Source: http://www.gwu.edu/~ffcp/exhibit/p10/p10_2.html
Posted on 11/13/2006 9:25:11 PM PST by freedomdefender
No. Taney said it was not the federal government's business as to whether or not there was slavery in a state. The fact the federal government demanded a state enter into the Union as either one or the other is what made it unconstitutional.
-----
Did Pennsylvania, for instance, (which outlawed slavery a nearly a decade before before the US Constitution was enacted) be required to allow slavery?
Of course not. It was a State issue, not a federal one. Part of the right of a republican form of government is that the States get to determine what they will do within their own borders. That included whether or not slavery would exist.
-----
If the Taney decision was right, then the reading of the Constitution was that the right to own slaves must exist in every state and no state could ban it.
Nope. The reading of the Constitution say person held in service or labor. It doesn't even mention States. Slavery was none of the business of the federal government because it has no national authority outside its enumerated jurisdiction. Couple that with the fact the expressed right to have a slave returned must come with the implied right to have owned one in the first place. This places ownership of slaves outside the purview of the federal government.
-----
It takes a very strange view of the Constitution to come to that conclusion. As to original intent of the Framers concerning slavery in the territories, I'd refer you to Lincoln's Cooper Union Address.
I'm sorry, that was not my conclusion. As for the statement about the Northwest Ordinance in Lincoln's Cooper Union Address, I'm aware the Founders didn't morally agree with slavery, but they did recognized it as a necessity of the times.
-----
On the subject of the Northwest Ordinance:
1) it was drawn up and signed by 39 members of the convention, but not IN the convention
2)It was signed on July 13, 1787. This was BEFORE the Constitution took effect on March 4, 1789.
The Ordinance was constructed under the of the Articles of Confederation, NOT the US Constitution, so it seems odd that Washington could have made the Ordinance operable under the Constitution. Particularly since I can find no record of it being discussed by Congress before he signed it.
It also seems quite odd that Madison, in Federalist #38 wrote about the Northwest Ordinance-
Congress have assumed the administration of this stock. They have begun to render it productive. Congress have undertaken to do more: they have proceeded to form new States, to erect temporary governments, to appoint officers for them, and to prescribe the conditions on which such States shall be admitted into the Confederacy. All this has been done; and done without the least color of constitutional authority. Yet no blame has been whispered; no alarm has been sounded. A GREAT and INDEPENDENT fund of revenue is passing into the hands of a SINGLE BODY of men, who can RAISE TROOPS to an INDEFINITE NUMBER, and appropriate money to their support for an INDEFINITE PERIOD OF TIME. And yet there are men, who have not only been silent spectators of this prospect, but who are advocates for the system which exhibits it; and, at the same time, urge against the new system the objections which we have heard. Would they not act with more consistency, in urging the establishment of the latter, as no less necessary to guard the Union against the future powers and resources of a body constructed like the existing Congress, than to save it from the dangers threatened by the present impotency of that Assembly?
I mean not, by any thing here said, to throw censure on the measures which have been pursued by Congress. I am sensible they could not have done otherwise. The public interest, the necessity of the case, imposed upon them the task of overleaping their constitutional limits. But is not the fact an alarming proof of the danger resulting from a government which does not possess regular powers commensurate to its objects? A dissolution or usurpation is the dreadful dilemma to which it is continually exposed.
***
After first providing for the survey of the land west of the Appalachian mountains, the so-called Northwest Territory, Congress enacted the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the single most important piece of legislation in the Confederation period. The Ordinance provided the means by which new states would be created out of the western lands and then admitted into the Union. Governors and judges appointed by Congress would rule a territory until it contained 5,000 free male inhabitants of voting age; then the inhabitants would elect a territorial legislature, which would send a non-voting delegate to Congress. When the population reached 60,000, the legislature would submit a state constitution to Congress and, upon its approval, the state would enter the Union. The importance of the statute, aside from providing for orderly westerly settlement, is that it made clear that the new states would be equal to the old; there would be no inferior or superior states in the Union. Moreover, in the Ordinance Congress compacted with the settlers of the territories that they would be equal citizens of the United States, and would enjoy all of the rights that had been fought for in the Revolution. Where the Articles of Confederation lacked a bill of rights, the Ordinance provided one that included many of the basic liberties the colonists had considered essential, such as trial by jury, habeas corpus,1 and religious freedom.
Northwest Ordinance - July 13, 1787
***
Then, on December 11, 1816, Congress adopted and President James Madison approved a resolution "That the state shall be, and is hereby declared to be, one of the United States of America, and admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever."
Indiana's Constitutional Past
------
Essentially, the Founders tried to restrict slavery's expansion and create a source of revenue by the use of treaty in one fell swoop.
That's what the Northwest ordinance is.... a treaty.
The problem is that the treaty (Northwest Ordinance) conflicts with the original contract (Constitution).
You can't tell someone they have a right to property.... sometimes. That property was necessary in the less-developed wilderness areas of the territories and areas who's economy was based more on agriculture than industry.
It was up to the group of people residing in the State to make that decision, not the federal government. The Founders knew that, and in trying to balance the freedom of the People with their personal views of slavery, they created a fault which could not be repaired.
Either slave were people, or their ownership fell under an absolute right to property of their owners
States were either sovereign within their borders, or the Founders created one monolithic 'government' to rule us all.
There can BE no middle ground.
The Ordinance was constructed under the of the Articles of Confederation, NOT the US Constitution, so it seems odd that Washington could have made the Ordinance operable under the Constitution. Particularly since I can find no record of it being discussed by Congress before he signed it.
