Secession in California

[Taken]

You can't understand it period. You can't have the Federal govt. acting upon slavery as they did and then say it is a state issue. That is ridiculous.

Okie dokie. Whatever you said for yourself.
Jurisdiction of the Federation and its territories concerning boundaries and subject matter, is of no issue. ;(
Jurisdiction of the States concerning boundaries and subject matter, is of no issue.
;(

When the importation of slaves was outlawed in 1803, that also was the Federal govt. making slavery it's issue.

The subject matter of jurisdiction concerning imports and exports IS jurisdiction of the Federation. Really doesn't matter what the import is. The Federation has jurisdiction over the matter.

If you are satisfied with the Federation having jurisdiction over SLAVES, I'm sure there is a historical account of Federal Laws regarding Slaves....and none necessary in the governance of Slaves in historical State laws....

God Bless,
Taken

 

[Stranger]

Okie dokie. Whatever you said for yourself.
Jurisdiction of the Federation and its territories concerning boundaries and subject matter, is of no issue. ;(
Jurisdiction of the States concerning boundaries and subject matter, is of no issue.
;(



The subject matter of jurisdiction concerning imports and exports IS jurisdiction of the Federation. Really doesn't matter what the import is. The Federation has jurisdiction over the matter.

If you are satisfied with the Federation having jurisdiction over SLAVES, I'm sure there is a historical account of Federal Laws regarding Slaves....and none necessary in the governance of Slaves in historical State laws....

God Bless,
Taken

It is an issue as it shows that slavery was not just a state issue. It didn't just concern boundaries. It concerned the importation of slaves. It didn't just concern a geographical line. It concerned a geographical line concerning slavery.

It is not a question of whether or not I am satisfied. It is a question of being honest with history.

Another example is the protection of slavery by the Federal govt. It is called the Fugitive slave law. Runaway slaves were required, under the Constitution, to be returned to their owner.

Stranger

 

[Taken]

It is an issue as it shows that slavery was not just a state issue. It didn't just concern boundaries. It concerned the importation of slaves. It didn't just concern a geographical line. It concerned a geographical line concerning slavery.

Uh, boundaries is geographical jurisdiction.

It is not a question of whether or not I am satisfied. It is a question of being honest with history.

So be honest.

Another example is the protection of slavery by the Federal govt. It is called the Fugitive slave law. Runaway slaves were required, under the Constitution, to be returned to their owner.

Uh, geographical jurisdiction between States is a Federal issue.

Still is.

When a crime is committed within a State, it is a State matter....(unless the crime happens within Federal Jurisdiction...like a Federal building within a State)....

And when a crime is committed within one state, and the offender crosses State line, the State where the crime was committed does not have jurisdiction in the other State, and the State the offender flees to, has no jurisdiction to apprehend the offender. It is Federal jurisdiction expressly because of jurisdiction between States is Federal.

Same when Slaves escaped from one State to another State, the issue became a Federal issue jurisdictionally, crossing a State line.

If you do not understand Jurisdiction, and which Government has what Jurisdiction, and Which jurisdiction it is...because there are several per each government....you will still not understand.

God Bless,
Taken

 

[Stranger]

Uh, boundaries is geographical jurisdiction.




So be honest.



Uh, geographical jurisdiction between States is a Federal issue.

Still is.

When a crime is committed within a State, it is a State matter....(unless the crime happens within Federal Jurisdiction...like a Federal building within a State)....

And when a crime is committed within one state, and the offender crosses State line, the State where the crime was committed does not have jurisdiction in the other State, and the State the offender flees to, has no jurisdiction to apprehend the offender. It is Federal jurisdiction expressly because of jurisdiction between States is Federal.

Same when Slaves escaped from one State to another State, the issue became a Federal issue jurisdictionally, crossing a State line.

If you do not understand Jurisdiction, and which Government has what Jurisdiction, and Which jurisdiction it is...because there are several per each government....you will still not understand.

God Bless,
Taken

You're going to seed with your 'jurisdiction' speech. You stated in post #48 that slavery was the states issue and that the Constitution neither sanctioned it or outlawed it. But the Constitution did sanction it in protecting the slave owners property with the 'fugative slave law'. Thus slavery was very much a federal issue also.

As to when it exercised its jurisdiction concerning slavery is immaterial. That slavery was an issue with the Federal govt. is undeniable. Even though you want to deny it.

As I have said, and proved, it was not just a states issue.

