Posted on 12/18/2021 7:06:36 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The Constitution wasn't in effect in 1782, and nobody was condemned and imprisoned by the Massachusetts decision. Rather the opposite. People were effectively freed.
Whether anything was really taken away from the slaveowners isn't really clear-cut either. If former slave and former slaveowner were both amenable to staying together and the former slave doing the same work in exchange for room and board, that was possible. It was the deprivation of freedom that was ended.
Actually he was white. A 1640 Virginia court case awarded him a black, runaway, indentured servant service for the man's natural life. The plaintiff's name was Hugh Gwynn. Documented in a January 1898 edition of "Virginia Magazine of History and Biography".
The courts are not making law. They are ruling on the Constitutionality of laws made by legislatures.
That is not their job...
"It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each." - John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison 1803
Courts are ex post facto law, and that is specifically forbidden.
I'm not quite sure from that which you need explained to you. Courts and their function? Or what an ex post facto law is.
Not true, and northern shipbuilders and owners were more than willing to transport slaves.
So you think a state constitution saying all men are free, should not have been interpreted as ending slavery. And we’d be better off if slavery remained legal in Massachusetts.
I disagree. And even if a judicial overreach occurred, apparently the citizens of Massachusetts did not see fit to address it thereafter.
You come across as a real nutter imho.
The “law” as you see it was overturned by several juries, not just judges.
The 1780 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Constitution predates the US Constitution by eight years. It had in fact settled the issue of slavery for Mass before the US Constitution was even written.
As read in 1780:
“Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.”
The series of court cases decided by juries that solved the situation within Mass, they merely supported the Constitution as written by Adams.
https://www.mass.gov/guides/massachusetts-constitution-and-the-abolition-of-slavery
As an American, a conservative, and a Christian, I don’t see how any reasonable person could argue the situation otherwise, except a nutter.
I think the Kennedys are a symptom of it.
You are attempting to strawman me here. "ex post facto" has a known connotation in terms of constitutional law, and it means "creating a law after the fact."
The courts are creating law. That is not their job. They are usurping powers they do not rightfully possess. It is a bad thing when courts create law, especially when they do it with deliberate trickery or twisting the intent of legislators.
The Constitution wasn't in effect in 1782, and nobody was condemned and imprisoned by the Massachusetts decision. Rather the opposite. People were effectively freed.
So making up fake law is okay provided all the right people like the result? Why have laws then? Why not just have a popularity contest?
Your thinking undermines the rule of law. You are okay with this because you like the result. I like the result too, but I absolutely abhor creating fake law through courts.
Whether anything was really taken away from the slaveowners isn't really clear-cut either. If former slave and former slaveowner were both amenable to staying together and the former slave doing the same work in exchange for room and board, that was possible. It was the deprivation of freedom that was ended.
In practice what actually happened is the Massachusetts slave owners immediately took their slaves to other slave states and sold them so as not to lose their investment.
I'm sure some were freed as a result of this court decision, but I would think most were not.
They are making up fake laws through bullsh*t arguments. Do you believe the legislative intent of the 14th amendment was to create a right to abortion and homosexual marriage?
These are lies. These are imposed whims from courts that correspond to their own preferences, and they are not correct or true.
They are clearly not a valid interpretation of "law."
This from the man who makes up vice-presidential powers out of whole cloth when it relates to certifying elections?
What I think is that if the legislative intent was to end slavery, they would have said "slavery is ended." They would not have couched it in terms borrowed from the Declaration of Independence, and which were not at that time understood to apply to slaves.
By your thinking and methodology, the Declaration of Independence abolished slavery.
And we’d be better off if slavery remained legal in Massachusetts.
We would be better off if legislation was created ending slavery rather than letting a court make up a phony baloney interpretation of the State constitution to do it.
Judicial activism is always wrong. It is always an usurpation of the powers of the legislature.
Judicial activism is how we got a right to abortion and homosexual "marriage" out of the 14th amendment.
Trickery is not a valid method of governance, and no one should accept or tolerate tricks to decide what the law is.
And even if a judicial overreach occurred, apparently the citizens of Massachusetts did not see fit to address it thereafter.
This argument makes lynching legal. The fact that the public didn't do something about Judicial tyranny does not make Judicial tyranny right or acceptable.
Look how long we've been fighting to overturn Roe v Wade. Even honest liberals will admit the legal doctrine underpinning Roe v Wade is utter bullsh*t, and the case has no legal grounds to stand upon.
But the public has accepted it because the public believes in accepting whatever Judges say, even when it's utter bullsh*t.
Then I don't see how we can have a meaningful dialogue. Clearly you lack the ability to comprehend my argument.
The powers are not "made up." You simply disagree, and now you represent my position as "making up", which is dishonest.
Were I in the "President of the Senate's" chair on that day, I would have told the entire congress to go f*** itself, and I would not allow it to go forward.
Now what? What would they do? Escort me out and appoint someone else to do it? How would that work out?
Don't tell me he doesn't have the power to do that, because he clearly had the power to do that.
We all have the right to refuse to participate in something ugly, which is why I hammer the Republicans for voting to pass the Corwin Amendment.
They could have said "no", but they didn't.
We all have the power to say "no", but for some reason you don't seem to believe this when it applies to the "President of the Senate."
I disagree with something you made up. Nothing in the Constitution or the law supports your belief.
Don't tell me he doesn't have the power to do that, because he clearly had the power to do that.
Clearly in your vivid imagination perhaps. Not Constitutionally or legally.
Disagree. It is you and others who are making up the idea that a man in authority cannot use his authority, but must instead be some sort of rubber stamp.
This renders that passage as having no effect, and that clearly violates known interpretation standards for constitutional law.
You just want to believe what you want to believe, and then you want to proclaim your beliefs to be facts.
You are incorrect.
Another, Cesar Chelor, was a slave during the early 1700's. You can web search him, if curious. He and Jethro Jones were freed slaves and earned their living as toolmakers during the 18th century in Massachusetts.
“...My relatives and ancestors come from south coastal Georgia.
We dour Scots opposed slavery...”
-
We are probably distant cousins or something...
There was a good story of a slave/former slave living Shelburne Falls…way out in the west. There WERE slaves in MA. Just not a bunch.
Interesting.
Interesting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.