Should the US Government Bring Back the Fugitive Slave Act?

GoodEnoughForMe

n.m.s.s.
Joined
Nov 1, 2006
Messages
6,029
Location
new alhambra
Since the American government is undertaking a broad program of re-segregation, as well as some of our “greatest hits” from the past (maybe the Comstock Act!), I would like to ask the following question:

Should Trump bring back the Fugitive Slave Act?

Now, before any of our CivFanatics gallant moralists get up in arms about the very idea, may I direct you to DeSoto County, Mississippi? A forward looking (by looking back) district attorney has proposed a new state law:

HERNANDO, Miss — DeSoto County District Attorney Matthew Barton announced a proposed bill that will allow certified bounty hunters in identifying and reporting undocumented immigrants.
The Mississippi Illegal Alien Certified Bounty Hunter Program (House Bill 1484), authored by Mississippi Representative Justin Keen from DeSoto County is aimed at addressing and expediting the deportation of undocumented immigrants in line with the Trump Administration's immigration policies, according to a press release from the DeSoto County District Attorney’s Office.

The bill would offer a $1000 reward to registered bounty hunters for every successful deportation they assist in completing.

You can find the rest of the article here: https://www.localmemphis.com/articl...ants/522-fc29ec29-bfd6-43ca-b595-f41ef6776a72

Since my previous question (the invasion of two peaceful, sovereign nations) went so well, I figure it’s time for a new one. Obviously, this is just a state law, one that hasn’t even passed yet. But is this something the new administration should pursue at a federal level? Would you yourself become a bounty hunter in an effort to send people to their deaths? Is this is libertarian policy? A Christian policy? A constitutional policy? Let me know!
 
This sounds like an extension of the TX laws that reward $10k for reporting abortion assistance actions. A perfect part time job for lazy stupid white folks.
 
Even if I thought it was a good idea which it's not would be terrible policy, a new version would do nothing as the original mostly did as well. A couple states just straight up declared the slave act unconstitutional back in the day and basically none of them enforced it.
 
The original absolutely did not do mostly nothing, the presence of Southern agents in free states and the kidnapping of free black people in the North was a major factor in radicalizing Northern voters to elect Lincoln.
 
Bleeding Kansas with the federal government trying to side with the slavers did more to force that I think. The leadup to the Civil War is so messy that pointing to any specific actions as key is pointless.
 
Bleeding Kansas with the federal government trying to side with the slavers did more to force that I think. The leadup to the Civil War is so messy that pointing to any specific actions as key is pointless.

I don't think Frederick Douglass was responding to a law that did "mostly nothing" by writing "the only way to make the law a dead letter is to make half a dozen dead kidnappers"
 
How many incidents even are directly tied to the 1850 act a dozen or so? It's effect was nearly entirely political which is exactly what a new one would be. It would radicalize immigration sympathetic voters.
 
Wasn't the Fugitive Slave Act about allowing people to leave while being forcibly kept in, which is basically the very opposite of keeping out people who have to no right to enter ?
(that being said, I'm not keen on denouncing people for money ; it should be a civic duty if justified, else it feels like bribery or bounty hunting)
 
Wasn't the Fugitive Slave Act about allowing people to leave while being forcibly kept in, which is basically the very opposite of keeping out people who have to no right to enter ?
(that being said, I'm not keen on denouncing people for money ; it should be a civic duty if justified, else it feels like bribery or bounty hunting)


The Fugitive Slave Act or Fugitive Slave Law was a law passed by the 31st United States Congress on September 18, 1850, as part of the Compromise of 1850 between Southern interests in slavery and Northern Free-Soilers.

The Act was one of the most controversial elements of the 1850 compromise and heightened Northern fears of a slave power conspiracy. It required that all escaped slaves, upon capture, be returned to the enslaver and that officials and citizens of free states had to cooperate. The Act contributed to the growing polarization of the country over the issue of slavery. It was one of the factors that led to the American Civil War.

By 1843, several hundred enslaved people a year escaped to the North successfully, making slavery an unstable institution in the border states.

The earlier Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 was a Federal law that was written with the intent to enforce Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which required the return of escaped slaves. It sought to force the authorities in free states to return fugitives of enslavement to their enslavers.

 
Ah, so the opposite then, it's about "capturing escaped slaves on behalf of their masters". Which still isn't at all the same as "keeping people who have no right to be here out", but at least the twisting is less weird.
 
No, I support the situation becoming moot by people not illegally immigrating here in the first place. Hopefully construction of the border wall goes well.
 
allowing people to leave while being forcibly kept in, which is basically the very opposite of keeping out people who have to no right to enter ?

Can you explain why keeping people out and keeping them in are opposites when both could easily serve the same purpose of "preserving group identity"?

No, I support the situation becoming moot by people not illegally immigrating here in the first place. Hopefully construction of the border wall goes well.

Do you identify as a libertarian?
 
I think if you genuinely, without sarcasm, posted this with honest interest in doing this, you should take a long look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself what you're doing with your life that you would look at a fellow human being this way.
 
Can you explain why keeping people out and keeping them in are opposites when both could easily serve the same purpose of "preserving group identity"?
No, if you cannot grasp the fundamental difference between "prisonner" and "intruder", I don't think it's in my power to deal with your cognitive dissonance. Moderator Action: Warned for trolling. The_J
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, if you cannot grasp the fundamental difference between "prisonner" and "intruder", I don't think it's in my power to deal with your cognitive dissonance.

This is an analogy that might support an argument, but it cannot really be your entire argument. You have already basically stated it's perfectly acceptable to restrict freedom of movement in the name of "preserving group identity" so what is the categorical difference there? If I think too many people are emigrating from France and propose to make it illegal to do so because French identity is in danger, what would your response be?
 
"you have basically stated it's perfectly acceptable to prevent people entering your house because they aren't part of your family, so why would you object to lock your wife in the basement and forbid her to leave ?"

That you need it to be spelled out means you really should work on your cognitive dysfunction first and foremost.
 
Top Bottom