Look harder. On August 7, 1789, the 1st U.S. Congress affirmed the Ordinance with only slight modifications to comply with terminology used in the Constitution. The affirmation passed the 1st Congress without objection and that Congress had 16 members who were delegates and signatories of the new Constitution. The bill than was signed by President Washington who was also the president of the Constitutional Convention.
I might also add that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were fully aware of the Northwest Ordinance, including it's slavery clause and if they had intended that the Federal Government should have no say over slavery in the territories, they surly could have corrected that situation during their deliberations.
But from what I can find in the record, the only discussion during the Convention of provisions contained in the NWO was the requirement that new states created out of the territories would have equal rights and privileges as the original 13 states. Some thought new states should be "lesser" states and some thought they should be treated as colonies and not as states. In the end, they accepted and enshrined in the Constitution language in perfect agreement with the NWO on the rights of new states.
Either slave were people, or their ownership fell under an absolute right to property of their owners...
As per the articles of the Constitution, slaves ('persons' held in service) were indeed "people" albeit counted as 3/5 of a person with respect to apportionment. Other "property" such as cows, sheep and pigs were not counted for purposes of apportionment. If they were simply "property" and not people, why were they counted at all?
Look for yourself- Friday, August7, 1789 from the Library of Congress.
If you have a link to the contrary, I'd appreciate your posting it.
-----
I might also add that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were fully aware of the Northwest Ordinance,
Without seeing the record, it's a contention that's hard to prove. Madison himself they were outside Constitutional boundaries and I can't see how any treaty, whether written before or after constitutional ratification, can contradict the Constitution itself.
It's either the supreme law of the land, or it's not.
-----
If they were simply "property" and not people, why were they counted at all?
I'm not getting into why the Founders gave slaves the political status that they did. Perhaps you should read their writings and ascertain that for yourself.
Source: http://www.gwu.edu/~ffcp/exhibit/p10/p10_2.html
Here's a text version of the 1789 (1st Congress) and 1792 (2nd Congress) statutory revisions to the NWO.
These seem to add up into a very odd time-line:
1) The NWO was signed under the Articles of Confederation-July 13, 1787
2) The US Constitution took effect-March 4, 1789
3) The Revisions to the NWO were approved-Aug. 7, 1789 & May 8, 1792 .
----
Okay, how does one entity 'amend and approve' a document that was created by a totally DIFFERENT entity?
The usage of 'United States' in the original NWO is impossible. There WAS no 'United States' at that time.
It seems one would have to draw up another document under the NEW entity in order for it to 'continue to have full effect'.
Until its legal, it can't have ANY effect.
And while I truly appreciate the links to the information, I've yet to find anything on any discussions concerning the Northwest Ordinance except Federalist #38 and #43.
Neither of those are flattering.
They did draw up a new document which happened to be the Northwest Ordinance with alterations in line with the new Constitution. And George Washington, who thought the restrictions on slavery a good thing, gladly signed the document into law.
I'll take the opinion of the president of the Constitutional convention over Roger Taney's opinion any day.
LOL. Do you just make this stuff up?
Please see Article I of the Articles of Confederation
ARTICLE I The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".
It seems one would have to draw up another document under the NEW entity in order for it to 'continue to have full effect'.
Please see Article IV of the United States Constitution
Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
Neither of those are flattering.
Odd reading. I see no criticism of the Northwest Ordinance in either, but instead criticism of the Articles of Confederation which forced Congress to make laws out of necessity with no guidance, limitations or restriction provided by The Articles.
In Federalist 38, Madison is refuting the charge that the Constitution concentrates too much power in the Federal government and makes the case that under the Articles of Confederation, there are no checks and balances of separate branches and no constitutional limitations on the authority of Congress. While he used the Northwest Ordinance as an example of that one body, unchecked by other branches, with no guidance from the Articles themselves, assuming all authority (out of necessity) over the territories. He argued this in the abstract and concluded with a disclaimer that he meant no criticism of the Congress and did approve of their actions.
"I mean not, by any thing here said, to throw censure on the measures which have been pursued by Congress. I am sensible they could not have done otherwise. The public interest, the necessity of the case, imposed upon them the task of overleaping their constitutional limits. But is not the fact an alarming proof of the danger resulting from a government which does not possess regular powers commensurate to its objects? A dissolution or usurpation is the dreadful dilemma to which it is continually exposed.
In Federalist 43, Madison returns to the theme of the Constitution providing checks and balances not in the Articles by using the clauses contained in the NWO concerning admission of new states as an example. He pointed out that the Articles did not contemplate new states and gave no guidance and again left the necessity of dealing with an expanding nation up to a single body with no checks or balances.
There was absolutely no criticism of the Northwest Ordinance, or the the Congress who drafted it. His criticism was entirely directed at the defects of The Articles.
"I picked up on the fact that you don't you like to be disagreed with."
You didn't pick up on it because it is not a "fact." What you were really picking up on is the fact that I don't like someone assuming they are right but are in fact wrong, and then projecting their shortcomings upon others. But that's just me.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Bite me!
Emphasis bump.
The argument that idealogical opposition to tariffs were a primary reason for secession discounts the fact that the secessionist South quickly raised their own tariffs and included them on goods coming from the United States (ie: the North). It is hard to imagine how the average southerner would have benefited from having to pay this new tax on manufactured goods and staples from a country they were formally part of.
Just agreeing with your point that only one person was responsible for starting the war. His name was Jeff Davis.
If you could source it then you would.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.