Talk:Prigg v. Pennsylvania

Kidnapping of free blacks
The court in this decision refused to even consider the problem of the kidnapping of free blacks into slavery (see Twelve Years a Slave etc.), setting a precedent for later decisions and laws which also did nothing to solve this problem. See Slavery Law and Politics: The Dred Scott Case in Historical Perspective by Don E. Fehrenbacher. p. 23. AnonMoos (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The Liberty Party platform of 1843 (adopted in advance of the 1844 presidential election) contains several negative references to Prigg v. Pennsylvania... AnonMoos (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Problem with Statement of the Holding
The statement of the holding and the discussion omits one of the most important issues in the case, whether Congress had power to enact the Fugitive Slave Act. I would propose to edit to the holding statement and then add discussion. Lawrence Solum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.0.79 (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"further weakened the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793"
This is not an adequate summary of the main effect of the decision. It weakened the particular enforcement mechanisms of the 1793 law, but pointed the way to much more stringent laws which could be passed in future (as happened in 1850). Furthermore, by refusing to take any judicial notice of the problem of kidnapping of free blacks, it prepared the way for much nefarious skullduggery with its implicit message that blacks were entitled to fewer safeguards than whites. I really don't see how it could reasonably be considered any advance in the "history of American civil rights"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prigg v. Pennsylvania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207173105/http://www.milestonedocuments.com/document_detail.php?id=127 to http://www.milestonedocuments.com/document_detail.php?id=127&more=fulltext

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thomas Hudson McKee book date
Someone added the date "1970", but that's the date of the reprint which I gave the ISBN for. The book was originally publisheed in the early 20th century... AnonMoos (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)