Rare Lincoln Letter Found in Allentown

AP ^ | July 19, 2006 | AP

[Non-Sequitur]

If you feel that Northern states were simply exercising their state sovereignty by ignoring Article IV Section 2 of the Constitution, then you shouldn't be surprised that other sovereign states said to hell with this, if you're not keeping the Constitutional bargain you made, we're leaving.

How were they ignoring Article IV, Section 2. A fugitive today, or a white fugitive then, had protection of habeas corpus, the right to an extradition hearing, the right to legal counsel, the right to fight that extradition. Are any of those violations of Article IV, Section 2? Of course not, but when the Northern states tried to grant those same rights to runaway slaves the Supreme Court struck them down. And when the Northern states refused to assist in the enforcement of the fugitive slave laws, as the Supreme Court ruled they were not required to, then the southern states claim it as a lame excuse for rebellion.

FYI, Massachusetts' personal liberty laws included the following:

And? Are you saying that the commonwealth did not have the power to regulate their attorneys?

It is no wonder that many Massachusetts attorneys and judges thought the law was unconstitutional.

The unconstitutionality lay in the fact that such laws had been struck down by the Taney court before, and would no doubt be struck down again. Every law passed in recent times severely limiting a woman's access to abortion has been struck down, but that doesn't stop states from trying.

[Non-Sequitur]

But if your life, liberty and property was being threatened by a central power and you felt that that power was going to usurp your property and your slaves who represent part of that property then wouldn't you fight back?

So it was about slavery after all. Yeah, I might have been concerned. I don't know if I would have resorted to armed rebellion though.

[Non-Sequitur]

Lincoln weaseled his way into getting a war going...

This is also known as the "We wuz sooo stoopid we couldn't see through that durn Lincoln's plot and got snookered into shootin' fust" excuse.

[stand watie]

exactly so.

it's the "slippery slope" situation. IF the central government decides on form of LAWFUL property can be seized, why not some other sort.

the PRIVATELY-owned (and "paid for" at a GROSSLY UNDERvalued price! it is alleged by the owners that their property was seized & sold for over FIVE TIMES the amount the city paid them for the property less than 30 days before!)real estate recently seized "to raise money for needed capitol improvements for the common good" comes to mind. and the USSC (which N-S worships) upheld that IMMORAL seizure!

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

actually,lincoln was the TYRANT & WAR CRIMINAL of DAMNyankeeland.

as i said previously, i'm NOT surprised that you (like most of the "useful idiots" of the DY coven) worship at his clay feet.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

are you REALLY DIMwitted enough to NOT understand that the "radical STATIST republican party" of the 19th century is NOT the same REPUBLICAN party of the 21st century???

are you REALLY that clueLESS????

free dixie,sw

[rustbucket]

Nothing required Massachusetts to do anything to help in the recovery of escaped slaves, but actions by Massachusetts that prevented recovery would have been unconstitutional.

From Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution:

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.

IMO, by passing laws that in effect discharge the escaped slave from service or labor or labor for his master and preventing the slave from being delivered up on claim of the owner, Massachusetts was in violation of the Constitution.

The last slave returned from Massachusetts was in 1854. The Massachusetts personal liberty laws were passed in 1855.

Now for the rest of the story. The Kennebec (Maine) Journal reported on March 8, 1861 the following:

Refusal to Repeal the Massachusetts Personal Liberty Laws

The joint special committee of the Massachusetts Legislature, to whom was referred so much of the governor's message as relates to that portion of the several statutes regarding personal liberty, and also the petitions and remonstrances of divers [sic] persons for and against the personal liberty laws, so called, having carefully considered the subject, report certain amendments, but refuse to advise appeal of the bills in question, believing they were intended to be constitutional.

Massachusetts. The home state of Benjamin Butler.

[Non-Sequitur]

Nothing required Massachusetts to do anything to help in the recovery of escaped slaves, but actions by Massachusetts that prevented recovery would have been unconstitutional.

As the Supreme Court ruled.

IMO, by passing laws that in effect discharge the escaped slave from service or labor or labor for his master and preventing the slave from being delivered up on claim of the owner, Massachusetts was in violation of the Constitution.

And that is your humble opinion only.

...but refuse to advise appeal of the bills in question, believing they were intended to be constitutional.

Nor should they have, unless or until they had been ruled unconstitutional. That was a matter for the Supreme Court.

Massachusetts. The home state of Benjamin Butler

And of John Adams, John Hancock, Sam Adams, and Ben Franklin. And where would we be without them?

[rustbucket]

And that is your humble opinion only.

You are forgetting the opinions of the Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, that of a Harvard constitutional law professor and past Chief Justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, and the opinion of a former Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, one who thought the Dred Scott ruling was wrong but agreed the Massachusetts personal liberty laws were unconstitutional.

