Are you arguing in favor of slavery and against abolition?
If so, then you deserve more than insults.
If not, then why all the nonsense?
I argue history, not moral platitudes. You sound as though you would have been one of the "laws higher than the Constitution" Republicans of the pre-war period. Would that we were all as perfect as you think you are.
I was once threatened with death for arguing as an adult in the Deep South in the 1950s that blacks should have the same rights as whites. Did you ever stick your neck out like that in such a place or such a time for the rights of others? If not, then I'd suggest you get down off your moral high horse.
I'll try to discuss history with you again to expand your understanding the period. Both fugitive slave laws were ruled to be constitutional by the Supreme Court. Lincoln said he would enforce the fugitive slave law. I assume you would not call him a Neo-Nazi.
In early April 1861, an Illinois commissioner friend of Lincoln's in Springfield, Illinois, issued a warrant and ruled that some fugitive slaves caught in Chicago, a sanctuary city for fugitive slaves, should be returned to their owners. I've always suspected that Abe was pulling strings behind the curtain to make this happen to show the South he would enforce the fugitive slave law and live up to his word. Previous presidents had left Chicago alone. When this happened, the fugitive slaves living in Chicago made a mad dash for Canada. See the following three short New York Times articles about it: Link1, Link2, and Link3
The book, The Slave Catchers, subtitled Enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law 1850-1860, by Stanley W. Campbell is a reasonably balanced book. The author points out on page 132 of the paperback version that "Because the federal courts did insist upon the supremacy of laws of the United States, these provisions of the personal liberty laws were ineffective in deterring enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law by officers of the federal government." I imagine the federal courts were using the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution to rule against the state laws, well intentioned though those state laws might be. Here is a reminder of what the Supremacy Clause is: Link4. In other words, once the federal commissioners got involved and started enforcing federal law, state laws that conflicted with it were moot and unconstitutional.
The war and the issues surrounding it are more than one dimensional. I encourage you to stick around and partake in the discussion.
the FACTS are that you & the other DYs here have been SOLD A BILL OF GOODS BY "YOUR BETTERS" & you've swallowed that PACK of DY LIES, hook/line/sinker. ====> that's why the southrons here think that ALL of the DYs on FR have been drinking their bathwater instead of bathing in it.
free dixie,sw
Do you understand what “consent of the governed” stands for?
With all do respect— Some may want a Government of their choosing
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness
President James Buchanan would vote against the use of force against a State or States
“The question fairly stated is, Has the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a State into submission which is attempting to withdraw or has actually withdrawn from the Confederacy? If answered in the affirmative, it must be on the principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare and to make war against a State. After much serious reflection I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress or to any other department of the Federal Government. It is manifest upon an inspection of the Constitution that this is not among the specific and enumerated powers granted to Congress, and it is equally apparent that its exercise is not “ necessary and proper for carrying into execution “ any one of these powers. So far from this power having been delegated to Congress, it was expressly refused by the Convention which framed the Constitution.”