The Confederates weren't right either. Mostly because they were just as authoritarian as the Unionists were. They were mostly upset that the power of the plantation class was waning.
The southern states paid militias to go fight in Kansans against the locals who wanted to vote it into being a free state (as most pioneers did). As a result, they started the a civil war in Kansas years before anyone else. This was followed up by burning the entire city of Topeka to the fucking ground because the southern militants blamed the Kansans for starting the war.
Not to mention the Fugitive Slave Law and Dredd Scott decision were wholly unconstitutional and utterly invalidated States Rights & Sovereignty.
Not to mention the Fugitive Slave Law and Dredd Scott decision were wholly unconstitutional and utterly invalidated States Rights & Sovereignty.
Neither of these are true fwiw. Fugitive slave act was justifiable under:
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.
Art. 4 section 2. Fugitive slave act literally was upholding the constitution.
And as for dredd scott?
Amendment 5:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The Fugitive Slave Law can't uphold the constitution when it federally deputizes slave patrols to cross states, draft the assistance and participation of a different state's citizens, in violation of state law, while also disregarding the citizenship status (whether federal or state) and law of the state that the escaped slave currently resides in.
That isn't the justification of the Dredd Scott decision. The justification of the Dredd Scott decision was to resolve the arguments around the existence of slaver (each of which was a failure). The decision (and it's additional consequences) are also false in a myriad of other ways. Read the dissent.
The United States is founded on Liberal Philosophy. The relevant point of which is that a man owns himself and endowed by God with inalienable rights. The very nature of a person being property of someone else is in contradiction to Liberalism. It does not fit even with public use, because a person is not public use. A person is not the private property of another, nor the public property of the state.
If we cared about Amendment 5, then the Fugitive Slave law would have to be revoked, since I don't see why a person's private property (food, shelter, or labor) can be deprived of him by deputized agents of the state, against his consent, and against the laws of the state he resides in. Again, patently unconstitutional.
and law of the state that the escaped slave currently resides in.
Barren v. Baltimore is patently up there as one of the singularly most retarded rulings the supreme court has ever made, next.
That isn't the justification of the Dredd Scott decision. The justification of the Dredd Scott decision was to resolve the arguments around the existence of slaver (each of which was a failure).
Now, as we have already said in an earlier part of this opinion, upon a different point, the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. The right to traffic in it, like an ordinary article of merchandise and property. was guarantied to the citizens of the United States, in every State that might desire it, for twenty years. And the Government in express terms is pledged To protect it in all future time, if the slave escapes from his owner. This is done in plain words--too plain to be misunderstood. And no word can be found in the Constitution which gives Confess a greater power over slave property, or which entitles property of that kind to less protection than property of any other description. The only power conferred is the power coupled with the duty of guarding and protecting the owner in his rights.
Maybe stop being retarded against someone who actually reads supreme court rulings like an autistic magnet.
The United States is founded on Liberal Philosophy. The relevant point of which is that a man owns himself and endowed by God with inalienable rights. The very nature of a person being property of someone else is in contradiction to Liberalism. It does not fit even with public use, because a person is not public use. A person is not the private property of another, nor the public property of the state.
And the constitution is the document by which we are governed, which is not an idealistic item.
If we cared about Amendment 5, then the Fugitive Slave law would have to be revoked, since I don't see why a person's private property (food, shelter, or labor) can be deprived of him by deputized agents of the state, against his consent, and against the laws of the state he resides in. Again, patently unconstitutional.
Slaves were legally property and not citizens, are you unable to read or are you just the average mouthbreather?
Point of order, it was Lawrence that was burned, not Topeka. It actually got attacked twice in fact. Once during Bleeding Kansas as it was the Free State capital, and the second time by William Quantrill and his raiders during the Civil War (like you said, because they blamed us for there even being a Civil War because we didnt just roll over and take it).
The Confederates weren't right either. Mostly because they were just as authoritarian as the Unionists were. They were mostly upset that the power of the plantation class was waning.
The southern states paid militias to go fight in Kansans against the locals who wanted to vote it into being a free state (as most pioneers did). As a result, they started the a civil war in Kansas years before anyone else. This was followed up by burning the entire city of Topeka to the fucking ground because the southern militants blamed the Kansans for starting the war.
Not to mention the Fugitive Slave Law and Dredd Scott decision were wholly unconstitutional and utterly invalidated States Rights & Sovereignty.
Neither of these are true fwiw. Fugitive slave act was justifiable under:
Art. 4 section 2. Fugitive slave act literally was upholding the constitution.
And as for dredd scott?
Amendment 5:
That last line is its justification.
The Fugitive Slave Law can't uphold the constitution when it federally deputizes slave patrols to cross states, draft the assistance and participation of a different state's citizens, in violation of state law, while also disregarding the citizenship status (whether federal or state) and law of the state that the escaped slave currently resides in.
That isn't the justification of the Dredd Scott decision. The justification of the Dredd Scott decision was to resolve the arguments around the existence of slaver (each of which was a failure). The decision (and it's additional consequences) are also false in a myriad of other ways. Read the dissent.
The United States is founded on Liberal Philosophy. The relevant point of which is that a man owns himself and endowed by God with inalienable rights. The very nature of a person being property of someone else is in contradiction to Liberalism. It does not fit even with public use, because a person is not public use. A person is not the private property of another, nor the public property of the state.
If we cared about Amendment 5, then the Fugitive Slave law would have to be revoked, since I don't see why a person's private property (food, shelter, or labor) can be deprived of him by deputized agents of the state, against his consent, and against the laws of the state he resides in. Again, patently unconstitutional.
Barren v. Baltimore is patently up there as one of the singularly most retarded rulings the supreme court has ever made, next.
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/dred-scott-v-sandford
Maybe stop being retarded against someone who actually reads supreme court rulings like an autistic magnet.
And the constitution is the document by which we are governed, which is not an idealistic item.
Slaves were legally property and not citizens, are you unable to read or are you just the average mouthbreather?
Point of order, it was Lawrence that was burned, not Topeka. It actually got attacked twice in fact. Once during Bleeding Kansas as it was the Free State capital, and the second time by William Quantrill and his raiders during the Civil War (like you said, because they blamed us for there even being a Civil War because we didnt just roll over and take it).
My bad. I forgot which capital.
Thanks,