Article IV, Section II is obviously not moral law, but it is law that was passed by the agreed upon system, and therefore it becomes a moral obligation to uphold it, change it, or abrogate the agreement.
All the states agreed to uphold it, and if they renege on the agreement, it breaches the contract.
You seem to defend vehemently that it must be obeyed.
I apply the same vehemence to other constitutional clauses as well. What do you think should be done regarding constitutional law? Refuse to obey the ones that liberals disagree with?
It is cited in many of your threads that since it is in the Constitution it is inviolable.
Till amended or repealed. Do you not believe the Constitution should be enforced as written?
In your opinion Article IV section II needed to be followed no matter what the consequences of that action may be. Return the slaves so they can continue to dig fortifications, Return the slaves so they may continue to cast cannon, Return the slave so they can they can make the ammunition to kill American soldiers.
Somehow you and others have gotten the impression I am referring to wartime conditions. I am not. Of course you don't give back any seized assets during the war! I thought it was axiomatic that we were talking about post war conditions. To suggest we do so during a war is so silly it never occurred to me anyone would think we were talking about the period when the war was being fought.
I personally do believe Article IV section 2 of the Constitution is unethical and immoral.
Well I do too, and it would have been better had it never been put in there.
I am glad that it has been removed by Amendment to the Constitution.
I very much object to the fake ratification process used to claim that 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were ratified. You cannot throw out all the opinions of the people of a state just because you don't like their opinions. This is not how "consent of the governed" is supposed to work. This is how dictatorship works.
The Southern states would never have ratified those amendments at that time in History, and tossing out their right to vote and/or threatening them to vote as they are told renders the process invalid.
The Democratic process cannot operate as puppets of the government. That was never how our system was supposed to work.
DiogenesLamp seems to be struggling with the idea that maybe slaves freed during the war should have been re-enslaved after Appomattox.
Or maybe there were large numbers of slaves freed after Appomattox under less than pristine legal conditions.
But DiogenesLamp has to date cited no specific examples of what he really means, and so we're left to guess what his real point here might be.