4 ms·

With the FSA the south was pushing to force free states to kidnap individuals, something that was illegal to do. There's no constitutional provision for allowin

by myko 4y ago

With the FSA the south was pushing to force free states to kidnap individuals, something that was illegal to do. There's no constitutional provision for allowing kidnapping and enslaving individuals. In fact there are many rights that explicitly disallow that! The south crying about their inability to force free states to enslave people is an example of the hypocrisy of the modern argument that the south primarily fought over "states' rights" and not slavery, which is 100% bullshit. Read what the southern states said about their reasons for exiting the union: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati... The right they talk about? The right to own people. Slavery. > That's not a "modern" argument The southern states were concerned with slavery at the time the war started, not "states rights" - as pointed out, they were perfectly happy to attempt to force free states to kidnap people. "States' rights" became the battle cry in the next century, read more about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy Prior to then "states' rights" was not something heavily pushed by the south regarding the Civil War, they didn't think that way generally. As pointed out they were happy to reject the northern states' rights to disallow slavery! > The truth is that both sides at the time of the civil war were wrong. > But the north was also wrong because it was undermining the very institution of law No, only the south was wrong here.

pdonis 4y ago
> Prior to then "states' rights" was not something heavily pushed by the south, they didn't think that way generally. You must be joking. Pushing for states' rights by southern states goes back at least all the way to the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions in the late 1790s, and arguably was an important topic for them at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Relying on Wikipedia as your source on a topic like this is not a good idea.
pdonis 4y ago
> There's no constitutional provision for allowing kidnapping and enslaving individuals. If you want to argue that the explicit Constitutional provision about fugitive slaves (Article IV, Section 2, last clause) is inconsistent with other provisions of the Constitution, you can try to make that argument. But just claiming that the Constitution doesn't allow fugitive slaves to be returned to their owners, and calling doing so "kidnapping" without any supporting argument, when the Constitution has an explicit provision that requires fugitive slaves to be returned to their owners, is nonsense. You can't just ignore parts of the Constitution you don't like. > only the south was wrong here I don't think you have fully thought through your position.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > If you want to argue that the explicit Constitutional provision about fugitive slaves (Article IV, Section 2, last clause) is inconsistent with other provisions of the Constitution, you can try to make that argument The fugitive slave provisions of the Constitution were, by definition, consistent with the Constitution, however morally repugnant they were. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, OTOH, provided for the summary detention of accused escaped slaves by affidavit without warrant or probable cause or even any establishment of a reasonable basis, denied accused escaped slave the right to be heard in their own defense, denied them jury trial on the accusation, denied them trial before a judicial officer on the accusation, allowing the accusation to be heard by special commissioners who were paid a premium for ruling that the accused was, in fact, a fugitive without even a pretense of evenhanded justice, and commandeered state officers to assist with enforcement. On any reasonable reading—notwithstanding that its purpose was Constitutionally valid—it violated the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 10th Amendments, and the suspension clause. (The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 has a subset of the same problems.)
  - pdonis 4y ago
    > On any reasonable reading—notwithstanding that its purpose was Constitutionally valid—it violated the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 10th Amendments, and the suspension clause. The Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision did not take this position. They took the position that the Constitution's protections simply did not apply to slaves. (In fact the decision said that those provisions didn't even apply to free blacks.) Of course you can say that the Supreme Court was simply wrong. But under our system of law, the Supreme Court's rulings on Constitutional provisions are final unless overridden by an amendment--as the Dred Scott decision was overridden by the Thirteenth Amendment. So as a matter of law, the fugitive slave laws were Constitutional until the Thirteenth Amendment was passed. Just as, for example, it's Constitutional (unless a future Amendment changes things) for Congress to regulate a farmer's growing of wheat for personal use under the Commerce Clause (Wickard v. Filburn), or for a city to seize people's homes and turn them over to a private developer under the eminent domain power (Kelo v. New London). You might think those decisions were wrong (I do), but they're still the law of the land unless and until a Constitutional Amendment overrides them.

by myko 4y ago

pdonis 4y ago

> Prior to then "states' rights" was not something heavily pushed by the south, they didn't think that way generally. You must be joking. Pushing for states' rights by southern states goes back at least all the way to the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions in the late 1790s, and arguably was an important topic for them at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Relying on Wikipedia as your source on a topic like this is not a good idea.

pdonis 4y ago

> There's no constitutional provision for allowing kidnapping and enslaving individuals. If you want to argue that the explicit Constitutional provision about fugitive slaves (Article IV, Section 2, last clause) is inconsistent with other provisions of the Constitution, you can try to make that argument. But just claiming that the Constitution doesn't allow fugitive slaves to be returned to their owners, and calling doing so "kidnapping" without any supporting argument, when the Constitution has an explicit provision that requires fugitive slaves to be returned to their owners, is nonsense. You can't just ignore parts of the Constitution you don't like. > only the south was wrong here I don't think you have fully thought through your position.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> If you want to argue that the explicit Constitutional provision about fugitive slaves (Article IV, Section 2, last clause) is inconsistent with other provisions of the Constitution, you can try to make that argument The fugitive slave provisions of the Constitution were, by definition, consistent with the Constitution, however morally repugnant they were. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, OTOH, provided for the summary detention of accused escaped slaves by affidavit without warrant or probable cause or even any establishment of a reasonable basis, denied accused escaped slave the right to be heard in their own defense, denied them jury trial on the accusation, denied them trial before a judicial officer on the accusation, allowing the accusation to be heard by special commissioners who were paid a premium for ruling that the accused was, in fact, a fugitive without even a pretense of evenhanded justice, and commandeered state officers to assist with enforcement. On any reasonable reading—notwithstanding that its purpose was Constitutionally valid—it violated the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 10th Amendments, and the suspension clause. (The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 has a subset of the same problems.)
- pdonis 4y ago
  > On any reasonable reading—notwithstanding that its purpose was Constitutionally valid—it violated the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 10th Amendments, and the suspension clause. The Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision did not take this position. They took the position that the Constitution's protections simply did not apply to slaves. (In fact the decision said that those provisions didn't even apply to free blacks.) Of course you can say that the Supreme Court was simply wrong. But under our system of law, the Supreme Court's rulings on Constitutional provisions are final unless overridden by an amendment--as the Dred Scott decision was overridden by the Thirteenth Amendment. So as a matter of law, the fugitive slave laws were Constitutional until the Thirteenth Amendment was passed. Just as, for example, it's Constitutional (unless a future Amendment changes things) for Congress to regulate a farmer's growing of wheat for personal use under the Commerce Clause (Wickard v. Filburn), or for a city to seize people's homes and turn them over to a private developer under the eminent domain power (Kelo v. New London). You might think those decisions were wrong (I do), but they're still the law of the land unless and until a Constitutional Amendment overrides them.