Posted on 04/15/2012 5:31:13 AM PDT by mek1959
This Friday, April 13th is the birth day of Thomas Jefferson. In recognition of his birthday I thought we’d revisit the meaning of the Declaration of Independence. On the surface the meaning of the Declaration may be self-evident, but the true meaning of many of the sentences and phrases escapes most people.
The Declaration of Independence stated to the world that the thirteen colonies were separating from Great Britain. In other words the colonies were seceding from Britain. The first paragraph says “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
(Excerpt) Read more at foundersrevolution.net ...
No argument I see.
In the case of any person accused of being ‘property’ the personal liberty law provided for a legal process to determine facts. That legal process involved testimony, rules of evidence, and due process protections of individual rights, based on the principle of “innocent until proved guilty”.
And you are honestly against that? You support people that were against that? Really?
I figure the ‘advise’ part worked with the league of nations, whereby reservations were developed, and the league of nations treaty would not be passed without the reservations. When the reservations were not included, the president rejected the advice, and so the treaty was not passed.
The fact you've been here 10 years and even ask that question shows just how weak your argument has become.
My feeeeeelings on the matter are immaterial.
The question is were they Constitutional? The US Supreme Court said they were not.
-----
Again, if the northern states had a problem with the Constitutional provisions that they had previously agreed to, the burden was on them to get them changed.
The fact you’ve been here 11 years and can’t even answer that question shows just how weak your argument has become.
Hence the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment.
The purpose of the trial was to determine if such a person was indeed in the class of “owed service or labor” with a presumption that it was not.
What court case was it that held that the personal liberty laws were constitutional?
Prigg v. Pennsylvania, per your link, Thankyou!
And Prigg v. Pennsylvania held that the recovery of fugitive slaves was exclusively a federal matter, that state officials could neither help nor hinder. Subsequent legislation by the free states gave similar guidance to state officials.
Without the cooperation of the state officials, the southern hotheads were unable to kidnap enough fugitive slaves. So that became the complaint of the slave power: That the northern officials, enjoined from either helping or hindering by both SCOTUS case law and state law, were actually following the law.
So in the event, it was the southern slave power that wanted to change the constitution to enslave all citizens to serve their interests, contrary to the limits handed down by Prigg v. Pennsylvania.
Thank you, that was exactly the point.
This is the very interesting part:
Nor does it matter that the rule to which I have adverted as being exclusive of the right of the States to legislate upon the provision does not appear in it. It is exactly to such cases that the rule applies, and it must be so applied unless the contrary has been expressly provided.
Doesn't matter? Says who? What happened to the 'things that are not included are therefore excluded' rule?
It was there in 1835
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.
PRESCRIBED. Past tense. If the judge meant 'as may be' proscribed by Congress, that would have been what he said.
What was prescribed by Congress and agreed to by all the States?
and to take him or her before any judge of the circuit or district courts of the United States, residing or being within the state, or before any magistrate of a county, city or town corporate, wherein such seizure or arrest shall be made, and upon proof to the satisfaction of such judge or magistrate,
Fugitive Slave Act of 1793
ANY recognized legal entity. Federal, State local could make the determination right there....period.
-----
There was a reason the Founders put that Article under the States and it is NOT enumerated under the powers of Congress, as there was no way for the federal government to feasibly enforce it.
The federal government assumed a jurisdiction it never possessed, and drove another nail in the Constitution.
I find it interesting how similar the arguments are for Prigss vs. Pennsylvania and the Obama administration arguments re: Arizona SB1070. Just as the southern slave power wanted no state officials mucking with their slave catchers, the Obama administration doesn’t want state officials reporting illegals to the federal government. Of course they will be fingerprinted first, and if an illegal commits a crime after release by the federals, it will look bad.
Perhaps it would have been better if the slave power had accepted local rules of civil procedure in return for local state help.
In Pennsylvania in Priggs, it seemed that the rules were to establish if the person in question was legally a slave. Rules banning or punishing perjury would seem to support that. I don’t see how the young child of the woman would be legally returned to Maryland, having been born in a free state, and never been a slave. If it was me, I would have convicted Priggs on kidnapping for that, at least. I would have been also interested in understanding how many state officials he had sought help from before deciding to violate Pennsylvania law.
I've illustrated the Original Intent of the Article V clause and you STILL don't see why the finding in Priggs is bogus, do you?
Despite flying in the face of the over 200 year old Rule of Exclusion, the whole 'purpose' of the finding in Priggs was that the implementation of the clause needed to be uniform.
So let's recap exactly where it was at that point, shall we?
-----
The fact that the clause is not under Article I, Section VIII 's Powers of Congress means the Congress cannot legislate it.
Despite the fact the clause IS under Article V, nothing in it enumerates the ability of the States to legislate it.
After the passage of the Act in 1793, every legal authority was bound to enforce it.
In a nutshell, the clause was enforceable by all, yet actionable by none.
That's why the 'uniformity' argument in Priggs is so transparent....How much more UNIFORM did they think it was going to get?
-------
Perhaps it would have been better if the slave power had accepted local rules of civil procedure in return for local state help.
Perhaps it would have been better if the northern states upheld their promised agreements and performed per the terms of the Compact they signed.
Perhaps it would have been better if the northern states upheld the Supreme Law of the Land instead of constantly trying to make 'terms' and' conditions' on already settled law.
The Founders made it simple -
Slave runs away
Slave caught by owner
Owner takes slave to judge and presents case
Judge accept or denies
The end.
