Posted on 04/15/2012 5:31:13 AM PDT by mek1959
Since the southern states signed on to the constitution, that means they signed on to the clause that forbade corruption of the blood.
Asserting that a slave is a slave due to his mother being a slave is a form of corruption of the blood.
So the slaves that were born after the constitution should have all been free anyways.
1) The 'corruption of the blood' clause was there when the northern states signed it too, and they had no problem with the fact slavery was hereditary until a couple of decades later.
2) The 'corruption of the blood' clause was to prevent punishments from being handed down from one generation to the next. Slavery wasn't a punishment, it was legal condition.
3) The 'corruption of the blood' clause was for people, and slaves weren't considered 'people' by the Constitution.
--------
I see you haven't commented on the Priggs case or the Article 5 clause.
Why do you switch the subject instead of continuing the discussion?
LOL! "Alleged"?
You totally disregard the evidence presented in the words of TWO signers of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and two other men who would later become an Associate Supreme Court Justice of the Pennsylvania District Court [appointed by Washington], and a Supreme Court Justice of the Virginia District Court [appointed by Madison], who was also the same man whose work helped win the recent RKBA Heller vs. the District of Columbia.....
and then try to disregard them all by claiming some insight under the guise of 'common sense'?
Like I said......LOL!
I guess you missed my previous comment on the Priggs case.
Your comment number 3 is false. Certainly they were considered persons.
To be fair, comment 3 is in accordance with Taney’s Dred Scott decision that held that negros could not be covered by the protection of law because they would be covered by the protection of law. It was bad law then, and bad policy. It cost some 700,000 lives to correct that bad decision.
Texas v. White held, as a matter of law, that the southern states did not legally secede.
In response to an assertion that it did, the supreme court held that they didn’t, and that their pretense to that effect had and has no legal effect.
You gotta give credit where due - mama is quite unabashed in her vigorous and enthusiastic support for the Particular Institution. Most Lost Causers attempt to tiptoe their way around the foundation for the confederacy.
True but at least she can prove that she did pick her nose ;-)
Prigggs vs Penn held, as a matter of law, that Congress could solve a problem that needed no solution. So?
Your previous post was the only one in all this time that even gave a nod to covered subjects, and all the emoting and anti-sourthern drek is getting tiresome.
A discussion involves a point being made and rebutted, not hopping around from subject to subject spouting Cliff notes from history class.
If you cannot discuss this using rules [such as the Rule of Exclusion] and law [like finding the word 'secession' in the Constitution] and recognize the progessionary pattern of encroaching government by using historical records, then I really have no evidence you will accept.
Congratulations. You are now property of the US government.
I’m taking that day off!
I never work on Friday the 13th...
...too much bad stuff can happen!
And you missed mine with the link to 1835. This is where an appeals court affirms a Supreme Courts decision and affirms the same decision by state and city courts of New York.
No one got to 'decide' if someone is a legal slave. It's based on prima facia evidence....just like any other case.
From the link
It was nevertheless decided, upon solemn argument, that the law of the United States was constitutional; that the slave was not entitled to trial by jury, or by any other mode different from that prescribed by the law of congress; and he was accordingly taken back to Virginia. This was the unanimous opinion of the court. Mr. Justice Thatcher dissented, but not on the ground of the unconstitutionality of the law of congress. The same decision has been made in Pennsylvania, and also by Judge Thompson in a late case in the circuit court of the United States. In addition, if I may be permitted to refer to the decisions of the tribunals of this state, the distinguished and learned individuals who preside over the supreme court of this state and the superior court of the city of New-York, upon mature deliberation, arrived at the same conclusion.
I cannot therefore consent to overturn a doctrine which is founded upon principle, and is sustained by authority; and am accordingly of opinion that the judgment of the supreme court ought to be affirmed.
-----
Making special rules is exactly what was unconstitutional about Priggs. There is NO power there for it to be legislated by the States
Priggs determination also had the added liberal benefit of letting the Supreme Court say Congress could regulate that which was already regular.... basically opening the door to redetermine already settled law.
WHY is that so hard for you to understand?
So is it your position that Priggs should have been convicted of kidnapping? In particular, regarding the young child who he abducted, who had never been a slave, I agree with that position.
It is a sad irony that the first person in Virginia held as a slave for life, got that status based on his acts. Others got that ‘status’ based on state law. Like so many statist positions, they were inflicted with the status of a criminal for the convenience of others, and not for any act of their own.
As you know, I withdrew from this thread but have been watching your posts; impressive indeed.
In the end, our big-government pro-arbitrary powers apologists on this thread will be the very ones who come running to our side when the Lincolnian doctrines blossom fully and the national government (it hasn't been federative since 1865) collapses; as they all do. And when it collapses, the national DC'vers, as occurred in 1860 will weave a fanciful web of deceit about this or that theory of "contract" or "perpituity". In fact, here is the mangled mishmash of Lincolns "views" about "universal law" and "implied perpetuity."
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
And the fanciful fallacious story they will weave will offer even more "security" in exchange for a little more liberty. And when this happens, some group of people, operating through there States will exercise their Inalienable Right to withdraw from the COMPACT "at pleasure." And the pro-big government pro-arbitrary power "conservatives" on this thread who don't abandon their "theories" about Lincoln's supposed authority, will be the first one's to pick up a gun and shoot the the people attempting to withdraw from the COMPACT. The Constitution means nothing to these people except as a propaganda tool. How do I know this?