Stranger

 

[Taken]

You're going to seed with your 'jurisdiction' speech. You stated in post #48 that slavery was the states issue and that the Constitution neither sanctioned it or outlawed it. But the Constitution did sanction it in protecting the slave owners property with the 'fugative slave law'. Thus slavery was very much a federal issue also.

As to when it exercised its jurisdiction concerning slavery is immaterial. That slavery was an issue with the Federal govt. is undeniable. Even though you want to deny it.

As I have said, and proved, it was not just a states issue.

Stranger

Good to know, you are satisfied with your knowledge of history; jurisdiction and time line being of no importance.

On the flip side;
British Colonial Jurisdiction
Colonial Laws governed the introduction of slaves to the colonies. Abt 1611

Delegates from Colonies with secession idea;
Form Contential Congress
Abt 1774

Independence Declared from Britain
1776

Contential Congress issue Articles of Confederation
1777

Confederate Congress formed
1781 - 1788
Eleven States formed

Constitutional Republic Federation formed
1789
Eleven more States forming

You bring up:
1820 - Missouri Compromise
You bring up:
1850 - Fugitive Slave Act

Federal Jurisdiction - regarding Federal Territories, for ANY circumstances

Federal Jurisdiction - regarding transportation of property crossing State line, for ANY circumstances.

!820 - Missouri was not a State.
1820 - Missouri was a Federal Territory
1820 - Federal Jurisdiction regarding ANY issue of their Territory

1850 - Crossing of State lines, Federal Jurisdiction regarding ANY property.

"Before the Civil War...(property, including) human chattel was governed largely by laws of the individual states." Library of Congress

Some property was Governed by the Federal Government....DUH...when the property crosses State Lines!! What the property IS is irrelevant.

I already said, the Federal Government had concerns about slavery, spreading.
They used their Jurisdictional Authority to stop the spread of slavery.

You want to deny the States had Governance over Slaves...ignore timeline, ignore jurisdiction....go ahead.

After the Civil War - The Federal Authorites once again USED their Jurisdictional Authority, to prevent seceded slave States to rejoin the Union as a Slave State, and Amdending the Constitution.

Jurisdictional Authority of the Federation -
IS over Statehood admission to the Union
IS over disputes/crossing lines between States
IS over Amending the Constitution

Slaves were subject to the Laws of the individual States.

The Federation did not have Jurisdiction over Slaves in slave States....UNTIL after the CW.
Not in 1820, Not in 1850.

Statehood, disputes between states, Amending the US Constitution...were and are under the Jursidiction of the Federation.

1865 - WHILE eleven States were in secession, the Federation Amended the US Constitution abolishing slavery.

1866 - the first of the 11 states in succession were re-admitted to the Union.

1868 - the Federation Amended the US Constitution making people granted citizenship BY the Federation, citizens SUBJECT TO the Federation.

Now when you bring up 1820 and 1850...
Implying the Federal Government had Authority over Slaves....they didn't until a Slave, or Any property, crossed state lines, and the issue was VIA what was now their jurisdiction to oversee.

Slaves were governed by individual state laws.

When 11 southern states succeeded, the Federation remaining of northern states, that did not agree with slavery....once again by jurisdictional authority supported by delegates of the northern states, trotted themselves to DC to abolish Slavery unto the Federations Jurisdictional Authority to Amend the US Constitution.

And again in 1868, Granting the Freed slaves citizenship.

State laws governed the slaves.
The Federation as I said had concerns over slavery spreading....but did not have lawful authority over the slaves.

The Federation acted by using their own Jurisdictional Authority to back-door deal with their concern of slavery spreading.

And much of that was accomplished, by the Federation taking advantage of the seceded slave states not being represented, because they had seceded...AND because the Federation had jurisdiction over their own Territories.

You can not ignore the Jurisdiction and time-line and make some carte blanch statement as if it properly applies, when it doesn't.

Glad you feel better of what you think you have proven...as you say.

Obviously ignoring you have proven nothing.

State laws governed Slaves.
The Federation had concerns over Slavery.
State laws governed Slaves.
First the Federation granted the slaves liberty;
1865
Then the Federation granted the freed slaves citizenship 1868, making them subject to Federal Governance and Laws.

Prior to 1868, Slaves were subject to State Governance.

Well after 1820 and 1850 that you were talking about.

God Bless,
Taken

 

[Stranger]

Good to know, you are satisfied with your knowledge of history; jurisdiction and time line being of no importance.

