Yeah, let's look at that for a moment because DiLorenzo deliberately omits one of the three clauses. From Goodwin's book, page 296:
"...Lincoln relayed a confidential message to Seward that he had drafted three short resolutions. He instructed Seward to introduce these proposals in the Senate Committee of Thirteen without indicating they had been issued from Springfield. The first resolved that "the Constitution should bever be altered so as to authorize Congress to abolish or interfere with slavery in the states." The second would amend the Fugitive Slave Laws "by granting a jury trial to the fugitive." The third recommended that all state personal liberty laws in opposition to the Fugitive Slave Laws be repealed."
Here we see why Thomas DiLorenzo is a crap historian. By omitting reference to the second clause he reduces the meaning of the third clause, because if the fugitive slave is guaranteed a jury trial before being returned to slavery then that made all state and local personal liberty laws, which had be constantly struck down as unconstitutional, moot. States didn't have to guarantee the slaves legal protection, the federal government did. And as for the first clause, note that Lincoln said that Congress would not be able to interfere with slavery in the states where it existed. The clause excludes the territories, where Congress could exercise it's constitutional control and interfere with slavery to its heart's content. So Tommy's attempt to portray Lincoln as pro-slavery is absolute nonsense.
Excerpt: “Abraham Lincoln consistently pledged to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law, i.e., to make northern states complicit in the perpetuation of the peculiar institution.
And as President did you expect Lincoln to refuse to enforce those laws? If so, how?
>>>Yeah, let’s look at that for a moment because DiLorenzo deliberately omits one of the three clauses. From Goodwin’s book, page 296:<<<
I would be careful quoting Doris Kearns Goodwin on any subject. This is Lincoln’s original memorandum:
December [22?], 1860.
Resolved:
That the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution ought to be enforced by a law of Congress, with efficient provisions for that object, not obliging private persons to assist in its execution, but punishing all who resist it, and with the usual safeguards to liberty, securing free men against being surrendered as slaves.
That all State laws, if there be such, really or apparently in conflict with such law of Congress, ought to be repealed; and no opposition to the execution of such law of Congress ought to be made.
That the Federal Union must be preserved.
[End of Memorandum]
It was Seward who changed the clause, “with the usual safeguards to liberty”, to, “a trial by jury” [from “Free Men All” By Thomas D. Morris, pp 207].
Also note “the trial by jury” was only to ensure free men were not returned as slaves”. It in no way was entended to help fugitive slaves. There was also no provision for Habeas Corpus (Lincoln had no respect for Habeas Corpus, even in this matter).