back to top
Again, Dred Scott *was* the law. There is no need for more laws to enforce an existing law. What are examples where Republicans 'passed laws which violated it'?
"Administrative decisions and regulations, by which federal executive officials refused to obey Dred Scott by refusing to protect slavery in the territories, while continuing to prosecute and harass slave-owners in the territories under existing federal laws that prohibited slavery there-- while state officials did likewise against those travelling with their slaves through free states, prosecuting and harassing them under state laws, while also refusing to protect them."
Again, I'd ask for examples, but I've come to realize that you have none...
What more proof do you need, than a straight-out admission in Lincoln's own First Inaugural Address?
All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.
A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism.
There you have it-- right from the horse's mouth.
He's plainly saying that a congressional majority could constitutionally do these particular things, since the Constitution didn't "expressly say" it couldn't -- and that there wasn't a damned thing that the southern states could do about it.
For some one claiming that slavery was not a cause of the Civil War, you sure bring it up a lot...
I'm sorry... is that supposed to be an argument? It isn't.
The war was caused, because the Union attacked the Confederate states after denying their sovereignty, and demanding that they roll over and pay tribute.
Last edited on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 04:20 pm by ThomasWashington