On the flip side;
British Colonial Jurisdiction
Colonial Laws governed the introduction of slaves to the colonies. Abt 1611

Delegates from Colonies with secession idea;
Form Contential Congress
Abt 1774

Independence Declared from Britain
1776

Contential Congress issue Articles of Confederation
1777

Confederate Congress formed
1781 - 1788
Eleven States formed

Constitutional Republic Federation formed
1789
Eleven more States forming

You bring up:
1820 - Missouri Compromise
You bring up:
1850 - Fugitive Slave Act

Federal Jurisdiction - regarding Federal Territories, for ANY circumstances

Federal Jurisdiction - regarding transportation of property crossing State line, for ANY circumstances.

!820 - Missouri was not a State.
1820 - Missouri was a Federal Territory
1820 - Federal Jurisdiction regarding ANY issue of their Territory

1850 - Crossing of State lines, Federal Jurisdiction regarding ANY property.

"Before the Civil War...(property, including) human chattel was governed largely by laws of the individual states." Library of Congress

Some property was Governed by the Federal Government....DUH...when the property crosses State Lines!! What the property IS is irrelevant.

I already said, the Federal Government had concerns about slavery, spreading.
They used their Jurisdictional Authority to stop the spread of slavery.

You want to deny the States had Governance over Slaves...ignore timeline, ignore jurisdiction....go ahead.

After the Civil War - The Federal Authorites once again USED their Jurisdictional Authority, to prevent seceded slave States to rejoin the Union as a Slave State, and Amdending the Constitution.

Jurisdictional Authority of the Federation -
IS over Statehood admission to the Union
IS over disputes/crossing lines between States
IS over Amending the Constitution

Slaves were subject to the Laws of the individual States.

The Federation did not have Jurisdiction over Slaves in slave States....UNTIL after the CW.
Not in 1820, Not in 1850.

Statehood, disputes between states, Amending the US Constitution...were and are under the Jursidiction of the Federation.

1865 - WHILE eleven States were in secession, the Federation Amended the US Constitution abolishing slavery.

1866 - the first of the 11 states in succession were re-admitted to the Union.

1868 - the Federation Amended the US Constitution making people granted citizenship BY the Federation, citizens SUBJECT TO the Federation.

Now when you bring up 1820 and 1850...
Implying the Federal Government had Authority over Slaves....they didn't until a Slave, or Any property, crossed state lines, and the issue was VIA what was now their jurisdiction to oversee.

Slaves were governed by individual state laws.

When 11 southern states succeeded, the Federation remaining of northern states, that did not agree with slavery....once again by jurisdictional authority supported by delegates of the northern states, trotted themselves to DC to abolish Slavery unto the Federations Jurisdictional Authority to Amend the US Constitution.

And again in 1868, Granting the Freed slaves citizenship.

State laws governed the slaves.
The Federation as I said had concerns over slavery spreading....but did not have lawful authority over the slaves.

The Federation acted by using their own Jurisdictional Authority to back-door deal with their concern of slavery spreading.

And much of that was accomplished, by the Federation taking advantage of the seceded slave states not being represented, because they had seceded...AND because the Federation had jurisdiction over their own Territories.

You can not ignore the Jurisdiction and time-line and make some carte blanch statement as if it properly applies, when it doesn't.

Glad you feel better of what you think you have proven...as you say.

Obviously ignoring you have proven nothing.

State laws governed Slaves.
The Federation had concerns over Slavery.
State laws governed Slaves.
First the Federation granted the slaves liberty;
1865
Then the Federation granted the freed slaves citizenship 1868, making them subject to Federal Governance and Laws.

Prior to 1868, Slaves were subject to State Governance.

Well after 1820 and 1850 that you were talking about.

God Bless,
Taken

Oh Gee. A long list of nothing to add nothing to your case. Squawk about 'jurisdiction' all you like. You cannot deny that slavery was a Federal issue. Such a list becomes nothing but a smoke screen to hide that you don't know what you are talking about.

Slavery was protected by the Constitution. That made it clear that it was a Federal issue also. And through all the Compromises the Federal govt. acted on it.

The problem then becomes later, that the northern agitators and states were refusing the Southern states their protection under the Constitution. Thus the Federal govt. was failing in its obligation.

Stranger

 

[Taken]

Oh Gee. A long list of nothing to add nothing to your case.

LOL, I don't have a "case" with you!

You want to talk about history, but historical facts mean nothing to you....uh, I noticed!

Squawk about 'jurisdiction' all you like.

Any fool can dismiss jurisdiction as having no baring on governance.

You cannot deny that slavery was a Federal issue.

Actually, I can deny whatever I chose to deny!

I can also know the difference between an issue and concern OF Slavery, and WHO had jurisdictional Authority of Governance OVER Slaves.
Which is obviously a pertinent part of history, you conveniently ignore.

