Any Civil War buffs want to help a man out?

[SlowwHand]

He should have made his proclamation before the war.
Then it would have meant something.

[lord of the mark]

Bancroft:


"Massachusetts passed a law to secure to such fugitives trial by jury. Pennsylvania passed a law against kidnapping. A decision was finally made in the United States Supreme Court which gave to the owner of a slave authority to recapture him in any State of the Union, without regard to legal processes. Yet little benefit was gained by the South from this decision. The States readily obeyed the mandate against interference. Some of them forbade their courts to hear claims of this character, and laid severe penalties on officers who should arrest or jailers who should detain alleged fugitive slaves. The difficulty thus produced was obviated in the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. Commissioners were appointed by the United States to hear such cases, and marshals and their deputies were required to execute warrants for the arrest of fugitives, with a penalty equal to the full value of the slave if they should suffer one to escape after arrest. Other features of this bill increased its stringency, and under its provisions there was little hindrance to a free negro being kidnapped and taken South as a slave. The commissioners in certain cases refused to listen to evidence in favor of the freedom of the alleged fugitive"

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
He should have made his proclamation before the war.
Then it would have meant something.

yes, it would have meant that in addition to the states that actually seceded, Kentukcy and Maryland would have seceded as well, probably resulting victory for the Confederacy. It would have mean something, but actual liberation of the slaves is NOT what it would have meants.

[Ramo]

The Civil War wasn't about state's rights as some sort of high-minded noble and consistent principle. As is usually the case, one must follow the money, and you run into two things:

1. Slavery. I don't think I need to elaborate.

2. Protective tariffs and industrial subsidies. As the political elite in the South were plantation aristocrats instead of industrialists as in the North (most people at the time, North and South were farmers), they strongly opposed protection and subsidies for industry because that imposed strong financial burdens on themselves. In fact, the South almost seceded 30 years earlier over protective tariffs after the gov't passed the "tariff of abominations."

[MrFun]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Bancroft:


"Massachusetts passed a law to secure to such fugitives trial by jury. Pennsylvania passed a law against kidnapping. A decision was finally made in the United States Supreme Court which gave to the owner of a slave authority to recapture him in any State of the Union, without regard to legal processes. Yet little benefit was gained by the South from this decision. The States readily obeyed the mandate against interference. Some of them forbade their courts to hear claims of this character, and laid severe penalties on officers who should arrest or jailers who should detain alleged fugitive slaves. The difficulty thus produced was obviated in the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. Commissioners were appointed by the United States to hear such cases, and marshals and their deputies were required to execute warrants for the arrest of fugitives, with a penalty equal to the full value of the slave if they should suffer one to escape after arrest. Other features of this bill increased its stringency, and under its provisions there was little hindrance to a free negro being kidnapped and taken South as a slave. The commissioners in certain cases refused to listen to evidence in favor of the freedom of the alleged fugitive"

The problem is though, that some Southerners just do not realize the importance of primary sources in doing research or scholarly studies.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


States are supposed to settle with each other according to legal means. IE a southerner claiming a lost slave in Pennsylvania was to supposed to sue for return of his property in Penn courts. Now they might side for him, or they might decide that a black claimed as a fugitive slave was NOT in fact the slave of said master. Southerners became impatient with Northern state processes, and in some cases wanted to take back blacks with little evidence or justification - basically launching slave raiding expeditions on free black communities. The FSA was passed to expedite this.

Like it or not, "negroes" were not persons under the Constitution at the time, and thus were governed under laws relating to interstate commerce. A state settling an issue with another state is different than a private litigant resident of another state being forced to travel out of state to file an action in another jurisdiction. A plaintiff normally brings a legal action in the jurisdiction where the subject matter giving rise to the action occurs, or where plaintiff resides (more often than not, the same jurisdiction. If I have property removed from California to Nevada, I do not need to commence another legal action in Nevada to claim lawful title - the state of Nevada is obligated to accept and enforce a California court's adjudication, unless a Nevada party to the case can show that the California court lacked jurisdiction or their is some other legal defect, such that the state of Nevada has a lawful basis for intervention.

This happens all the time with out of state enforcement of child custody and support orders, for attachments on property of debtors when that property is located in several states (you have to obtain judgment in one state with personal and subject matter jurisdiction, you don't have to commence separate actions in every state and retry the same issue), etc. You file an abstract of judgment or similar document (depending on the type of issue) with the other state.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MrFun


The problem is though, that some Southerners just do not realize the importance of primary sources in doing research or scholarly studies.

