Federalist Patriot bashes Abe Linclon

It took an amendment to the Constitution to declare that former slaves were citizens. If your assertion above were correct, an amendment wouldn't have been necessary.

It would not have taken an amendment if not for Dred Scott. It could have been done simply by Congressional resolution. And again, the law books mention slaves, not freemen. Where, if not politics, did Taney justify denying citizenship to free blacks? It surely was not from the Constitution.

At the close of the war, there was a new Supreme Court that included a number of Justices appointed by Lincoln. A new citizenship case could have been brought before them and Dred Scott overturned. You said the old decision was 5 to 4, so with the new Lincoln Justices it should have been a cinch.

Oh wait, Dred Scott was determined to still be a slave by a 7-2 ruling, not a 5-4 ruling. The outcome of a new case might not have been a certainty, even with the Lincoln Justices and the Radical Republicans not letting President Johnson bring the Court up to full strength for fear of affecting decisions in a way they did not approve. (Which the Radicals did, by the way. What present day party does that remind you of?)

The Dred Scott ruling determined whether blacks, either slave or free, had been considered citizens at the time the Constitution had been written. It cited various state rulings and colonial laws and found that they had not.

Perhaps those arguments were persuasive enough to have made any subsequent court ruling that overturned Dred Scott simply a political decision rather than one founded on legal arguments and thus a bone of great contention. A constitutional amendment might set to rest legal challenges to the contrary, even if they had to hold guns to the heads of the Southern states for such an amendment to have been ratified. Well, it is still the law of the land, so the gun to the head approach worked.

I'd point you to Justice McClean's disent.

In the argument, it was said that a colored citizen would not be an agreeable member of society. This is more a matter of taste than of law. Several of the States have admitted persons of color to the right of suffrage, and in this view have recognised them as citizens; and this has been done in the slave as well as the free States. On the question of citizenship, it must be admitted that we have not been very fastidious. Under the late treaty with Mexico, we have made citizens of all grades, combinations, and colors. The same was done in the admission of Louisiana and Florida. No one ever doubted, and no court ever held, that the people of these Territories did not become citizens under the treaty. They have exercised all the rights of citizens, without being naturalized under the acts of Congress.

And further, if they were not citizens, on what basis were they enumerated for purposes of purposes of representation in the Constitution, be it as 3/5 of a person for a slave, or as a whole person for a free black?

The decision was not based on the Constitution.

I'd point you to Justice McClean's disent.

Isn't a dissent a losing argument that didn't persuade the majority?

And further, if they were not citizens, on what basis were they enumerated for purposes of purposes of representation in the Constitution, be it as 3/5 of a person for a slave, or as a whole person for a free black?

They were enumerated for political purposes to increase Southern representation in Congress, not for purposes of defining citizenship. Without the three-fifths compromise the South might not have ratified the Constitution and we'd have become two countries.

Not all black were counted as three-fifths -- only slaves. Free blacks were counted as whole persons. Free blacks were allowed to vote in a number of states both before and after the constitution was ratified. Free blacks were recognized as citizens by state courts.

Taney simply made up history, distorted facts and perverted the meaning of the Declaration and the intent of the Framers to suit a political agenda -- no different than Roe v Wade.

Fine, I dint realize that you were so miffed that I didn't reply to your missive. As I said, there were a "few" good points, but most of it is pure rhetoric. But I will attempt to do so after a long day doing 'corporate stuff.'

Only just laws "have the power of binding in conscience." It is this issue of "binding in conscience" that informs his endorsement of Augustine's statement that "that which is not just seems to be no law at all; therefore the force of a law depends on the extent of its justice."

So were laws that allowed one person to quite literally OWN another, and not simply that person, but all of their progeny for unlimited generations, just laws? Unlike Biblical Slavery, which the "positive slavery advocates" of the South advocated, Chattel Slavery as practiced in America, was multi-generational. It was not a punishment, or a result of conquest, or even an economic bargain between individuals as in the Biblical or even the ancient world. Chattel slavery, as practiced in America and throughout the Western Hemisphere, was based purely on blood (skin color) and even one drop of the wrong blood meant a life time of slavery based on the discretion of the owner. Yes, slavery was a function of every civilization throughout recorded history as a political, and ironically humanitarian necessity (you could not leave enemies in your rear -- should you kill them or make them work for you?