Such a list becomes nothing but a smoke screen to hide that you don't know what you are talking about.

LOL, funny. Historical authority over Slaves, when discussing Slavery...according to you is a smoke screen..... LOL LOL.

Slavery was protected by the Constitution.

SHOCKING....the Federal Government had jurisdiction over property crossing state lines.......gee, who knew...obviously you!

Was the Federal Governance over SLAVES, no,
Over property crossing state lines....over CARGO, CORN, VEHICLES, SLAVES, property crossing state lines. Yes.

But then FACTS, really do not matter to SOME people. LOL

That made it clear that it was a Federal issue also.

Already established, the Federation had a concern over the spread of slavery....not particularly news, but rather history.

Already established, States had GOVERNANCE over SLAVES.

Already established, Federal Gov't did not have GOVERNANCE over SLAVES, until the Federal Govt granted former slaves citizenship. 1868

Apparently you do not know the difference between an issue, concern, or authoritative Governance, or it's LEGAL standing and impact.

The problem then becomes later, that the northern agitators and states were refusing the Southern states their protection under the Constitution.

Not quite. The Federal Govt passed an act, that benefitted Slave owners, that if their Slave ran away and CROSSED STATE LINES,
The Slave owner could have their property BACK. So? Good for them, they can have their property back.

However the Federal Gov't LAW, tried to also FORCE the States, to hunt down, capture, arrest, detain, Slaves, and arrange their return to their owners. And many states refused to do servitude on behalf of the Slave owners and the Federal Government.

Funny how the Slave states favored forced servitude....even trying to make Free states be forced to serve southern Slave owners!

The Federal Law gave slave owner the right to have their property back that had crossed over state lines. So, slave owners, you want your property back....go get it, on your time, your dime! Northern citizens were not subject to MAKING sure a southern citizen retrieved his property.

Thus the Federal govt. was failing in its obligation.

What obligation?

The Federal government gave southern slave owners the right to retrieve their property that crossed state lines.

What obligation?

To force northern citizens to hunt down and round up property of southerners ? Lol

Taken

 

[Stranger]

Taken

I'm not dismissing jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is not the subject. That slavery was an issue with the Federal govt. is the issue. That the Federal govt. had jurisdiction to regulate and govern slavery in the U.S. is proof that slavery was an issue with the Federal govt. Thus making your claim that it was just a states issue empty.

Yes you can deny whatever you want, which is what you are doing. Your continual squawking about jurisdiction proves only how far you will go to not admit you are wrong.

Also that the Federal govt. had a concern over the expansion of slavery, is again more proof that with the Federal govt. slavery was an issue.

The 'fugitive slave law' is part of the Constitution. The Federal govt. required the protection of the slaveowners property. Yes northerners were required to return the slaves. Once the slave was found in the north they were required to hold him till the owners came and got him. Thus again, more proof of slavery being an issue with the Federal govt. And of course many northern states and northerners refused to do it. Instead many who came to get their slaves were killed or beaten. And the underground railroad was developed to hide and get the slaves freedom. This was a criminal act under the Constituton.

The northers states, people, were required under the law to return the slaves. That was a Federal Law. Constitution. The Federal govt. is required to uphold the Constitution. They were failing to do this in not stopping the refusal of some states to neglect it and openly break it. Thus slavery was an issue with the Federal govt.

Stranger

 

[Taken]

Taken

I'm not dismissing jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is not the subject. That slavery was an issue with the Federal govt. is the issue. That the Federal govt. had jurisdiction to regulate and govern slavery in the U.S. is proof that slavery was an issue with the Federal govt. Thus making your claim that it was just a states issue empty.

Stranger

How long do you need to drag this out?

Until you comprehend who had jurisdictional authority OVER what...

Which government had concerns or issues with slavery is irrelevant.

Everyone had thoughts, concerns, issues with Slavery......duh....even the Slaves themselves!
But NOT everyone had Authority over SLAVES

Colonial British had AUTHORITY over SLAVERY and the SLAVES!

The FEDERATION had AUTHORITY over SLAVERY in their geographical jurisdiction!

The STATES had AUTHORITY over SLAVES!

In your convenience to ignore jurisdictional differences between the Federation and the States and the SLAVES themselves..when desperately wanting to talk about SLAVERY; is ridiculous.

As 'ole porky might respond in ending your cartoonish posts.

'Th-th-th-tha-tha-That's all folks!"

 

[bbyrd009]

isn't determinism neat?

Who lost? Who won?
all depends on who you ask, right?

 

[Stranger]

How long do you need to drag this out?

