But like many parts of the constitution, all little they. It doesnt say who has to return them. The federal government, the state, what procedures, is there a trial or a judge, what happens . It doesnt say that. A fugitive slave law was passed in 1793 a national one but that was weak and they basically put the onus on the owner. If the owner goes up to north and crabbs the fugitive he can take them back. That wasnt that easy to do although there were owners and agencies in this health, slave hunters trying to grab fugitives in the north but were people who resisted them. In 1850 the federal government passes a new law the fugitive slave act which makes it a federal responsibility. The federal government will now send marshals into northern states to grab fugitives. They set up a whole new position office, the federal commissioner who will hear these cases and send them back. It even says the army can be used if theres a danger of a right or something. They will send in the army. This i
Evolve my leadership style to ensure our success with meeting the mission, the needs of the workforce and the community. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I would be very happy to answer any questions the committee may have at this time. Thank you very much, chief. I appreciate that. I think ill just start off about the unattended firearms which was probably, if anything, one of the bigger concerns, since ive been here on the hill. You were just outlining what you would normally do in a case like that. I think you said five days suspension. Something like that. Im sure that depends on the personnel record of that particular individual, if there had been incidents in the past or not, et cetera. But its also my understanding that some of these incidents happened with members of the force that were on sort of special detail with leadership. And is there any do you give that consideration . Or what do you do in a case like that . Yes, maam. First of all,
Was. He went on to have a very good life. He became an owner of a couple of restaurants. He married twice. He had seven children lots of grandchildren. They still live on today. None of them are named after their uncle, jesse. None of them wanted to talk to me. You know, they dont want any connection. So its not to say maybe deep down he didnt have a darker side said he didnt allow it to come out. [inaudible] we have books for sale that the registers. Buy a book and have it signed. We have some treats for everyone. Thank you, everyone. [applause] tiamat very much. Thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] and now, after words on booktv. What surprised winner, eric foner looks at the future for fugitive slaves during the 19th century. He speaks with edna greene medford, chair of the History Department at howard green university. Host we are joined today by professor eric foner, the professor of history at Columbia University. Professor foner is the author or editor of two dozen vol
Terrorist Organization Currently subject to negotiation that cuba is hosting for the u. S. Is playing a role company and thepe government, correct . Thats correct and we are notconflic accompanying that have the special envoy nowt and its also the longestrunning civil conflict in the hemisphere. My i dont want to get ahead of myself but if that negotiation works out positively and we are then, we have the ability of the two continents all wa americans without work, without civil war and without war between nations that would be pretty unusual in the history of these two continents wooden it . It would be an historic achievement. C and it would be pretty unusual wars were civil wars in asia wars are civil wars intw asia and sadly wars are civil wars in europe. Trde you talked in your opening testimony that thing greasing theeements trade in the americas the majority of the american trade agreements agreements are with the nations in the americas. Theres more trade between be the eight n
Host any thoughts . Guest i say this is easily resolved. I think the one thing to be careful of is the difference between sort of partisan decisions and ones that come from different judicial philosophies or ideologies, when you think partisan, you think im going to vote as any republican or democrat would do. I believe that there are a lot of cases at the Supreme Court and we can point to numerous examples that do not follow that traditional breakdown between party lines. And i think a good sample would be coming this term about recess appointments. Here is an issue that will affect whoever the sitting president has come at a sitting president is not currently a democrat. But of course in a future election and maybe the republicans that win an election, therefore the decision that they announce it in the court will be a rule about the perspective power to make these recess appointments regardless of the party of the presidency. What you will see in that decision is the core grappling