Posted on 12/18/2021 7:06:36 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The United States was “formed” by the Declaration of Independence? Aren’t you skipping the Revolutionary War, the Constitutional Convention, the ratification of the Constitution and so on and so forth? You have really done a number on yourself. Sad.
Back when I was researching the meaning of "natural born citizen" I discovered that every supreme court decision on the matter establishes citizenship as beginning July 4, 1776.
Now what do you suppose happened on that date?
You are so set on me being wrong about something that it blinds you to the truth.
According to you, the United States was formed. I disagree with that. What happened on July 4, 1776 was that the British subjects of the colonies declared their independence from the British Monarchy. The “United States” came later. And I won’t fall for your “citizenship” strawman.
No. That's you. You are just f-ing around. All court decisions come "after the fact." They aren't "ex post facto". That doesn't apply to judicial decisions which are all "after the fact." Be honest for once and stop playing stupid word games.
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.
Another poster pointed out that it was juries who on several occasions ruled that the slaves were free before the state's supreme court reached its decision. "Jury nullification" is a real thing. Juries, for that matter, don't have to comply with "judge-made law" if they don't want to.
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.
Statistics, please. Stop just making things up. For the most part, slaveowners didn't own large numbers of slaves. Some of them probably did sell slaves away, or try to. Many of them didn't have the resources or the need to do so. If you were a slave freed by the court decision and your owner tried to sell you to a slave state, you could take your case to the courts and sue for your freedom.
The 1790 census for Massachusetts shows no slaves, but numbers of ex-slaves still living with their former masters and presumably still working for them. We don't have reliable numbers for the number of slaves in the state before that, but in 1790 there were 5,369 non-Whites listed, and estimates for the Black population before that aren't much higher.
Normally I do not cite "the courts" as proof of anything because I generally have little faith in or respect for their decisions, but many people consider them to be the ultimate word on a subject.
"The courts" have decided that the United States government was formed July 4, 1776.
You may believe whatever you wish to believe.
It isn't a stupid word game. Words mean things, and you are trying to finesse the meaning of what the courts are actually doing.
They are *CREATING* law. They are deliberately twisting legislative intent to mean something it did not mean when it was written. This is dishonest and it is wrong, and we should not tolerate it.
Another poster pointed out that it was juries who on several occasions ruled that the slaves were free before the state's supreme court reached its decision. "Jury nullification" is a real thing. Juries, for that matter, don't have to comply with "judge-made law" if they don't want to.
Juries are not a super legislature. If the people of a state want a specific law, their elected legislatures can create it, but in this case, that did not happen.
Stop pretending that this is a valid application of the jury system. This was an abuse of the legal process.
Statistics, please. Stop just making things up. For the most part,
...
We don't have reliable numbers for the number of slaves in the state before that,
You ask me for statistics and then later admit we don't have reliable numbers? Not very cricket there old chap.
I have read that taking slaves to other states was a common occurrence in states that abolished slavery, and I believe I have read articles mentioning that this specifically happened in Massachusetts.
As I am a person who has great confidence in humanity's willingness to do evil to other people so long as it benefits themselves, I fully believe that Massachusetts slave owners did do this very thing.
You aren’t. Maybe we see different flaws, but this article is really sloppily written.
When the article says “no colony turned state”, ok, well then when the colony was doing slavery stuff, go complain to Britain about how bad it was.
That’s not reflective of the United States.
Different country.
It’s worse than this though.
I’m tired of seeing an entirely one-sided account on this. This essay even brings up the Somersett case, but it doesn’t bring up Somersett’s hypocrisy. Even Franklin called out Londen over its hypocrisy - so it’s not just me.
Britain had its chance to abolish slavery on this continent. It was a monarchy. It was a dictatorship. It could have done so at any time.
It. Didn’t. Want. That.
Britain wanted slavery here. And there wasn’t a thing our Founders could’ve done about it until breaking off in some sort of independence movement.
