So is it your position that Priggs should have been convicted of kidnapping? In particular, regarding the young child who he abducted, who had never been a slave, I agree with that position.
It is a sad irony that the first person in Virginia held as a slave for life, got that status based on his acts. Others got that ‘status’ based on state law. Like so many statist positions, they were inflicted with the status of a criminal for the convenience of others, and not for any act of their own.
No. As the conviction was based on unconstitutional laws passed by the state, there was no 'kidnapping'....which is exactly what part of the decision in Priggs said, BTW.
-----
In particular, regarding the young child who he abducted, who had never been a slave
The child of a slave was born into slavery whether the child was born in a free state or not.
-----
The inability to legislate on slavery AND the fact a child of a slave was born INTO slavery are the LEGAL concepts agreed to by the northern states when they signed the compact.
-----
Sorry if the facts make you uncomfortable....and you STILL haven't even acknowledged the 1835 decision.
You know, the one that set the LEGAL PRECIDENT concerning the implementation of the Article V clause.
-------
It is a sad irony that the first person in Virginia held as a slave for life, got that status based on his acts. Others got that ‘status’ based on state law. Like so many statist positions, they were inflicted with the status of a criminal for the convenience of others, and not for any act of their own.
Emote, emote, emote, emote, emote.