I have asked repeatedly on this thread to point to ONE sentence, paragraph, section, Article in the entire Constitution...heck I'll go to the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights that the PEOPLE of the SEPARATE STATES working through those sovereign STATES DELEGATED a shred of their RIGHTS to the Executive to "preserve the Union? What do I get, a letter the inconsistent Madison wrote (by the way, this is a well known letter...no new information here) about separation for "injury" only but never "for pleasure." And that letter is supposedly the "smoking gun" for the entire group of people we refer to as the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers.
The reason I don't engage in a "quote battle" between the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers is because I don't need to. I always win the debate (even though the pro-big government, pro-arbitrary power side rarely concedes) by asking the simplest of questions...where is the RULE OF LAW AUTHORITY for Lincoln? There simply isn't any. And the anti-inalienable rights crowd knows this so they start up the rhetoric machine and pump out "theories" or favorable quotes from the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers. I point to legal binding static documents...the pro-big government, pro-arbitrary power side goes to "theories," "opinions," and "views." That's called obfuscation friends.
I'll close awaiting the citation from ANY of the legally binding founding documents that delegated this authority to the Executive to preserve the Union or the Union's perpetuity? As vicious and unpleasant the issue of slavery was, there are much bigger issues to discuss surrounding the period 1860-1865 such as THE RULE OF LAW, not some "Universal Law" Lincoln refers to. Seriously folks, does it not bother you at all that he goes to Universal Law, whatever the heck that is, for part of his justification? I prefer discussing Authority, or Inalienable Rights, or Self Determination or Arbitrary Power and many others that emerged from this period.
Oddly, I used to be just like you defenders of Lincoln's unconstitutional behavior...even while working as a Senior Legislative Assistant for two conservative Republican Members of Congress back in the 1980's. And then I began asking myself uncomfortable questions about the issues above and I realized I did not understand the Rule of Law, the cornerstone of the Constitution. I do now!
So, I will patiently continue to watch MamaTexan eviscerate the pro-big government, pro-arbitrary powers types here and maybe pop back in from time to time. She is right you know, ignore her at your own peril.
In closing, I'll post a quote from a recent President who was also pro-arbitrary power; I suspect you probably supported this president:
Cue Jeopardy music in the background...
Which pro-unconstitutional power, pro-arbritrary power president said this?
"I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system."
You have :30 seconds and while you're answering this, can you give me the citation to the question I asked above?
No. As the conviction was based on unconstitutional laws passed by the state, there was no 'kidnapping'....which is exactly what part of the decision in Priggs said, BTW.
-----
In particular, regarding the young child who he abducted, who had never been a slave
The child of a slave was born into slavery whether the child was born in a free state or not.
-----
The inability to legislate on slavery AND the fact a child of a slave was born INTO slavery are the LEGAL concepts agreed to by the northern states when they signed the compact.
-----
Sorry if the facts make you uncomfortable....and you STILL haven't even acknowledged the 1835 decision.
You know, the one that set the LEGAL PRECIDENT concerning the implementation of the Article V clause.
-------
It is a sad irony that the first person in Virginia held as a slave for life, got that status based on his acts. Others got that ‘status’ based on state law. Like so many statist positions, they were inflicted with the status of a criminal for the convenience of others, and not for any act of their own.
Emote, emote, emote, emote, emote.
LOL! You'd think saying things like the above quote and oxymoronic concepts like trying to 'regulate your way to freedom' or 'spend your way to prosperity' would give a rational person a reason to pause and examine the situation.
-----
Thanks for the words of encouragement [both here and abroad], BTW. The writing on the 27th was impeccable. I was really needing a boost at the time.
:-)
If I were typing in a word document, perhaps, but the spell checker on the posting box doesn't even recognize the word 'Freeper', so what?
Did you have an actual contribution to make to the conversation, or did you just stop by to nit-pick on the misplacement of a single vowel?
If anything good can come from this thread, it's the hope that readers of it will pause, take off the republican or Heritage Foundation filters and take a honest look at the period. I did years ago after I got out of the belly of the beast. Sadly, I watched first hand the arbitrary power Washington DC could wield after 1865 and unfortunately, I was involved in it myself. As I mentioned on an earlier post, not ONCE did anyone in my Congressional office, including my boss, the Member, ever pause and ask whether or not what were about to do was authorized by the Constitution or violating the Bill of Rights...NOT ONCE. And neither did any of the other Congressional offices. And this anti-constitutional, pro-arbitrary power approach to national governance finds its birthplace squarely in the period of 1860-1865; the death of federalism.
And this is why I'm so definitive about my position and why absolutely NOTHING the big-government and pro-arbitrary power conservatives throw at me sways me a bit. I actually lived pro-arbitrary power every day during my tenure on the "Hill." It's hard for the "theorists" on this thread to assault my first hand experience. Just as it's impossible for them to cite anything from the Article II of the Constitution that empowered Lincoln to Preserve the Union. Unless of course they refer to the hidden Article 8 of the Constitution that Lincoln found! :)
It's also been a blessing running across you on this thread and when my wife and I get to Texas, maybe you can direct us to some good BBQ there!
That, good Sir, would depend on how you and yours like your sauce.
Thin and tomato-y or thick and sweet.......and/or hot!
[grin]
My holding is that Priggs should have been convicted, that Pennsylvania had passed good laws on the procedure to be followed, which Priggs ignored, and thus lost his special rights as a slave catcher.
By not getting agreement of a magistrate, Priggs had no more right to kidnap people and take them across the border than Harriet Tubman had to free people from slavery and help them escape across the border.
Alas, the Slave Power didn’t want to have their divine right to enslave limited by state procedure, and so demanded the decision of Priggs v. Pennsylvania.
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.