My reading of Article IV, section 2 causes me to believe that it could already not be outlawed in any state. The Supreme Court also verified this interpretation in the Dred Scot case.
The constitution is quite clear on the matter. It says no matter what the law is in any state, you are required to return servants back to the person for whom their labor is due according to the laws of any state.
If a slaveowner wants to settle in Massachusetts, how can you stop him from bringing his slaves which are held by the laws of the state he is from? How do you get around that constitutional stipulation that they must be returned to him?
It's an ugly deal for states that didn't want slavery, but the problem is, they signed onto that deal.
Also guaranteeing that slavery would expand to any territories that the Confederacy which was not a given in the U.S. with the Republicans plan to challenge the horrendous Scott decision.
The Scott decision was a factually accurate interpretation of the constitutional law from 1787. Liberals had been finessing the reality of that law, and it came as quite a shock to them when the Supreme Court stated what was plainly true of legislative intent when Article IV was written.
It was in the Constitution. Article I, Section 8: "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.."
I quoted Supreme Court Chief Justice (and Northerner) Salmon P. Chase earlier in the thread where he made it clear that the court would have ruled against Lincoln had he attempted to bring any of these charges against the leadership of the Confederacy.
Lincoln's own adage applies here. "Just because you call a tail a "leg", doesn't make it so." (Just because you call it "rebellion" doesn't make it so.)
Article IV, Section 3 says that Congress can make "all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States..." Which means they can outlaw slavery in the territories. As for Article IV, Section 2 slaves fleeing to non-slave states might be returned but moving with your slaves to a non-slave state would mean your slaves were emancipated. Under the Confederate constitution people could move to any state with their slaves and keep them.
If a slaveowner wants to settle in Massachusetts, how can you stop him from bringing his slaves which are held by the laws of the state he is from? How do you get around that constitutional stipulation that they must be returned to him?
If slavery is illegal in the state then you cannot move there with your slaves. Not hard at all to understand.
The Scott decision was a factually accurate interpretation of the constitutional law from 1787.
Crap.
I quoted Supreme Court Chief Justice (and Northerner) Salmon P. Chase earlier in the thread where he made it clear that the court would have ruled against Lincoln had he attempted to bring any of these charges against the leadership of the Confederacy.
And yet when the time came Chief Justice Chase did not dismiss the charges against Davis on the grounds that his actions were not illegal. He had to resort to a loophole using the 5th Amendment and double jeopardy.
DoodleDawg post #141: "Protect slavery to an extent that it wasn't protected under the U.S. Constitution.
For example, ensuring that slavery could not be outlawed in any state."
DiogenesLamp post #150: "My reading of Article IV, section 2 causes me to believe that it could already not be outlawed in any state.
The Supreme Court also verified this interpretation in the Dred Scot case."
One problem with both DiogenesLamp's "reading" and the Dred-Scot ruling is that both ignore Founders' Original Intent.
Clearly there was no intent -- zero, zip, nada intent -- by Founders to prohibit abolition by states.
This can be seen, for example, in President Washington's compliance with Pennsylvania abolition laws while Washington lived in Philadelphia.
So both Dred-Scott and DiogenesLamp's "reading" are new & novel interpretations neither intended by Founders nor approved by Congress or voters.
In short they are perverse opinions only, rendered null & void by history.