Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Context (Abraham Lincoln's Inaugural Address),

There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:

I couldn't find deliver up in the dictionaries. So I just want to make sure with a native speaker -- Do you think that the construction here is actually deliver + up, and up is just used here for emphasis?

See 6. b —used as an intensifier in Merriam-Webster.

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Lincoln is saying that there is much controversy about whether runaways from "service or labor" should be given up to their former masters on demand, rather than being protected from going back. The structure is:

There is much controversy about the [handing over/sending back] of [fugitives from service or labor] when their masters demand their return.

So here deliver [something] up means to surrender it back.

share|improve this answer
1  
Agreed. There is a slim chance that "up" was just added for intensifier... –  Phonics The Hedgehog Aug 13 '11 at 19:40
    
I was interpreting it in a totally wrong way! :D I thought Lincoln is referring the [setting free] + [up] of [fugitives from service or labor]. This time I find this usage in the dictionary. See 4. deliver somebody/something (up/over) (to somebody): to give somebody/something to somebody else so that they are under this person's control in <a href="oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com/dictionary/deliver"; title="OALD">OALD</a>. Thank you everyone. –  Socorro Aug 14 '11 at 5:58

This refers to the American "peculiar institution" of slavery. Even Abraham Lincoln admitted that the U.S. Constitution, as originally written, required that runaway slaves be "delivered up" (handed back) to their former masters, strange as that may seem today.

The irony was that the southern states did not accept this "guarantee," but seceded from the United States. This led to the Civil War, and the re-writing of the Constitution (13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments) to abolish slavery.

Contrary to historical imagination, Lincoln was NOT out to "free the slaves." His mandate was to "preserve the union." But when the Confederacy tried to assert both slavery AND secession, the destruction of one led to the destruction of the other.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.