Yes, honeybuns, it's very So you've now proven what's never been in dispute - certain states enacted laws specifically to hinder or thward enforcement of judgments or claims made properly under the jurisdiction of other states, in violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause, and so SCOTUS and the Congress acted to stop this unconstitutional interference with the evil institution.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Like it or not, "negroes" were not persons under the Constitution at the time, and thus were governed under laws relating to interstate commerce.

Incorrect - slaves WERE not persons at the time - free negroes most certainly WERE persons. Ergo questions of their status could not be considered the same as questions of property. And of course whether the blacks in question were in fact escaped slaves or free negroes being kidnapped was just what was at issue.

Whether negroes could be citizens was another question. SCOTUS in Dredd Scott said they were not - but this considered a radical new doctrine - in at least a few New England state Negroes could vote. Note that SCOTUS made its judgement in the context of whether a Negro could sue in Federal court - NOT whether they were property under the Commerce clause.

[Imran Siddiqui]

WRT the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincolm was inaugurated in March 1861, and released the proclamation in Sept 1862. Less that a year and a half. He didnt release it earlier for fear of alienating the neutral slave state of Kentucky, at a strategically delicate time. Lincoln was a pragmatist. Doesnt mean he wasnt a great man.

If he truely issued the EP because he was a great man, he wouldn't have just done it to UNLIBERATED regions in the South. Those slaves that lived in areas that were liberated by union troops were SOL until the 13th Amendment.

He was a great politician no doubt, but I don't think you can use the EP to claim he was a 'great man'.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

WRT the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincolm was inaugurated in March 1861, and released the proclamation in Sept 1862. Less that a year and a half. He didnt release it earlier for fear of alienating the neutral slave state of Kentucky, at a strategically delicate time. Lincoln was a pragmatist. Doesnt mean he wasnt a great man.

If he truely issued the EP because he was a great man, he wouldn't have just done it to UNLIBERATED regions in the South. Those slaves that lived in areas that were liberated by union troops were SOL until the 13th Amendment.

He was a great politician no doubt, but I don't think you can use the EP to claim he was a 'great man'.

he was a great man viewed in the bigger picture - i was responding to sloww, who basically asked "if lincoln was so great, why didnt he issue EP earlier" Cosnidering how basic the discussion of the EP timing is to anyone who knows much about the Civil War, and obvious it was that it couldnt be issued earlier, that struck as a rather inane question.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

WRT the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincolm was inaugurated in March 1861, and released the proclamation in Sept 1862. Less that a year and a half. He didnt release it earlier for fear of alienating the neutral slave state of Kentucky, at a strategically delicate time. Lincoln was a pragmatist. Doesnt mean he wasnt a great man.

If he truely issued the EP because he was a great man, he wouldn't have just done it to UNLIBERATED regions in the South. Those slaves that lived in areas that were liberated by union troops were SOL until the 13th Amendment.

He was a great politician no doubt, but I don't think you can use the EP to claim he was a 'great man'.

There were plenty of slaveowners in unliberated areas who the govt were trying to form into loyalist state govts at the time - this gets into the whole question of Lincolns view of reconstruction.

What should be recalled is that EP was controversial in the North at the time, and that most of the opposition to Lincolns policy came NOT from people asking why it wasnt bigger or earlier, but from people who resentd that it had happened at all, turning a war for union into a war against slavery. That was largely the thrust of the Democratic campaign in 1864, and was very popular, especially in the "lower North".

Its easy to nitpick Lincoln from the vantage point of 140 years later. It was VERY hard being Lincoln.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It also shows that Lincoln didn't do it because he wanted to free slaves. He did it for political gain.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It also shows that Lincoln didn't do it because he wanted to free slaves. He did it for political gain.

I think a fair reading of Lincoln's letters, speeches, etc show a man for whom saving the union was first priority ("If I could save the Union by..."),but who was rapidly learning on issues of justice to the Negro.

[lord of the mark]

on emancipation as pragmatism versus justice - Lincoln already thought of that, and ansered it in December 1862.

"In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free - honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just - a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless."

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Read the language very carefully. There was no rebellion (i.e. an attempt to replace the United States government, or that of any state, by force).

Tennessee was overthrown by secesionists, IIRC.