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

To: tacticalogic

Does your comment mean that if slavery wasn’t prohibited by the Constitution nobody thereafter had any right to work against it?

In 1860 almost all northerners, and all northern politicians, agreed that the Union had no right to interfere in slavery within a state. To be fair, a good many of the pols were probably lying, much like Obama claiming to be against gay marriage as recently as two years ago.


50 posted on 07/07/2015 5:44:08 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]


To: Sherman Logan
Does your comment mean that if slavery wasn’t prohibited by the Constitution nobody thereafter had any right to work against it?

Not one bit. The mere fact that the Constitution itself lays out explicitly a process of amendment would render any such assertion invalid on it's face.

In 1860 almost all northerners, and all northern politicians, agreed that the Union had no right to interfere in slavery within a state. To be fair, a good many of the pols were probably lying, much like Obama claiming to be against gay marriage as recently as two years ago.

There was contention between the Northern and Southern states, even early on. Who's idea was it to only count slaves as 3/5 of a person, and who benefitted from that?

59 posted on 07/07/2015 5:56:55 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: Sherman Logan
In 1860 almost all northerners, and all northern politicians, agreed that the Union had no right to interfere in slavery within a state. To be fair, a good many of the pols were probably lying, much like Obama claiming to be against gay marriage as recently as two years ago.

And this is a valid and objective point from you. I have seen others argue that the Slave holders expected the same sort of "Executive Order" bullshit and Executive Departmental foot dragging and obstinacy, interfering with their rights in the manner Obama uses today to accomplish most of his agenda.

There were refusals to enforce the fugitive slave laws, and every legal or sophist trick was being used against them; the events that triggered the Dred Scott case being an example.

Yeah they were lying, and were doing anything in their power to refuse to comply with the deal they made back in 1789, or the actual and correct meanings of the law. Much like with many issues of today, such as "Gay Marriage".

117 posted on 07/07/2015 8:58:34 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | 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