Remember too that whereas he comes across as being intentionally obtuse, he actually believes the absurd things he says. He is the worst case of a self-deluded individual that I have ever encountered online. He is the worst sort of historical revisionist. And Honest Abe lives in his head rent free.
I believe you would be better served by saying what is in your mind, and leaving it to me to say what is in mine. Article IV, Section 2 has long been regarded as a "fugitive slave clause", though that verbiage is not in it.
We have to grasp it's operation based on what is in it.
He forgets that it was included after the Southern Slave States, Georgia and South Carolina insisted upon its inclusion as their determining factor for ratifying the United States Constitution.
I do not forget that all 13 states agreed to it. I also do not forget that the vast majority of the states were slave states in 1787.
It evolved from the Fugitive Slave Clause, to the Fugitive Slave Act, to the Fugitive Slave Law, to the Compromise of 1850 and finally to the Dred Scott Decision.
The Clause didn't evolve. Efforts to make recalcitrant states enforce it evolved.
Crazy Taney decided that Blacks were not citizens at the time of the Constitution
He got that part wrong, as I've said many times. The majority of blacks were not citizens at that time, but many were. In 1776, a "citizen" was anyone whom a state said was a citizen. Many states recognized citizenship for blacks, and through the operation of the Federal compact, those state citizenships were required to be recognized by other states.
Of course that meant that Dred Scot had no standing to bring his case for “due process”. Would DiogenesLamp have abides by this ruling.
I have little patience for the "standing" argument of courts. I regard those as attempts to ignore larger principles of law. If Dred Scot had been a citizen, he would not have been a slave, but his claim was that as a slave who entered a free state, he was thereby freed by the operation of a law from a free state.
Article IV, doesn't allow this.
Tanney's reasoning is wrong in parts, but his overall ruling is correct for that era because of the operation of Article IV, Section 2.
Remember too that whereas he comes across as being intentionally obtuse, he actually believes the absurd things he says.
You can read the plain verbiage of Article 4, Section 2, and believe that Dred Scott should have won, and you call me "obtuse"?
I didn't write the law, but i'm not going to pretend it means what I prefer it means.
Some people here have hoped to explain DiogenesLamp by referring to a mental condition whereby normal processes of learning & logic don't function in his head.
Instead, he's fixated on his Lost Causer mythology and won't move beyond it, no matter what.
Indeed, he even claims his immovable loyalty to fake-history is the result of having no family history "skin in the game".
Instead, he tells us his ancestors were elsewhere during the Civil War, but we can only guess where that elsewhere was, he gives no real clues.
Regardless, his loyalty to the Lost Cause appears full, genuine & unshakable, no serious equivocations, no hemming & hawing over it, he's apparently swallowed all the pro-Confederate Kool-Aid, and seems pretty happy with it.
Sad.