If you are concerned as to the why, and have something against it, go do your own homework on the making of the Constitution and get back to me. I am simply stating what it was.
Stranger
Secession in California
- Thread starter Stranger
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
If you are concerned as to the why, and have something against it, go do your own homework on the making of the Constitution and get back to me. I am simply stating what it was.
Stranger
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
That is not the point and you know it.
Stating something without Understanding is the point.
Your tid bit of your understanding, is the Constitution PROTECTED SLAVERY....and you could expound no further.
So, we'll leave your understanding at that...
However the TRUTH is; The US Constitution was a Document designed to DESIGINATE the Authority "OF" and "BETWEEN";
A Federation Government,
A State Government,
and the People thereof.
And Foreign Governments and people.
Shocking the US Constitution would actually REVEAL it's INTENT and MENTION it's Government, and it's relationship with the States Governments, or the people thereof, foreign governments or their people thereof.
Article 4 of the US Constitution is Expressly about the Government of the Federation RELATIONSHIP with States and the People thereof.
The US Federal Government was NOT PROTECTING SLAVERY, but WAS protecting States Rights When property belonging to the people of ONE State, was unauthorized by the owner to Be in the jursisdiction of ANOTHER State!
And because History was of NO INTERST to you.
1) It is Expressly the Authority of the Federal Government to settle disputes OF Property BETWEEN States and the people thereof.
2) Slaves Were Property. And Many, NOT ALL, Slaves were from Africa, and were Black.
3) Slaves OWNERS, were OFTEN White, but not always. Many others owned Slaves, including Black People.
4) Thousands of British Ships, sent thousands of MOSTLY WHITE prisoners to the Americas and set up PENAL colonies; WHO were ALSO
Subject to their Master, and forced to do manual Labor. And many of them, ALSO, would run away, and seek safe harbor from where they were KEPT in bonds and chains.
These were called INDENTURED SERVANTS, and PROPERTY.
So by your lack of UNDERSTANDING, you attempt to PAINT a longstanding FALSE picture, like others who Dismiss the facts in History.
Property, be they called Slaves or Indentured Servants.....WERE PROPTERY, and indebted to their Masters that had Authority over THEIR Property.
The JURSIDICTION WITHIN a STATE, was governed BY the STATE, regarding the Property of the Free citizens OF the State.
The JURISDICTION "BETWEEN" States, was governed BY the FEDERATION.
The FEDERATION was designed to settle disputes BETWEEN two States, between A State and a Foreign Government, between A State and foreign People and STILL IS and DOES.
Article 4 Does not PROTECT SLAVERY, but DOES PROTECT the STATES RIGHTS, when One States Property LEAVES it's STATE, without the owners authority and is found IN ANOTHER STATE.
Thus you pointed out your disinterest in the historical truths, and want to argue your limited understanding, as if it has merit.
I disagree with your understanding.
I find you wanting to continue with your arguing with your limited understanding,
A complete bore and WOT.
Taken
His position is, He read, others should read, and come to HIS understanding, that he can not expound on how he concluded HIS OWN understanding.
God Bless,
Taken
I do understand it. The Constitution protected slavery. Article 4 section 2.
From (Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, Open Court Pub., p.53) "Hence Southerners had insisted upon a fugitive slave clause in the Constitution: escaping slaves would then fear recapture in the North...The recovery of runaways was put under joint supervision of national and state courts...Radical abolitionists put this Fugitive Slave Law under fire during the 1830's and 1840's. They legally challenged it in the courts and illegally evaded it. The illegal evasion led to the famous underground railroad...."
From (Earl Maltz, www.encyclopidiavirginia.org) "Fugitive slave laws provided slave owners and their agents with the legal right to reclaim runaways from other jurisdiction. Those states or jurisdictions were required to deliver the fugitives. As early as 1643, the United Colonies of New England had required the return of runaways, and, after the American Revolution (1775-1783), the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 contained similar protections for slave owners.
"The U.S. Constitution included a Fugitive Slave law clause, which was agreed to without dissent at the Constitutional Convention. Following a dispute between Pennsylvania and Virginia, Congress passed the Fugitive salve act of 1793 which clarified the process by which slave owners could claim their property...The Fugitive slave act of 1850 expanded the number of Federal officials empowered to act in fugitive slave cases."
Seems like the Yankees, and the slaves and the South all understood it also.
Stranger
The US Constitution so drafted Expressly Defined the Relationship Between the Federalist Government and the State Governments.
One of the Expressly Defined terms For the Federalist Government to Govern was PROPERTY, leaving one State and entering another State, without the authority of the owner of the PROPERTY.
While you want to LIMIT the PROPERTY to a PARTICULAR PROPERTY; The Constitution Doesn't. The Constitution CAN identify particular property, but it doesn't LIMIT the property moved between State lines without authority.
While you want to LIMIT the PROPERTY to "human chattel property"; You honestly don't.
You LIMIT the WHOLE TRUTH, by attempting to LIMIT PROPERTY, to ONLY, the "human chattel property" called SLAVES; when the FACT IS; "human chattel property" included INDENTURED Servants; Prisoners and other HUMANS, not having a FREE Status, SUBJECT to the owners IN a particular STATE, governed BY STATE Laws.
But then you can carry on with your LIMITED Understanding and blurt out whatever you want, OMITTING pertinent FACTS.
Taken
I omit pertinent bull when at all possible. I try and stick to what's being said. I try not to put up extra knowledge for the purpose of smoke screens to hide that I don't know what I am talking about, as you continue to do.
