Would have been less enforceable than the Fugitive Slave Act
-
-
-
Definitely would have presented a serious test of will. But the British approach in some of their colonies was simply to deny slavery the sanction of law. No court enforcement, no probate, etc.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
"Guys guys guys *everybody* was totally cool with it!" is some kind of take, for sure. It's hard to imagine how you keep generating this level of terrible, but there you go! Yet again! Bravo?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
would have been possible if the precedent had been set early and prevented the wholesale relocation of the large contingent of northern (often Dutch speaking) slaves in NY & NJ to the expanding south.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That would be a bit more than 'regulating' commerce, wouldn't it? One argument made at the time of the embargo, especially by the carriers of the northeast, was that the embargo didn't regulate commerce, but destroyed it.
-
I suppose the answer changes based on whether you look at any one good or commerce generally. But, it would still be hard to do when the Constitution, without using the word 'slave,' acknowledges the legality of it.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
People, human beings. Not slaves. Not slave states. Human trafficking states. There fixed it for you.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Any genuinely nuclear option that threaten to end the peculiar institution would've just kicked off the Civil War, no?
-
Most likely, yes.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.