Until you comprehend who had jurisdictional authority OVER what...

Which government had concerns or issues with slavery is irrelevant.

Everyone had thoughts, concerns, issues with Slavery......duh....even the Slaves themselves!
But NOT everyone had Authority over SLAVES

Colonial British had AUTHORITY over SLAVERY and the SLAVES!

The FEDERATION had AUTHORITY over SLAVERY in their geographical jurisdiction!

The STATES had AUTHORITY over SLAVES!

In your convenience to ignore jurisdictional differences between the Federation and the States and the SLAVES themselves..when desperately wanting to talk about SLAVERY; is ridiculous.

As 'ole porky might respond in ending your cartoonish posts.

'Th-th-th-tha-tha-That's all folks!"

I don't ignore jurisdictional differences between the Federal govt. and the States. That the Federal govt. has jurisdiction concerning the aspect of slavery is proof that slavery was not just a states issue...as you claim it was.

Stranger

 

[Taken]

I don't ignore jurisdictional differences between the Federal govt. and the States. That the Federal govt. has jurisdiction concerning the aspect of slavery is proof that slavery was not just a states issue...as you claim it was.

Stranger

Seems to be in some peoples nature to talk about a topic while never addressing the topic. LOL. Comprehension Fail!!!

Slavery - already addressed REPEATEDLY everyone had a concern about it.

Slaves - under the Jurisdiction of the States, during the timeframe YOU BROUGHT UP.

Tiny minds are fun to play for only so long, then it's boring.

 

[Stranger]

Seems to be in some peoples nature to talk about a topic while never addressing the topic. LOL. Comprehension Fail!!!

Slavery - already addressed REPEATEDLY everyone had a concern about it.

Slaves - under the Jurisdiction of the States, during the timeframe YOU BROUGHT UP.

Tiny minds are fun to play for only so long, then it's boring.

No, I clearly stated in #47 that slavery was protected by the Constitution. And in #48 you disagreed and said slavery was a state issue. So the time frame I brought involved the Federal govt also. Then once you saw you were in error, you developed this smoke screen of 'jurisdiction'.

Stranger

 

[Taken]

No, I clearly stated in #47 that slavery was protected by the Constitution.

Constitutional quote ?

 

[Stranger]

Constitutional quote ?

Article 4 section 2

"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 dishcharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delievered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

Stranger

 

[Taken]

Article 4 section 2

"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 dishcharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delievered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

Stranger

And you say this article and clause was specifically written to protect slavery?

Protect slavery from whom?

 

[Stranger]

And you say this article and clause was specifically written to protect slavery?

Protect slavery from whom?

Can't you read? What is any law there to protect from? From the one who breaks it.

Stranger

 

[Taken]

Can't you read? What is any law there to protect from? From the one who breaks it.

Stranger

Of course I can read.
Whooo hooo I can read, you can read. Whoopie!

You do not know reading is only the first step?
Understanding WHAT one reads is where we disagree.

Who can provide YOUR UNDERSTANDING, but you?

So again, be precise in your understanding.

You said your Understanding is the US Constitution PROTECTED Slavery.

From WHAT was Slavery Protected?

 

[Stranger]

Of course I can read.
Whooo hooo I can read, you can read. Whoopie!

You do not know reading is only the first step?
Understanding WHAT one reads is where we disagree.

Who can provide YOUR UNDERSTANDING, but you?

So again, be precise in your understanding.

You said your Understanding is the US Constitution PROTECTED Slavery.

From WHAT was Slavery Protected?

No, twisting what one says is where we disagree.

No, I said the Constitution did protect slavery.

Any slave who escapes to another state is required to be given up to the owner upon his claim. Any state. The Constitution protected the property of the slave owners. Thus slavery was protected by the Constitution. Which means it is protected from anyone who refuses to return a slave to its owner. Which means anyone not returning a slave or purposefully hiding a slave is breaking Constitutional Law. I have said nothing that the article doesn't clearly say.

Stranger

 

[Taken]

No, twisting what one says is where we disagree.

No, I said the Constitution did protect slavery.

Any slave who escapes to another state is required to be given up to the owner upon his claim. ANY STATE The Constitution protected the property of the slave owners. Thus slavery was protected by the Constitution. Which means it is protected from anyone who refuses to return a slave to its owner. Which means anyone not returning a slave or purposefully hiding a slave is breaking Constitutional Law. I have said nothing that the article doesn't clearly say.

Stranger

So why did the US Constitution spell out any CONCERN of property of people of "one" STATE, being found in "another" STATE ?