You need to pay attention. Yes, slaves were 'property'. But we are talking about the property of slaves. People. And, the fugitive slave clause is addressing that very thing. Remember? Article 4 sec.2 "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State" "escaping to another state" (and he) "shall be delivered up on the claim of the party"
Thus the Constitution protected slavery. Everyone back then and probably everyone other than you can understand it. You don't have to like it. But that is the way it was.
Stranger
Last edited:
pia
Well-Known Member
Are we not supposed to be done with 'the world' and serve our Lord, and not all the self appointed 'worldly' lords.....I think a lot of us need to do what Jesus said to the devil :" You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him ONLY, you shall serve", and then uninvolve ourselves in all the tangled webs of the world and 'strive' to enter into the rest of God and the peace Jesus left for us also.
We cannot do both.....there is no rest nor peace in this world, we cannot fix it.......But we are invited in to His and leave 'the world' to Him....We need to learn to be in it but not of it, not doable from a worldly perspective however....
Omission of facts, is a sure way to keep your understanding limited.
You need to make sense.
Property OF SLAVES? Are People?
No Person held to Service....uh huh...
Persons being...slaves, indentured servants, prisoners, and some others.
One State, crossing a line to Another State...
Uh huh....is precisely Federal Jusisdiction; and handled within the Federal Government.
Slaves, indentured servants, prisoners, and some others, WITHIN ONE STATE and REMAINING WITHIN ONE STATE, is under that STATES Jurisdiction, and has nothing to do with the Federation Government.
Thus the Constitution protected individuals Property of each State, and individual Masterhood OVER Persons Subject to perform Labor WiTHIN each State, when the Property OR Person Subject to perform Labor, Leaves the States Jurisdiction....it BY design of the Governments OF the US, becomes Federal Authority to resolve BETWEEN the States.
Back then, I will say THEY probably did understand Jurisdiction; Full well knowing; the States governed their OWN PROPERTY, and when their PROPERTY was OUT of their States geographical Jurisdiction; It was the Federations Authority to settle the matter.......be it People, things, Kidnapping, Illegal Transporting of cargo, or goods, etc...
Understand today? not so much.
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
ya, breaking free of that was a source of pride for me for many years, had to get over that too lol; and i'm mildly Asperger's too, we don't really develop emotional attachments via pledges or peer pressure for some reason, not sure why. Point being i can only imagine how difficult that is for others
Article 4 section 2. No matter what kind of spin you want to put on it, you can't get away from the Constitution protecting slavery. Article 4 section 2 is talking about slaves. Everyone in that time understood it. Why do you think the underground railroad was built?
Stranger
Enough said.
Your cutsie little accusations are moot.
The US Constitution is a long standing Document Whereby the States govern their own business within their State and the Federalist Government handles disputes between the States.
If you don't get property belonging In One State, Found in another State is a Dispute regarding PROPERTY and Jusisdictionally Handled by the Federalist Government, so be it.
Anyone residing within ANY US State with an ounce of Knowledge SHOULD know, the Federalist Government handles all disputes and disgressions BETWEEN States.
If you want to pretend the federalist government was PROTECTING SLAVERY, produce the slip bill, which identifies their INTENT.
Because their INTENT was to PROTECT PROPERTY OWNERS!
Property owners were NOT "SLAVERY".
The Property was NOT "SLAVERY".
The Federalist government was authorized to PROTECT PROPERTY OWNERS when in conflict with OTHER States.
However if you desire to carry on with your Juvenal rendition, go ahead.
I already KNOW the legal standing, and your opinion is boring and without legal standing.
Article 4 section 2 of the Constitution is addressing runaway slaves. It is too plain for you not to see. Therefore the only conclusion is that you despise Article 4 section 2 for what it says and must somehow wordsmith your way around it. But you can't. History doesn't go away. As I said before whether you like it or not, is immaterial.
You are only lying to yourself.
Stranger
FINALLY....Changing your tune, from Slavery to the Property.
LOL, I brought it up and already addressed that.
You didn't properly address the issue, and now change the issue to what I already addressed....
And now babble on with silly accusations, as if I am responsible for your lack of comprehension.
I despise? False. Never said that.
History doesn't go away? No duh, that's precisely what I pointed out.
Can't get around history? Duh, that was what you were attempting to do.
What I like or not? Already told you; Your inability to include the facts.
Nope, just wasting a bit of my time listening to you prove your lack of understanding of history, and the Constitutional construct of Government, and attempting to blame me for your own shortcomings.
Bored with YOUR shenanigans.
Last edited:
I haven't changed anything. Article 4 section 2. The Constitution protected slavery. Thus slavery is a Federal issue.
No, you didn't address anything. You just created a smoke screen to try and hide that you don't know what you are talking about.
Again, I haven't changed anything. Article 4 section 2 protected slavery. Thus slavery is a Federal issue.
You don't have to say it. To try and twist history as you do in spite of the historical record shows you despise Article 4 section 2.
You haven't proved anything. You originally stated slavery was a states issue. After that blunder, you have done nothing but dance. It is very plain to see. You only fool yourself if you think it is not.
Stranger
Ranting on and on and making accusations doesn't seem to have improved your happiness. You still appear angry and frustrated.
Perhaps you should get a good ole' boys southern hug and come to terms, not everyone is going to agree with your opinions.
Ranting on and on and making accusations doesn't seem to have improved your happiness. You still appear angry and frustrated.
Perhaps you should get a good ole' boys southern hug and come to terms, not everyone is going to agree with your opinions.
It doesn't matter if you don't agree. What matters is you don't know your history.
Stranger
Similar threads