Eighteenth century mercaltlism changed the nature of slavery from a practicable, hard reality relationship, into a purely commercial arrangement and in the American South with King Cotton and the vast wealth generated by slaves, it had everything to do with the prosperity of the few at the expense of the many --- and not just slaves.

I challenge you to demonstrate a single precept of Natural Law that justifies Chattel slavery or any of the demands for expansion of that horrible institution the South went to war over.

In fact, I ask you to show where they ever claimed a right to slavery under Natural Law. They only clouded themselves under man-made law by claiming that which is not specifically forbidden must be allowed (States Rights). They were no different them the ACLU in their tactics and arguments -- even to the point of creation Gags Rules (Political Correctness) in Congress to stop the issue of slavery from even being discussed.

The Fugitive Slave Act was based on Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, and was part of the document when it was signed. The non slave-holding states were bound by its terms.

Wrong! The Fugitive Slave Act (FSA) went far, very far, beyond Art. 4, Sec 2 which acted only on the States. It instead acted upon the People directly. It required individual citizens of states to capture and return fugitives and included penalties for not doing so. It required individuals, even against their will, to become 'slave catchers' on the order of an 'appointed' and typically corrupt Federal 'official' who was paid based on slaves captured.

The FSA totally ignored State law in refusing to accept testimony from CITIZENS who were non white. There was no judicial review other that by a low level Federal Magistrate who was renominated only if a a "slave" were returned to his owner, even if that individual had never been a slave in his life. There were numerous examples of Northern free blacks who were grabbed literally off the streets under the FSA and sold into slavery in the South. Those individuals were not even allowed to speak at the magistrate's hearing to show they were not from the South.

The Fugitive Slave Act was a abomination in that it went far beyond either constitutional philosophy let alone any reading of Natural Law.

The only upside of the FSA that I can see was the genesis of Jury Nullification, something we should all be aware of (sadly, we are not) and not hesitate to invoke when the government attempts to make us their tools. (Just don't mention during jury selection that you ever head of Nullification -- the judge will dump you and you'll never be called again.)

To tell the States they could not rebel was giving the federal/national government more power that that which created it....it's not contractually possible! *That which you create, you have the right to control*

You used the forbidden word... Rebel! Did they rebel or withdraw.

Every state (and individual) has a Natural Law Right to Rebel. That is not man-made law, it is pure Natural Law and was far better understood in those days than now. But it had limits as Jefferson so eloquently expressed in the Declaration...

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states.

I didn't notice any of that "Long Train of Abuses" in any of the Confederates declarations --- unless you think that not allowing slaves in territories is an abuse. Is that a justification for rebellion?

The Confederates didn't think so, which is part of the reason they did not appeal to the Right of Revolution. The biggest reason they didn't is that they were sitting on 4 million people who had every justification one could ever imagine for revolution. The last thing that the "Rebels" were was "Revolutionaries." The very thought of a real Revolution from people perfectly justified under Natural Law to rebel, sent chills down their spines.

They did not claim natural law or any "right to revolution" in 1860. They instead went to distorted interpretations of the Constitution as a PR stunt along with the bellicose rhetoric threats of bloodshed as an added garnish. It had worked for them for 30 years --- why not try it again. They were ACLU lawyers backed by a radical mob. The world can be thankful that Lincoln and the people of the North didn't cave into them this time as they had with every tantrum they had in the past.

If you voluntarily enter into a legal contract, you can voluntarily exit it as well, provided you follow legal procedures.

LOL. Momma, as i said earlier, don't try that in a court of law. The legal procedures you call for are usually not pleasant.

But moreover, what "legal procedures" did the Southern states resort to? Name one.

Unilateral declarations are not a legal procedure that I am aware of in the Western world. (I have heard that in Islam, Papa Texan could divorce you and void the "contract" just bay saying :I devoice you" three times. But I don't think that works in Texas or anywhere else in the Western world.

Did the Confederates appeal to the courts to dissolve the Union? Did they put it in front of the same Congress that admitted them to the Union? Either of those options could have been pressed to dissolve their relationship with the other states, but they attempted neither. Ask yourself why, and you may begin to understand what was happening then.