And of John Adams, John Hancock, Sam Adams, and Ben Franklin.

Different generation. The state progressed downhill to "Beast" Butler. It kept going downhill to James Michael "Vote Early and Often" Curley, elected while in jail. Then today we have Massachusetts senators Kennedy and Kerry. Even Hillary has a Massachusetts connection (Wellesley).

[groanup]

So it was about slavery after all.

Unfortunately, slavery was incidental to the issue. But, in fact, slaves weren't purchased with monopoly money. They were expensive and represented the labor portion of the agricultural economy. And in no way, as is depicted by the letter in the subject of this thread, was the North a silver knight riding in to free the slaves.

[M. Espinola]

"actually,lincoln was the TYRANT & WAR CRIMINAL of DAMNyankeeland."

Do you ever really read the verbal trash you type prior to pushing the post button? These are remarks of a raving madmen.

Similar depraved comments are issued on daily basis by leftist traitors and Islamic thugs regarding President Bush and directed against anyone supporting the war to defeat Islamic terrorism.

Since your only concern is re-fighting the American Civil War for the losing pro-slavery side, the real world of today is of no consequence.

[Rastus]

This is the fourth copy and it's considered "rare?" Huh. I'd be lucky if just one copy exists of any e-mail I've ever sent.

[Colt .45]

"This is also known as the "We wuz sooo stoopid we couldn't see through that durn Lincoln's plot and got snookered into shootin' fust" excuse."

If I had wanted to hear from an a**hole, I would've farted. Go find Toto!

[Non-Sequitur]

If I had wanted to hear from an a**hole, I would've farted. Go find Toto!

If you farted then might that not blow your brains out, considering where your head usually resides?

[stand watie]

TO "Mr.SPIN": lol AT you and your DUMB-bunny comments. NOBODY takes ANYTHING you post seriously, as you "know NOT & know NOT , that you know NOT".

don't you get tired of being RIDICULED???

TO ALL: #131 is yet another IGNORANT, HATE-filled, STUPID comment from FR's very own FOOL, nitwit & BIGOT!

fwiw, southrons on the forum HOPE he stays around, as he converts "neutrals" to dixie partisans, with every PREJUDICED, arrogantly ignorant, FALSE post.

free dixie,sw

[Colt .45]

"If you farted then might that not blow your brains out, considering where your head usually resides?"

And this statement is coming from one with the mental acuity of a three toed sloth!

[stand watie]

actually, N-S is SMART & EDUCATED.

he is The DAMNyankee Minister of PROPAGANDA.

NOTHING, since the beginning of time, was ever LESS THAN PERFECT, if a DAMNyankee did it. otoh, NOTHING IN HISTORY, done by any southerner, was EVER OK.

i once asked him IF he could think of ANY act by any YANKEE that was ignorant, prejudiced, less than perfect or even just "not smart".

he said he couldn't think of anything.

so, understand that LIES, evasions, deceptions & outright PROPAGANDA is his JOB & you can deal with him.

given that he is the ONLY one of the "DAMNyankee coven of lunatics, fools, weirdos, & an outright BIGOT", who is smart, he looks pretty good by comparison.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

since about 2/3 of the SIGNERS of the Constitution (on behalf of their STATES) were involved in the slave trade, your opinion on this is as DUMB as most of your other FALSE & SELF-righteous notions.

your OPINION (which you try to dress up as if it was FACT, rather than IGNORANT personal opinion) will receive all the respect it deserves = ZILCH.

[Guenevere]

bttt

[usmcobra]

STAND, you have never posted a single shred of proof for any of the wild-eyed theories of yours other then to tell people to read certain books in libraries that don't have the books you told them to read.

But that is neither here nor there, As I have stated AT LEAST 65 to 75% of all the settlers arriving on these shores, sold themselves into bondage to make the trip. That is a very important dynamic, that fueled the creation of this nation. We find proof of it in the Declaration of Independence, in the Constitution, and throughout the writings of all the Founding fathers and the authors of the day. The singular concept that a nation must be grounded in the concept of freedom for all within it had never existed before 1776.

And yet to prove your point you would destroy the image we have of the founding fathers, our constitution, The first president of the very party to which you are so active in and all for the losing argument of some radical democrats that choose to rebel in order to maintain that most hideous of sins against our fellow man, slavery.

Since you obviously can't feel the shame you bring upon yourself with every hurtfilled word directed at the very basis for our cause, I'll bear it for you. That a scrap of red bunting with a blue cross would make a man so insane as to lose what feeble grasp he had on reality and history for the love of it is truly heartwretching.

I can only pray that an act of God will set you right, perhaps a lightning bolt from the blue will do.