Posted on 05/08/2022 4:51:13 AM PDT by Kaslin
We may be watching the breakup of the United States if Roe v Wade is overturned as indicated by the leaked draft memo of a pending Supreme Court decision.
We have to go back to 1857, to the Dred Scott decision, to see how devastating a court decision could be. Prior to that decision, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 required every state, including Northern states, to assist in the return of runaway slaves. Of course, Northern States were loath to oblige, and the South was furious about this. Northern interference was cited as one of the reasons for the South’s secession, indicating two things:
1) The South, despite its claims, did not care about state’s rights, when it applied to Free States.
2) The real issue of the Civil War was slavery, as also indicated by Vice-President Alexander Stephen’s inaugural cornerstone speech.
The Dred Scott decision said that a slave was not freed when entering a free state, nor could he be. Couple that with the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act, and what that meant was that slaves, as slaves, could be brought to every state of the Union, without an alteration of status. Effectively, the Supreme Court had forced the institution of slavery upon the North.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
This article is complete horse shit.
In practice not much will change.
Leftist groups will raise money for women in Red states to travel to Blue states to get abortions.
Blue states will continue to kill babies to their heart’s delight.
Red states, on principle, will stop the killing inside their own borders.
No disrespect to the author........good points all the way around.
The US today is hopelessly fractured. Most folks don’t know it yet. Hopelessly fractured to a point where our once supreme influence will continue to erode. Will the country actually split into two? Ultimately, it may, but we are already fighting a civil war about fundamentals.
“One could bring his slaves to Massachusetts, so any pretense of a Free State was lost”
One cannot bring his guns to Massachusetts, so any pretense of a Free State was lost
As a matter of fact, it is similar in the substance.
Nowadays, everybody abhors slavery. Yet, it used to be the law of the land.
When abortion is finally weeded out, it will be treated like slavery in historical books.
“You know, they used to kill babies, and it was the law of the land! How abhorrent!”
Oy. These “writers” who continually lust for civil war in the USA. Yeah, that’s just what we need.
There will be rioting, violence, schism, chaos over this and other issues regardless. Eagerly anticipating secession and war is going to help the situation....how, exactly?
Our union will be “ripped apart” and the Constitution “destroyed.” Wipe the drool off your chin.
Be careful what you wish for, especially if you’re “a writer who wishes he had paid more attention in his Spanish class, lo those many decades ago.”
Abortion is a twofer for Deep State.
Another distraction from its main goals.....
And a bludgeon to threaten their wayward voter base with, vote for us or there goes your access to abortion.
Note to Dem femmes: Ladies, Deep State has screwed every base its ever had. If you don’t vote MAGA, free and easy access to abortion will be the least of your problems.
But if you do vote MAGA and MAGA wins, we’ll restore the republic and the subject of abortion will be up for debate.
A question regarding the future of abortion:
With the potential end of the Roe v Wade and Casey
decisions, the states will again be implementing their
own policies. We will again have “abortion” states and
“life” states, much as we used to have “slave” states
“free” states.
That raises a question about states’ rights. If an abortion
is attempted in an “abortion” state but fails, and if the baby
survives and escapes to a “life” state, then will the baby be
forced to return to the “abortion” state to complete the
abortion?
And, if the case goes before the Supreme Court, would it be
referred to as the “Dred Scooter” decision?
This article is complete horse shit.
Actually,the article is spot on.
Just like Dred Scott v Sanford, Roe v Wade attempted to "settle" the issue, once and for all, by forcing a position held by a minority of the country on the entire nation.
Fortunately, it hasn't taken a civil war to reverse it.
“Apparently, society cannot agree on the basics, and unless this is settled, the country will eventually break up.”
1973 + 49. Waiting...
(That said, I do think the country will eventually break up, but not over abortion.)
The Central Point of this Mike Konrad article seems to be that the U.S. will break up over abortion.
161 years ago, about 8 miles from where I sit at this moment, my Great Grandfather, his brother and his brother’s son met at a neighbors house for the Sunday “get together” lunch with surrounding neighbors. After the meal, and the prayers, they then said their goodbyes and rode off to join the sixth Texas Confederate Regiment. Only my Grandpa came back (at the end of the war, the sixth was paroled in Jackson, Mississippi, only 160 were left) , thankfully, or I wouldn’t be typing this post.
My ancestors were rural working people. They were close to poor but not poor and they did not own any slaves or even know anybody that did.
So, I disagree with this author. My relatives rode off to their deaths because ....”we’re not going to let those damn Yankee’s push us around”.................NOT Slavery.
I agree with Konrad that the U.S. will likely breakup this century, but it won’t be over JUST abortion.
Maybe I'm out of touch, but as a general rule most of my kids' acquaintances never talk about abortion. It's not on their radar. They also say it's not part of their broader discussions about life....they're more worried about the messed up state of the world.