No appeals, no making of special rules, no trial by jury...nothing.
Just yes or no.
If you'd bother to reading the Jack v. Martin case from 1835, you'd know that.
The fact that the clause is not under Article I, Section VIII 's Powers of Congress means the Congress cannot legislate it.
Despite the fact the clause IS under Article V, nothing in it enumerates the ability of the States to legislate it.
//////////////
But the fact it was IN the Constitution meant the power had to be somewhere.
This left an ambiguity, and in cases of ambiguity, Congress gets to decide.
After the passage of the Act in 1793, every legal authority was bound to enforce it.
//////////////////
In a nutshell, the clause was enforceable by all, yet actionable by none.
---------------
Again, my apologies. I really shouldn't try to expound on Constitutional Law before I'm awake. :-)
First of all, there are many different Civil War Almanacs available in paperback, at very reasonable prices.
I recommend the one I have, by John Fredriksen, but others are available even cheaper.
Second, there are no complete Civil War Timelines available online, at least that I can find.
However, this site comes as close as any:
1860 election, November 6, 1860 to fall of Fort Sumter, April 14, 1861
Third, I have myself typed up and posted on FR timelines of the more significant pre-civil war actions, but didn't save and now cannot find them.
However, I could do it again, if data in the link above does not satisfy your curiousity.
The key point is this: in every seceding state there were large numbers of Federal properties seized by force, some even before a state officially seceded.
These Federal properties included dozens of forts, armories, arsenals, barracks, customs houses, ships, naval yards, lighthouses and three US mints with millions in coins.
And by definition, forceful seizures of a nation's military assets are acts of rebellion or war.
That all those properties still belonged to the Federal government is proved by
Other secessionist acts of rebellion included arresting and detaining Federal officers, threatening violence against Federal forces and firing on Federal ships -- all this before assaulting Fort Sumter in April 1860.
Indeed, it was secessionists obvious rebellion, not secession itself, which fueled Northern war-fever.
So secessionists assault on and seizure of Fort Sumter was only the most egregious of many events that fired Northern passions to enforce the law and suppress the rebellion.
And, of course, secessionists then sealed their fate by formally declaring war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.
As I have never had any curiosity concerning governmental actions after Lincoln's election, your efforts would be wasted.
The election itself was sufficient.
From your link:
Abraham Lincoln wins the 1860 presidential election on a platform that includes the prohibition of slavery in new states and territories
Please show me the Constitutional authority to prohibit slavery in new states and territories.
I've shown in a previous post where the House of Representatives themselves admitted they had no such authority to regulate slavery in the States. If the legislature didn’t possess the authority, neither could the executive.
-----
Also from your link-
November 7, 9 Charleston, South Carolina authorities arrest a Federal officer.
I've looked through the Compilation of the Official Documents of the Union and Confederate Armies , and I can find nothing in them to indicate an arrest of any kind.
****
Nov 5th - Col Gardner [Brevet Colonel, U. S. Army, Ft Moultrie] requests permission to have munitions moved to Ft Moultrie, SC.
Nov 8th - Craig [Col of Ordinance in War Dept, Washington, D.C] acknowledged request and says the issue has not and will not be made without further orders.
Nov 10 - Humphries [Military Storekeeper Ordnance, Commanding, Charleston Arsenal] mentioned ‘the shipment of them was interfered with by the owner of the wharf’.
Nov 13th – Craig [War Dept, Washington, D.C ]
Respectfully referred to the Adjutant-General for the information of the Secretary of War, with the remark that I am not aware by what authority Colonel Gardner undertook to give such an order.
****
If such an arrest WERE made, perhaps it was because the local officials knew the ‘federal officer’ was moving munitions without lawful authority.
I’ve also checked the footnotes on Wiki 216 Hansen, 1961, p. 38 and 217 Long, 1971, pp. 3-4.
A search for Hansen brings up only 2 instances during the proper era, and both concern battles fought in the middle of 1861.
Long gives almost 100, 000 returns, and NONE concern the proper era.
------
That’s all the homework I’ll be doing to verify your facts.
I’ve given verifiable and easily accessible sources, usually in multiple form. Most are from the governmental archives themselves.
History books written 100 years after the war should certainly not be taken as bona fide historical fact, particularly since the ‘victors’ write the history books.
-----
The key point is this: in every seceding state there were large numbers of Federal properties seized by force, some even before a state officially seceded.
The key point is that you have yet to prove your assertion Federal properties were seized by force before a state officially seceded.
No state ever officially (legally) seceded.
LOL! You can't prove someone didn't do something.
Prove you never picked your nose.
And so the true mamatexan shines through...
Your entire argument consists of "No they didn't"
You haven't even mentioned the Constitutional Articles and clauses that were requested of you days ago. You act as if a power was given, when indeed it was not. [See multiple Rule of Exclusion posts]
You simply believe the South was wrong because you were always taught they were, and from scanning your posts, you've no wish to look at evidence that suggests anything else.
-----
And so the true mamatexan shines through...
I'm sure most adults can empathize with another adult who's been confronted with incessant childish behavior, so your insult was wasted.
Good day. I won't let the puerile outbursts goad me into replying again.
Likewise you are so preoccupied with imputing values and biases to others that you fail to see how muddled your own “arguments” are.
“Remove the mote from thine own eye, and then you may see clearly to remove the mote from thy brothers eye”
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.