The Fugitive Slave Clause and the Rebellion of the Northern States

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Your point is rather mute, as whether one wants to call them property or not is irrelevant to the law and constitution, because both considered them bound to service. So if you find indentured servant for life more PC or it fits your agenda more then slave or property, by all means use whatever pet term you prefer. If you wish to sugar coat slavery or that they were property it's noted, personally see little need, as it was what it was.

But what's relevant to the OP, is to the constitution they were bound to service, and according to the US Constitution another state could not relieve or free someone from that service, and were to turn them over to those or whose agents the service was due.

One doesn't to have to either approve or like a law to understand the laws actual meaning and intent. Least most people are capable of making such a distinction.
The point is not at all moot, because a claim was made that the Constitution "explicitly" forced the Free States to consider slaves as property. That claim was false, and I'll just continue to stick with the actual wording rather than with any "pet term."
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
The point is not at all moot, because a claim was made that the Constitution "explicitly" forced the Free States to consider slaves as property. That claim was false, and I'll just continue to stick with the actual wording rather than with any "pet term."
No the actual claim was the FSL explicitly showed their was no state right to free or release slaves from their service in another state.....

Don't really care if you wish to call them slaves, property, indentured servants or life or lost happy go lucky service people, as it clearly.said a state could not pass law or regulation to free or release whatever you prefer to call those held in service in another state........though most historians don't seem to have a issue with referring to slaves as property, but by all means use whatever happy term you prefer.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Considering that James Wilson of Pennsylvania at the Constitutional Convention originally opposed the inclusion of a fugitive slave clause because it would require state resources be used to enforce it, the question of whose responsibility it was to be the slave-catcher seemed to be an issue from the beginning. Now, whether that position could have been motivated by other concerns as well (and Wilson's case an argument can be made) is different than whether that was the motivation for someone's position. The anti-slavery movement was diverse in why it opposed slavery. It is clear that some opposed it on moral grounds, others economics reasons, some for legal reasons, and, yes, some by what can best be described as state's right.

It should not be a surprise to anyone that the opponents to the South's peculiar institution were motivated by various factors and one of those factors was being another man's slave-catcher. Nor should it surprise anyone the idea that state resources should not and can not be used to enforce federal law as it was a hotly debated topic during the era and beyond as "anti-commandeering" cases didn't stop with slavery.

While one can argue that Prigg undermined the intent of the 1793 law, it is also possible to argue that it upheld the intent of the Constitution as it wasn't the state's role to enforce federal law. Considering that the 1850 law focused on federal enforcement and avoided state enforcement, it isn't an unreasonable position to hold. It becomes less of an unreasonable position if one expanses their view beyond this era of our legal history.
It's still an issue today, but we cant use modern parallels.

But again Congress had the authority to amend or add to it, which they choose to do, and it wasn't overturned by Supreme Court, so it was indeed existing law.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
No the actual claim was the FSL explicitly showed their was no state right to free or release slaves from their service in another state.....

Don't really care if you wish to call them slaves, property, indentured servants or life or lost happy go lucky service people, as it clearly.said a state could not pass law or regulation to free or release whatever you prefer to call those held in service in another state........though most historians don't seem to have a issue with referring to slaves as property, but by all means use whatever happy term you prefer.
No, the exact words were:

You: Perhaps you will show me where it allowed states to deny the return of property which had been occuring, and that made the 1850 addendum felt necessary to be passed by US congress?​

Me: Where does it say that Free States have to agree that humans are property? I would think the notion of "states rights" would give the Free States the right to determine that humans are Free. Not property.​
You: Actually as it was rather explicitly in the Constitution it wasn't a state right to ignore ........states rights applied to things not explicitly laid out in the Constitution.​

My question was about humans being considered property. Your answer said it was "explicitly" laid out in the Constitution. That is false. The Constitution does not claim that slaves are to be considered property. Not "explicitly," and not in any other way.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
No, the exact words were:

You: Perhaps you will show me where it allowed states to deny the return of property which had been occuring, and that made the 1850 addendum felt necessary to be passed by US congress?​

Me: Where does it say that Free States have to agree that humans are property? I would think the notion of "states rights" would give the Free States the right to determine that humans are Free. Not property.​
You: Actually as it was rather explicitly in the Constitution it wasn't a state right to ignore ........states rights applied to things not explicitly laid out in the Constitution.​

My question was about humans being considered property. Your answer said it was "explicitly" laid out in the Constitution. That is false. The Constitution does not claim that slaves are to be considered property. Not "explicitly," and not in any other way.
And obviously as the one who made the statement, I know what meant by the statement, which despite having should been obvious, I just clarified.

The obvious point being made is it explicitly says another state can't pass legislation freeing a person from another state from service....which included slaves who most historians have no qualms calling property, but as I said substitute whatever term you think makes slavery sound better.... That a 2nd state can't change the status of service from the first state remains an explicit part of the original FSL clause.

So to your post 45 a free state could choose to not refer to a slave as property I reckon, though it would be rather mute.

As what they wish to refer to them as neither changes their status of service in the orginating state, nor is the second state allowed to change their status according to the Constitution. Which seems the primary intent of the constitutional clause.
 
Last edited:

Hawkins

Private
Joined
Sep 18, 2017
It's still an issue today, but we cant use modern parallels.

But again Congress had the authority to amend or add to it, which they choose to do, and it wasn't overturned by Supreme Court, so it was indeed existing law.
...with an existing case law that allow a State to utilize their authority to deny the use of their resources to enforce federal law, which they did to varying degrees of success. It's almost like dual federalism was a thing.
 
Top