I'm going to go out on a limb, and state that most of the protests etc are manufactured. Oh sure, there will always be some 15% of the nation that are far left snowflakes who riot over the slightest triggering event. But the left has not inculcated in the next generation a passion for abortion and Roe as a galvanizing "right." It's sort of your grandparent's jam - "protest over abortion? Ok, boomer...". Letting gays marry, not hating blacks, and not banning graphic video games is more of a "passion" for the under 40 crowd.
I think the protests we are seeing are produced by aging ERA and NOW members via FB who are frightened that nobody will pickup the mantle, and worse nobody CARES about Roe. They're way too many manufactured signs, and the people with homemade signs look like they came from central casting - they probably answered an ad and get a free bus ride, box lunch and some loose joints if they act like they're on MSNBC for an afternoon.
In contrast, there are zillions of youths who'd get peeved if the 2nd Amendment was on the ropes. That's because we've inculcated in our progeny (ps we didn't kill our progeny) a love and understanding of natural rights, original intent, and we've taken them out to the range.
I've read that attendance at Graceland is way down over the past few decades...the Estate failed to keep Elvis relevant to the next generation. Most GenZers know about Elvis from Lilo &a Stitch. In 20 years, nobody will buy his music or care about his legacy. Same general thing with abortion.
I think - and this is what I said - there’ll be a lot of violence regardless of the issue. Violence is on the menu; the reason for it is secondary. Losers are going to find an excuse to riot.
Your reasoning is quite sound, however. And I like how you worked Elvis into the conversation.
The abandonment of Roe v. Wade returns the issue to the states.
Dred Scott took the issue from the states.
* most of the protests etc are manufactured. Oh sure, there will always be some 15% of the nation that are far left snowflakes*
Good point(s). It doesn’t take much. Take the 15% health uninsured b4 Obamacare. It’s settled-for the worse.
The overreaction to aids, Covid, LGBQT rights. It doesn’t take much and there will be more triggering events b4 November as well as a few after. Something about a squeaky nut getting the oil.
I am 65 and have heard a form of your argument all my life. When I was very young it took the form of "better red than dead." It also has shown up in anti-war movies. The idea is that no matter what is wrong, war is always worse so forget it. As a Baptist pastor, I have seen the idea take hold as anti-fundamentalism, the idea is that no matter what apostasy is being taught at Southern Baptist Seminaries, my saying anything against that is "unloving", "unChrist-like".
In debate I was taught that there are two types of cases you can make to win a debate, the harms case and the comparative advantages case. Your argument is sort of a comparative harms case. The idea is that we will create bloody suffering to fix an injustice that is somewhat of an irritation. This is valid logic if true.
Another case IMHO is the moral duty case, and it depends on a form of "moral absolutism" held by genuine Christians who believe in and practice God's law. I am not convinced that this situation calls for the kind of suffering that you are in fear of, I only mention it to show you that for the audience that you are speaking to, your argument will have no weight whatsoever.
I am in a hurry to get to church so pardon me if this doesn't make sense.
FReegards!
BrianD
The “American Thinker” badly damaged its brand when it groveled and begged forgiveness for speaking out on the flawed 2020 election. It was quite the spectacle seeing them stand on their head.
Now this. Somehow this outfit decides it can educate people on the Fugitive Slave Law without mentioning the Fugitive Slave Clause - perhaps they wanted to keep secret that slavery was included in the United States Constitution; the constitution that all 13 original slave states agreed to unanimously.
As a rule I don’t read their stuff because too often it is no good.
John Calhoun’s impetus for the idea of State Nullification was over tariffs, not slavery. I don’t think that tariffs were the only or primary issue in the War of 1861, but they were a big deal in the earlier states’ rights debates earlier in the century.
At the same time, prominent southerners were sympathetic to the Ostend Manifesto, which suggested taking Cuba by forse if necessary in order that it could become a slave state. Taking over another country’s territory for a parochial political issue is the anti-thesis of states’ rights.
The Dred Scott decision said that a slave was not freed when entering a free state, nor could he be. Couple that with the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act, and what that meant was that slaves, as slaves, could be brought to every state of the Union, without an alteration of status. Effectively, the Supreme Court had forced the institution of slavery upon the North.
Only Justice Wayne concurred entirely with the opinion of Chief Justice Taney. The five other concurring justices only concurred with the decision of the court, and such opinions expressed by the Chief Justice as they explicitly agreed with in their concurring opinion. There were two dissenting opinions. Every justice wrote a separate opinion.
Only two justices, Wayne and Daniel, concurred that a negro could not be a citizen of the United States. That is not a majority, and is not an opinion of the Court. Almost the entirety of Taney's expressed opinions lack a majority and are dicta, not opinions of the Court.
The Court did not force slavery upon the North. Several of the northern states were slave states. New Jersey was still a slave state after the Civil War was over, and until the 13th Amendment abolished slavery. The Constitution was not forced on the northern states, and it included the Fugitive Slave clause. Slaves escaping into a free state could not claim their freedom. Slaves taken into a free state could and did successfully claim their freedom while in the free state. See Lemmon v. The People, 20 N.Y. 562 (1860). This followed the British case of The Slave Grace, 2 Hagg. Admin. (G.B.) 94 (1827). This did not help Dred Scott as the slave could claim freedom in the free state, but if he returned to a slave jurisdiction, his slave status reattached. Scott went to a free state, but returned to Missouri, and tried to claim freedom in Missouri. The ultimate arbiter of state citizenship is the highest court of the state. In a previous proceeding, the Missouri Supreme Court had already held that Scott was not a citizen of Missouri pursuant to Missouri state law. The Supreme Court was bound by that decision. At the Supreme Court, Scott claimed Federal jurisdiction based on diversity of state citizenship. Scott claimed to be a citizen of Missouri. He claimed his owner as John Sanford, a citizen of New York. As Scott was not a citizen of Missouri, his claim of federal jurisdiction to hear his case failed.
The decision of the Court was to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
Upon the whole, therefore, it is the judgment of this court, that it appears by the record before us that the plaintiff in error is not a citizen of Missouri, in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution; and that the Circuit Court of the United States, for that reason, had no jurisdiction in the case, and could give no judgment in it. Its judgment for the defendant must, consequently, be reversed, and a mandate issued, directing the suit to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
The Mandate is an official mode of communicating the judgment of the appellate court to the lower court.
As the mandate issued to the Circuit Court in the case of Scott v. Sandford shows, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case, and remanded the case to that court with instructions to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.
Missouri, C.C.U.S.No. 7
Dred Scott, Ptff. in Er.
vs.
John F.A. SandfordFiled 30th December 1854.
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
March 6th, 1857. —
- - - - - - - - - -
No. 7
Ptff. in Er.
Dred Scott
vs.
John F.A. SandfordIn error to the Circuit Court of the United Stated for the District of Missouri.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Missouri and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the said Circuit Court in this cause be and the same is hereby reversed for the want of jurisdiction in that court and that this cause be and the same is hereby remanded to the said Circuit Court with directions to dismiss the case for the want of jurisdiction in that court. —
Ch. Jus. Taney
6th March 1857
While not affecting the case, the real owner turned out to be a Massachusetts Republican abolitionist congressman, Calvin Chaffee. When former owner John Emerson died, his widow Elizabbeth Irene Sanford Emerson became owner. She was the sister of John Sanford, who was in a mental institution. When the widow Emerson married Calvin Chaffee, he became the owner as married women at the time did not own property under the law feme covert.
In May 1857, Massachusetts Congressman Calvin Chaffee executed a quitclaim deed in favor of Taylor Blow in Missouri giving Blow ownership of Dred Scott and family. On May 26, 1857 Taylor Blow emancipated the Scotts. The original owner was his father, Peter Blow. Taylor Blow grew up with Dred Scott.
26 Saint Louis Circuit Court Record 2631
Tuesday May 26th 1857Taylor Blow, who is personally known to the court, comes into open court, and acknowledges the execution by him of a Deed of Emancipation to his slaves, Dred Scott, aged about forty eight years, of full negro blood and color, and Harriet Scott wife of said Dred, aged thirty nine years, also of full negro blood & color, and Eliza Scott a daughter of said Dred & Harriet, aged nineteen years of full negro color, and Lizzy Scott, also a daughter of said Dred & Harriet, aged ten years likewise of full negro blood & color.
1 26 Saint Louis Circuit Record 263
The next day, Eliza Irene Sanford Emerson Chaffee’s attorney filed the motion to claim all of the wages earned by Scott, held by the Sheriff.
26 Saint Louis Circuit Court Record 2671
Wednesday May 27th 1857
Dred Scott.
vs. )
Irene Emerson. )On motion of defendants attorney it is ordered that the Sheriff of St. Louis County do render his account to the court of the wages that have come to his hands of the earnings of the above named plaintiff and that the said sheriff do pay to the defendant all such wages that now remain in his hands, excepting all commissions and expenses to which the said Sheriff may be legally entitled.
1 26 Saint Louis Circuit Record 267
The author's argument "Effectively, the Supreme Court [via Dred Scott Decision] had forced the institution of slavery upon the North." shows exactly how one-sided his premise is for condemning this coming reversal.
He uses it [the DS decision] as his rationale to equate that the coming decision would 'force' abortion on Blue States. Never mind that the DS decision was later reversed by Constitutional Amendment (i.e., that bad USSC decisions can be reversed). OR that Roe v Wade effectively 'forced' abortion on states whose citizens don't want abortion. But he and his ilk are unwilling to talk about that point - the one where Roe v Wade decision was a bad one just like Dred Scott.
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.