I really think that according the logic of Rhod some states are missing a golden opportunity to get rich. All we have to do is pass a law that all personal property that makes it to the state from an owner who lives in another state, no longer belongs to said owner. We confiscate it, or as I prefer to say, “set it free”. We then sell it and split the proceeds. It’s full proof since it would be a great injustice to expect a state to honor the property rights of persons in another state.
Your message is half-gibberish, but perhaps you fail to grasp the part of the issue where the "property" referenced were human beings rather than escaped livestock or purloined equipment? Since it involved human beings, a large portion of country stood opposed to slavery, didn't want to go along with it, and were happy to see it fail. Perhaps we could draw an analogy with abortion in our own time? And no, northerners weren't selling slaves and "splitting the proceeds" with anyone. Also, northerners who failed to go along with slavery program in their own states nullified those laws by not following them, to the point of in some cases arresting federal marshals who attempted to enforce the law. Again, perhaps we could draw an example from our own time of a state standing in opposition to the federal government in regards to illegal aliens....Texas perhaps?
.
Oh, so now you’re in favor of the Doctrine of Nullification. Would that the northern states had been in your camp in the 1830s and the Civil War may have been avoided.
But here is what I understand and you don’t. Slaves were by the law and by the Constitution agreed upon by all parties, just that, property. Your morality doesn’t enter into the law. You don’t get to decide for yourself what laws you will enforce and what ones you won’t because morality is subjective. The Constitution was a contract, agreed to and relied upon by the states. And your side decided it no longer liked the terms. Sp instead of agreeing to dissolve the contract and let the parties depart, you decided to change the terms by force of arms and force the other side to stay and abide by the new terms against its will.
And if we are going to draw analogies, yes, let’s use illegal immigration, but instead of your bullschit, let’s use reality. The reality is that the federal government is refusing to enforce the constitution and protect states against invasion, just like it refused to uphold property rights back then. And just like back then, certain states style themselves as sanctuaries and encourage and actively engage in the subversion of the lawto the detriment of those states wishing to see immigration laws enforced. The sanctuary states decry other states as mean spirited and racist and everything but Christian JUST LIKE THEY DID THEN.
You know when Southerners finally had enough and decided to leave back then, you Yankees should have been happy about it. With the South gone, your states would have been slave free and you would have had no obligation to enforce or ignore regarding fugitive slaves.
