It seems to me that if you understand it properly, it shouldn't be very difficult to poke some holes in it if it has any.
I've been doing that for years.
So have other people.
You don't appear to notice.
No I am not. All states effectively gave up that right when they agreed to article IV section 2.
A state can abolish all of it's own laws that perpetuate slavery, but due to the nature of the federal compact, they can't do anything about other state's laws which hold people in bondage. To point out the fact that they are bound by the agreement that they signed does not call into question their other rights under article 10.
You are going against the Northwest Ordinance (1787) and the Missouri Compromise 1820.
Effectively Null and Void because of Article IV, Section 2.
So long as slaves were legally regarded as property, you could not prohibit them within the jurisdiction of the Constitution.
You are right there with Roger B. Taney and his Dred Scott decision. That's a surprising stance for somebody to take today.
Most people nowadays do not even understand the word "objectivity" let alone exhibit any. Under the legal paradigm in place at that time, Judge Taney was right. I don't have to agree with the outcome to recognize that the legal support behind his ruling is pretty solid.
It's like the "Separate but Equal" doctrine created by the Plessey court. It was legally valid for a certain time period, and it is pointless to pretend it wasn't. Current law is interpreted to mean that pretty much anyone born an American is a "natural born citizen", which you and I both know is garbage, but unfortunately that is how most people nowadays interpret the law.
Pretending it isn't accomplishes nothing.
Conflict over the territories was a big reason for Lincoln's election.
Conflict over the territories was about wielding political power in congress.
Lincoln's election was a big reason for secession.
The Southern power block realized they would never be able to protect themselves from the majority coalition against them, so they just decided the only solution was to get out of the system that was rigged against them.
And the secessionists started the war, so in that sense, of course conflict over the territories was one reason for the war.
Lincoln started the war, and this is something that I have only realized in the last couple of years. A friend told me that he started it years ago, but only in the last two years have I figured out the "why?" and "how?" The South didn't need a war. Only the North needed a war. The South would have been just fine without a war. They would have become prosperous and they would have likely gained the territories that in our timeline were destined to be part of the Union.
My point was that it was hard to figure out what time period you were talking about. It's also hard to figure out how what you say you said differs in substance from what I said you said.
Well then let me repeat. The South would have been rolling in money without a war. The South would have been prosperous and likely expanded their territory and economic influence, without a war.
The South did not need a war. The South did not want a war. The North did need a war, and Lincoln very much wanted a war. He was told by many people that if he did what he was going to do, there would be a bloody civil war, and he was advised several times not to do it.
You've presented your cock-eyed view hundreds of times, so I don't think I missed overall theory.
So what is my "cock-eyed" theory? If you can repeat it back to me, then perhaps I can see if you do have it right.
It seems to me that if you understand it properly, it shouldn't be very difficult to poke some holes in it if it has any.
According to that, a state must return runaway slaves to their masters from other states.
That doesn't mean that slave masters can bring their slaves to other states and territories and expect to have them work for no pay.
In that case, it wouldn't be inappropriate for courts to declare that a slave had been made free.
So long as slaves were legally regarded as property, you could not prohibit them within the jurisdiction of the Constitution.
So our Constitution imposed slavery on all the states?
Most legal authorities at the time disagreed with that.
The Constition wouldn't have been ratified, nor would it have had the high reputation that it has had, if it made slavery universal throughout the country.
It seems to me that if you understand it properly, it shouldn't be very difficult to poke some holes in it if it has any.
I've been doing that for years.
So have other people.
You don't appear to notice.
The secessionists certainly wanted a war.
That is why they were the ones who started a war.
Notice that war got them four states that they wouldn't have had otherwise.
And they expected it would bring them three or four more on top of that.
War also meant that there was no going back or dropping out.
It made the break with the union final and irreversible.
Unfortunately for them, it didn't work out that way in the end, but that's why they wanted the war and why they started the war.