- We will send in 10–14 business days.
/images/books/12249066/9781789760422.jpg)
- Author: Norman Coles
- Publisher: Liverpool University Press
- ISBN-10: 1789760429
- ISBN-13: 9781789760422
- Format: 15.5 x 22.4 x 0.8 cm, softcover
- Language: English
- SAVE -10% with code: EXTRA
Us Constitution of 1791 and the Fugitive Slave Clause (e-book) (used book) | bookbook.eu
Reviews
Description
The US Constitutions, both of 1788 and 1791, contain at Article IV (para 2, Section 3) a clause generally called The Fugitive Slave Clause. This Clause was held to make it legal to both recapture and return fugitive slaves to the states where they had lived or the owner, even if he or she resisted. The Clause was held to be constitutionally legal by lawyers and legal commentators. Even Lincoln as a lawyer thought the Clause was constitutionally legal, even though he thought slavery evil. Norman Coles presents arguments which show that the Clause has at least two (and possibly three) meanings. The Clause may not refer to slaves at all, when it is interpreted in accord with its actual phrasing rather than its intended meaning promoting the wishes of owners. Alvan Stewart, a renowned Abolitionist lawyer, argued that the Clause was inconsistent with that part of the 1791 US Constitution which is Amendment IV, reasoning premised on the definition of person, which applied to the two
dated Constitutions; a
EXTRA 10 % discount with code: EXTRA
The promotion ends in 17d.17:27:20
The discount code is valid when purchasing from 10 €. Discounts do not stack.
- Author: Norman Coles
- Publisher: Liverpool University Press
- ISBN-10: 1789760429
- ISBN-13: 9781789760422
- Format: 15.5 x 22.4 x 0.8 cm, softcover
- Language: English English
The US Constitutions, both of 1788 and 1791, contain at Article IV (para 2, Section 3) a clause generally called The Fugitive Slave Clause. This Clause was held to make it legal to both recapture and return fugitive slaves to the states where they had lived or the owner, even if he or she resisted. The Clause was held to be constitutionally legal by lawyers and legal commentators. Even Lincoln as a lawyer thought the Clause was constitutionally legal, even though he thought slavery evil. Norman Coles presents arguments which show that the Clause has at least two (and possibly three) meanings. The Clause may not refer to slaves at all, when it is interpreted in accord with its actual phrasing rather than its intended meaning promoting the wishes of owners. Alvan Stewart, a renowned Abolitionist lawyer, argued that the Clause was inconsistent with that part of the 1791 US Constitution which is Amendment IV, reasoning premised on the definition of person, which applied to the two
dated Constitutions; a
Reviews