of the Constitutional Convention to which I provided a link?

No, and yes. I did not read your link. But among other books I own and have read, Bailyn's complete 2-volume Debate on the Constitution likely includes everything on that site. What would you like to discuss?