You are an @$$. Your assertion that I would have slaves is contemptible, and as a consequence, I have no interest in discussing this topic further with you. I consider you an obsessive child who shoots of her mouth when she should shut up and listen to the grown ups.
The problem with you is as Reagan said of his opposition. It is not that you are ignorant it's that you "know so much which isn't so. "
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court (Court of Errors and Appeals) ruled in 1802 that Slavery was permissible by the Pennsylvania constitution. This was a Unanimous decision.
Since George Washington died in 1799, I don't think his slaves were in any jeopardy of being taken away from him. Slavery persisted in Pennsylvania until at least 1840 when the census registered "64" slaves living in the state.
That George Washington didn't want to antagonize people, even though he had a legal right to do so if he wished, is a testament to the sort of character he possessed. He was trying to bring the nation together rather than rend it with needless animosities.
DL:You are an @$$. Your assertion that I would have slaves is contemptible, and as a consequence, I have no interest in discussing this topic further with you.
HD: If your words actually had any meaning behind them, you'd have stopped right there.
DL: I consider you an obsessive child who shoots of her mouth when she should shut up and listen to the grown ups. The problem with you is as Reagan said of his opposition. It is not that you are ignorant it's that you "know so much which isn't so. "
HD: I am awestruck by the sheer intellectual brilliance of your rebuttal. You are a bloviating pigeon on a chessboard. You are a snowflake melting. You duck and dodge. You play with words to twist and distort them until they bend to your preconceived notions. I predict that if you continue to play with semantics the way you do that you will end up playing with yourself.
DL: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court (Court of Errors and Appeals) ruled in 1802 that Slavery was permissible by the Pennsylvania constitution. This was a Unanimous decision.
HD: Here you are being most disingenuous. The Court of Errors And Appeals merely argued that the Pennsylvania State Constitution did not prohibit slavery. That is the extent of the argument. In historical perspective, the abolitionists were seeking an immediate end to slavery in Pennsylvania and thought to find an interpretation of their state constitution that might bring that about. The unanimous decision in this so called "mockery of justice" (so called by the piece you cite) had zero effect on The Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery, passed by the Pennsylvania legislature on 1 March 1780. Your statement is reduced to pedantry (dust). Likewise, your link, http://slavenorth.com/pennsylvania.html, should have been read and understood by you in its entirety before you shared it. From the link:
The act that abolished slavery in Pennsylvania freed no slaves outright, and relics of slavery may have lingered in the state almost until the Civil War. There were 795 slaves in Pennsylvania in 1810, 211 in 1820, 403 or 386 (the count was disputed) in 1830, and 64 in 1840, the last year census worksheets in the northern states included a line for "slaves." The definition of slavery seems to have blurred in the later counts. The two "slaves" counted in 1840 in Lancaster County turned out to have been freed years before, though they were still living on the properties of their former masters.
The abolition bill was made more restrictive during the debates over it -- it originally freed daughters of slave women at 18, sons at 21. By the time it passed, it was upped to a flat 28. That meant it was possible for a Pennsylvania slave's daughter born in February 1780 to live her life in bondage, and if she had a child at 40, the child would remain a slave until 1848. There's no record of this happening, but the "emancipation" law allowed it."
DL: Since George Washington died in 1799, I don't think his slaves were in any jeopardy of being taken away from him.
HD: Please see my post #96 for a complete explanation and see why your thinking is wrong here.
DL:Slavery persisted in Pennsylvania until at least 1840 when the census registered "64" slaves living in the state.
HD: Here you cherry pick to misrepresent the state of affairs in Pennsylvania. Please see your own link for full context.
DL: That George Washington didn't want to antagonize people, even though he had a legal right to do so if he wished, is a testament to the sort of character he possessed. He was trying to bring the nation together rather than rend it with needless animosities.
HD: Who is sounding like an obsessed little girl now?
Please read the following so that you will have a little better understanding of what you are talking about. https://archive.org/stream/jstor-20085586/20085586#page/n1/mode/1up
And so ends our discussion.
From DL's post:
"This case is not to be found in the books of reports." Is that not a clue, that the case is an outlier, abnormal, mis-judged?
Regardless, this case effectively only says one thing: it recognizes the existence of slavery at the time, as lawful under certain conditions within Pennsylvania.
It says nothing, nothing about the states-right of Pennsylvania to gradually abolish slavery in Pennsylvania, or put legal restrictions on how long slave-holders like President Washington could keep their slaves in Pennsylvania without freeing them.
Finally, I note with approval that our Jim 0216 does seem to have learned something from his experience posting here, only wish we could say the same for poor DiogenesLamp.