Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp; DoodleDawg; jmacusa; x; rockrr; central_va
DiogenesLamp: "There is a constitutional clause REQUIRING slaves to be returned to the people to whom their labor is due according to the laws of the state that holds them.
No lesser act of congress can override that.
It simply does not matter what congress says on the subject, because the Constitution itself says they have to be returned."

That is such blatant nonsense I can't believe DiogenesLamp continues to post it with even a smidgen of sincerity.
And DoodleDawg fully answered in post #307, saying Lincoln:

By now DiogenesLamp should well know the 1787 US Constitution fully recognizes possibilities for rebellion, insurrection, domestic violence, invasion and treason.
It even allows normal protections to be set aside during such periods, i.e., habeas corpus.
And the Constitution grants ultimate authority in Article 1 Section 8, to: Further, in 1807 President Jefferson and his Democrats in Congress passed the Insurrection Act granting So President Jefferson's Insurrection Act of 1807 is what President Lincoln used to declare the beginning of Civil War in 1861.
It was also the basis for the August 1861 Confiscation Act, which made runaway slaves, aka "contraband" property of the Federal government, to be treated as hired hands.

Lincoln's 1862 Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order to all Federal units under Lincoln's command, declaring Confederate slaves free when they reached Union lines.
Like the previous Confiscation Acts, Emancipation was an act of war under authority of Article 1, section 8 and the 1807 Insurrection Act.

All of which DiogenesLamp well knows but refuses to acknowledge because it shoots down his favorite historical fantasies.

****************************

Note on this map those states & territories colored as "disputed".
By any definition, Confederate efforts to seize those through military force amounted to constitutionally recognized invasion or rebellion, and as such an existential threat to the United States:

399 posted on 10/15/2018 9:02:09 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies ]


To: BroJoeK
That is such blatant nonsense I can't believe DiogenesLamp continues to post it with even a smidgen of sincerity.

You can read it for yourself. It is Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph 3.

It doesn't mean what you wish it meant. It means what the verbiage in it says it means.

403 posted on 10/15/2018 9:21:24 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson