States Rights for Free States...

[5fish]

We all know that "States Rights" was the banner used to justify slavery in the Southern States up until the Civil War. "States Rights" was one of the battle cries of the Southern leaders..

"States Rights" were used to fight the evils of slavery under the banner "Personal Liberty Laws" which were used to protect people of color and citizens of states from the federal "Fugitive Slave Laws".

States tried to nullified the "Fugitive Slave Laws" but the federal courts being stack with Southern judges did their best to toss these laws aside.

In the end under the Taney Supreme Court in the following cases struck them down.

Prigg vs Pennsylvania (1842)

Jones vs Van zandt (1846)

The Southern leaders did believe in "States Rights" to protect slavery but not ones own citizens. Southern leadership was willing to used the power of the Federal Government to enforce their slavery values upon the "Free States"

It is obvious "Free States" had no "States Rights only "Slave States" had "States Rights" and should be free of Federal Government.

This proves not only was the "Southern Slave Leaders" corrupt but hypocrites as well...They didn't believe in "States Rights" only in what further the institution of slavery.

[OpnDownfall]

Very true, the only state rights that got the southern leadership in a tizzy, were those rights that concerned their rights to own slaves.

[5fish]

If the Southern leaders would have supported the "Free States" use of "Personal Liberty Laws" it would have made their case stronger for their belief in "States Right".

The Southern leaders supported the power of the Central Government to force its will on the "Free States" completely under minding the notion of "States Rights".

As I have seen looking back at the Southern leaders, they were always short sighted in their views.

You can argue that the striking down of "Personal Liberty Laws" was the first steps toward a stronger Central Government that was supported by the Constitution law and the Judicial branch of Government.

A Note: The case of Jones vs Van zandt had a couple of future Civil War notables for Salmon Chase argue it before the Supreme Court with the help of William Seward.

[Beowulf]

Originally Posted by 5fish

We all know that "States Rights" was the banner used to justify slavery in the Southern States up until the Civil War. "States Rights" was one of the battle cries of the Southern leaders..

"States Rights" were used to fight the evils of slavery under the banner "Personal Liberty Laws" which were used to protect people of color and citizens of states from the federal "Fugitive Slave Laws".

States tried to nullified the "Fugitive Slave Laws" but the federal courts being stack with Southern judges did their best to toss these laws aside.

In the end under the Taney Supreme Court in the following cases struck them down.

Prigg vs Pennsylvania (1842)

Jones vs Van zandt (1846)

The Southern leaders did believe in "States Rights" to protect slavery but not ones own citizens. Southern leadership was willing to used the power of the Federal Government to enforce their slavery values upon the "Free States"

It is obvious "Free States" had no "States Rights only "Slave States" had "States Rights" and should be free of Federal Government.

This proves not only was the "Southern Slave Leaders" corrupt but hypocrites as well...They didn't believe in "States Rights" only in what further the institution of slavery.

This country cannot permanently endure half North and half South; it will either be all one thing, or all the other.

A house divided against itself cannot stand (to have its Second Party enjoy a majority of any kind, either in Congress, or the executive branch).

FREE STATES is as big a falsehood as LIBERAL!

Beowulf

[unionblue]

Originally Posted by Beowulf

This country cannot permanently endure half North and half South; it will either be all one thing, or all the other.

Wrong, again, Beowulf. At least use the man's actual quote instead of slapping your own agenda on it.

"half Slave and half Free." It has a tad more impact and meaning if used accurately.

A house divided against itself cannot stand (to have its Second Party enjoy a majority of any kind, either in Congress, or the executive branch).

Again, your opinion, not history.

FREE STATES is as big a falsehood as LIBERAL!

Beowulf

The fact of the matter was and is, there were Free States and Slave States.

The fact of the matter was the South called for a Federal Slave Code passed in order to permit and protect slavery throughout the entire US.

The fact is a case was working its way through the judical system with the intent of getting it before the Supreme Court to finally rule on slavery being legal throughout the entire US.

You have the wrong spin on it, Beowulf. The South was trying to enforce its will on the Free States, not the other way around.

The Free States were as real as a brick wall and have nothing to do with your current political outlook.

Unionblue

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by 5fish

We all know that "States Rights" was the banner used to justify slavery in the Southern States up until the Civil War. "States Rights" was one of the battle cries of the Southern leaders..

"States Rights" were used to fight the evils of slavery under the banner "Personal Liberty Laws" which were used to protect people of color and citizens of states from the federal "Fugitive Slave Laws".

