Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp
He did so indirectly. He focused more on states being required to respect the laws of other states.

Which is exactly what the lower state court did in awarding Scott his freedom! The Missouri Supreme court with a majority pro slavery bench overturned that verdict and said in effect that we used to respect other states laws, but times have changed and we will no longer respect them even though Article IV says we have to.

852 posted on 09/02/2015 8:41:22 AM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 849 | View Replies ]


To: Ditto
Which is exactly what the lower state court did in awarding Scott his freedom! The Missouri Supreme court with a majority pro slavery bench overturned that verdict and said in effect that we used to respect other states laws, but times have changed and we will no longer respect them even though Article IV says we have to.

Article IV says states have to respect other states slave laws. I take that to mean that in a contest between freedom laws of a free state, and slave laws of a slave state, the slave laws must always prevail.

Yeah, that's ugly, but that's what it says, and if Northern states didn't agree to it, they wouldn't have had to abide by it.

The lower courts were apparently unaware that laws freeing slaves, and laws holding them in bondage were inherently unequal in the requirements of the Constitution, with the slave laws having the superior legal position.

Again, don't blame me for pointing this out, but that was the law of that era.

858 posted on 09/02/2015 8:35:26 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 852 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson