The Supreme Court's decisive 1842 action in striking down Pennsylvania's 1788 and 1826 (note the years!) Fugitive Slave Laws (which protected runaway slaves) left some ambiguity.
From Prigg v Pennsylvania [my emphasis and explanatory insertion below]:
The clause [the Article IV, Section 2 clause in the Constitution regarding the return of fugitives from service or labor] manifestly contemplates the existence of a positive, unqualified right on the part of the owner of the slave, which no state law or regulation can in any way qualify, regulate, control or restrain. The slave is not to be discharged from service or labor, in consequence of any state law or regulation. Now certainly, without indulging in any nicety of criticism upon words, it may be fairly said, that any state law or state regulation which interrupts, limits, delays, or postpones the right of the owner of the slave to the immediate possession of the slave, and the immediate command of his service and labor, operates, pro tanto, a discharge of the slave therefrom.
That doesn't seem all that ambiguous. The Prigg case stemmed from the 1837 arrest of fugitive slave Margarette Morgan by Edward Prigg, an agent for the slave owner. Prigg had been tried and convicted under Pennsylvania's 1826 law that had, as part of its provisions, punished people who returned fugitive slaves who had escaped to Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court in the Prigg case ruled the 1826 Pennsylvania law unconstitutional.
This "problem" was corrected by the Compromise of 1850 after which by law, northern states were required to enforce Federal Fugitive Slave Laws, and return runaways to their owners.
As I remember, Northern states were not compelled to return slaves by the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law. The Federal government was tasked with the return of the fugitive slave. Under that law, Federal commissioners determined whether the person in question was a fugitive slave. The Federal commissioner was typically presented with a court affidavit from the home state of the slave that gave a description of the slave, pointed out that the slave had escaped, and said that the slave owed service to the claimant. If the commissioner ruled that the person was the one being sought, then the northern state had no jurisdiction in the case, and its personal liberty laws did not apply. At that point, the status of the person being charged as a fugitive slave instantly changed to that of a slave under the laws of the home state of the claimant.
Point is, in both Prigg v Pennsylvania and the Compromise of 1850, the Southern Slave Power demonstrated its control over Washington Federal Government, and through it over those Northern states who wished to protect runaways from Federal Fugitive Slave Laws.
I understand the wish of some states to free slaves and not have slavery in their states. I am glad, of course, that slavery no longer exists in this country, and I wish that it had never started here. But states that objected to the return of fugitive slaves were bound by the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution to which the original Northern states had agreed. As you have probably noted in the past, the Constitution was supreme law of the land, and any state laws that violated it were unconstitutional and void.
I'm sorry, BJK, but I will be off the board for a week or so.
When it comes to bird identification, your memory is apparently still good....if that helps. LOL!
-----
The Supreme Court in the Prigg case ruled the 1826 Pennsylvania law unconstitutional.
Which is true, but they also said the federal government had the authority to legislate on the subject, which is false.
To prevent the federal government from claiming that authority is precisely why the Founders put in such a strange place, and not under the powers of Congress.
The problem is that an earlier case in 1835, Jack v. Martin, the appeals court found the federal government didn't have the authority to regulate it either, BUT the clause and the Act of 1793 made it uniform, so the clause and act together were judged to be perfectly constitutional.
Enforceable by all [via the Fugitive slave act of 1793], yet actionable by none [via the 10th Amendment of the Constitution].
There was no authority for the federal government to hear any case again based on the issue of slavery....period.
As the north continued to pass laws contrary to the already established rules of evidentiary procedure [established with colonial law] to make special rules concerning slavery and despite the Constitutional precedent, they broke the contract
When the federal government decided to re-hear the case on a subject already established to be beyond the legal scope of their authority THEY broke the contract.
It wasn't so much the South left the Union as the Union left them.
-----
I understand the wish of some states to free slaves and not have slavery in their states. I am glad, of course, that slavery no longer exists in this country, and I wish that it had never started here.
To that, I heartily agree.
---------
Sorry to ramble on about things you may have already read, or we might have discussed before. Maybe MY memory isn't what it used to be. LOL!
Don't know if you'll be gone because of travel or not, but safe journey!
rustbucket, post #265 in reference to James Madison's veracity (or lack thereof) at age 79 in 1830 (Madison died in 1836):
And yet just as fully capable as Madison was of putting together cogent facts and coherent arguments to make your well thought-out points.
In no way can "age" be used to criticize or besmirch yours or Madison's views.
rustbucket, referring to the Supreme Court's 1842 ruling in Prigg vs Pennsylvania:
Correct. I don't understand MamaTexan's confusion here.
She seems to have it all backwards, and even claimed it was not a Supreme Court ruling!
But rusty, you didn't quote the "ambiguous" part:
Point is, in 1842 the Supreme Court struck down Northern state personal liberty laws, some of which had existed since before the Constitution was fully ratified.
rustbucket, referring to the new 1850 Fugitive Slave Law:
Law-enforcement officials everywhere now had a duty to arrest anyone suspected of being a runaway slave on no more evidence than a claimant's sworn testimony of ownership.
The suspected slave could not ask for a jury trial or testify on his or her own behalf.
In addition, any person aiding a runaway slave by providing food or shelter was subject to six months' imprisonment and a $1,000 fine.
Officers who captured a fugitive slave were entitled to a bonus or promotion for their work.
Slave owners only needed to supply an affidavit to a Federal marshal to capture an escaped slave.
Since any suspected slave was not eligible for a trial this led to many free blacks being conscripted into slavery as they had no rights in court and could not defend themselves against accusations."