States tried to nullified the "Fugitive Slave Laws" but the federal courts being stack with Southern judges did their best to toss these laws aside.

In the end under the Taney Supreme Court in the following cases struck them down.

Prigg vs Pennsylvania (1842)

Jones vs Van zandt (1846)

The Southern leaders did believe in "States Rights" to protect slavery but not ones own citizens. Southern leadership was willing to used the power of the Federal Government to enforce their slavery values upon the "Free States"

It is obvious "Free States" had no "States Rights only "Slave States" had "States Rights" and should be free of Federal Government.

This proves not only was the "Southern Slave Leaders" corrupt but hypocrites as well...They didn't believe in "States Rights" only in what further the institution of slavery.

I suggest you re read the US Constition which expicitly gives the states the right to have the Federal Government seek out and reuturn slaves to citizens of others states who have lost them, its a state right because the constition ackknowodges/afirms/gives/protects the right to own property and have it returned from other states without interference by those states.

[elektratig]

Originally Posted by Hanny

I suggest you re read the US Constition [sic] which expicitly [sic] gives the states the right to have the Federal Government seek out and reuturn [sic] slaves to citizens of others states who have lost them, its a state right because the constition [sic] ackknowodges [sic] /afirms [sic] /gives/protects the right to own property and have it returned from other states without interference by those states.

Uh, no. The interesting thing about the Fugitive Slave Clause is that it does not explicitly state that the federal government must seek out and return slaves. The Clause is carefully worded in the passive voice:

"No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due."

"Delivered up," but by whom?

[Baggage Handler #2]

... And more than one "conductor" took advantage of this ambiguity.
Was it Levi Coffin who testified under oath something to the effect of "We only had their word that they were escaped slaves, but the law of this state does not allow us to accept the word of a slave as evidence, so we had no choice but to disbelieve them and accept them as free men."

[trice]

Originally Posted by elektratig

Uh, no. The interesting thing about the Fugitive Slave Clause is that it does not explicitly state that the federal government must seek out and return slaves. The Clause is carefully worded in the passive voice:

"No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due."

"Delivered up," but by whom?

By the time of the Civil War, the US Supreme Court had already ruled on this issue in Kentucky v. Dennison (for return of Willis Lago, who had helped a slave escape, from Ohio to Kentucky, Dennison being the Governor of Ohio at the time):
=====
Syllabus
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
65 U.S. 66
Kentucky v. Dennison

Argued: --- Decided:
1. In a suit between two States, this court has original jurisdiction without any further act of Congress regulating the mode and form in which it shall be exercised.

2. A suit by or against the Governor of a State, as such, in his official character, is a suit by or against the State.

3. A writ of mandamus does not issue in virtue of any prerogative power, and, in modern practice, is nothing more than an ordinary action at law in cases where it is the appropriate remedy.

4. The words "treason, felony, or other crime" in the second clause of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States include every offence forbidden and made punishable by the law of the State where the offence is committed.

5. It was the duty of the Executive authority of Ohio, upon the demand made by the Governor of Kentucky and the production of the indictment, duly certified, to cause Lago to be delivered up to the agent of the Governor of Kentucky who was appointed to demand and receive him.

6. The duty of the Governor of Ohio was merely ministerial, and he had no right to exercise any discretionary power as to the nature or character of the crime charged in the indictment.

7. The word "duty," in the act of 1793, means the moral obligation of the State to perform the compact in the Constitution when Congress had, by that act, regulated the mode in which the duty was to be performed.

8. But Congress cannot coerce a State officer, as such, to perform any duty by act of Congress. The State officer may perform it if he thinks proper, and it may be a moral duty to perform it. But if he refuses, no law of Congress can compel him.

9. The Governor of Ohio cannot, through the Judiciary or any other Department of the General Government, be compelled to deliver up Lago, and, upon that ground only, this motion for a mandamus was overruled.
=====

This was a common attitude about the relationship of the US and the individual states in those days: that the states had a duty to obey the law, but that the Federal government had no ability to compel them to do their duty.

The decision was delivered by the Taney Court on 14 March 1861, only ten days after Lincoln entered office, and less than a month before Ft. Sumter was assaulted by the Confederacy. It clearly represents the current legal position at that critical time.

This Kentucky v. Dennison decision stood until overturned by Puerto Rico v. Branstad in 1987 (Branstad was Governor of Iowa).

ADDITION:
Taken to its' logical conclusion, this should also mean the Taney Court would have held the same thing for the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act. IMHO.

Tim

[ole]

Good grief, guys! This is deep. Will have to read it again tomorrow, just to see if it makes any more sense.

ole