America isn’t at fault here. The British Empire did this. We should not be ripping each other to shreds over this.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3940983/posts
The Sommersett Case and the Slave Trade (1)
It is said that some generous humane persons subscribed to the expence of obtaining liberty by law for Somerset the Negro.(2) It is to be wished that the same humanity may extend itself among numbers; if not to the procuring liberty for those that remain in our Colonies, at least to obtain a law for abolishing the African commerce in Slaves, and declaring the children of present Slaves free after they become of age.
By a late computation made in America, it appears that there are now eight hundred and fifty thousand Negroes in the English Islands and Colonies; and that the yearly importation is about one hundred thousand, of which number about one third perish by the gaol distemper on the passage, and in the sickness called the seasoning before they are set to labour. The remnant makes up the deficiencies continually occurring among the main body of those unhappy people, through the distempers occasioned by excessive labour, bad nourishment, uncomfortable accommodation, and broken spirits.(3)
Can sweetening our tea, &c. with sugar, be a circumstance of such absolute necessity? Can the petty pleasure thence arising to the taste, compensate for so much misery produced among our fellow creatures, and such a constant butchery of the human species by this pestilential detestable traffic in the bodies and souls of men? Pharisaical Britain! to pride thyself in setting free a single Slave that happens to land on thy coasts, while thy Merchants in all thy ports are encouraged by thy laws to continue a commerce whereby so many hundreds of thousands are dragged into a slavery that can scarce be said to end with their lives, since it is entailed on their posterity!
Liberty is worth dying for.
There were a lot of these, like Prince Estabrook.
I covered much of this several years ago in a public domain work:
The Colored Patriots of the American Revolution
https://librivox.org/the-colored-patriots-of-the-american-revolution-by-william-cooper-nell/
Liberty is good, but why did they have to kill people for being a suspected witch?
Why did all those good people of Massachusetts have to finance the John Brown raid that would have turned into a massive blood bath?
Why did Massachusetts create a right to "gay" marriage?
I've read some commentary on the Puritans, and the reason they were driven out of every nation in Europe is because they were bat-sh*t crazy. They were a mix of insane levels of religiosity combine with a dictator-like fetish for imposing their ideas on other people.
Massachusetts is nuts.
This is the kind of garbage that gets you in trouble. You don't question the left's historical malpractice.
Following Europe's lead has always been a bad idea. Burning witches was no different. Europe burned witches for hundreds of years killing thousands of people, and here in America it was like what, a dozen people? And shortly after, leaders here started saying "wait, this is crazy" and not only did the witch burning begin in Europe, but it stopped here first. They continued witch hunting. I want to say Cotton Mather was one of the guys who came to his senses, but I don't specifically remember. I would tell you to look it up, but you have no interest and motivation to find out.
This is a fact: Malleus Maleficarum is European propaganda.
Here is more, but I don't expect you to read it. https://www.thoughtco.com/european-witch-hunts-timeline-3530786
This whole witch hunting in Salem narrative is a good example of what I mean when I say sometimes that progressives have been propagandizing us for a lot more than 30 or 50 years like some purport to claim. It's at least a century. This one goes back a long way.
Why did all those good people of Massachusetts have to finance the John Brown raid that would have turned into a massive blood bath?
I don't know and I don't care. Re-litigating the Civil War is your schtick. I'm not interested. The era came and went, and after a decade or two it was all gone. There was a historical break. What we suffer under today is progressivism. We are still stuck in the Wilsonian/Rooseveltian morasse. Your post is proof of this. You are not questioning of their talking points. You proudly wear the progressivist historical armor on your head and nothing can penetrate. No fact is too irrefutable.
This is exactly why I take so much time to create open source audiobooks, you're not the only one who utterly refuses to question progressivism.
Why did Massachusetts create a right to "gay" marriage?
All you're doing is throwing mud on the wall to see what sticks. None of any of what you're saying has anything to do with the American Thinker article about slavery. You're flailing and grasping. Don't expect some straws.
"I've read some commentary on the Puritans...."
Of course you have. You ate it all up. You're steeped very deeply in the left's historical revisionism and in quite a firm agreement with it. This attack base against the Puritans is old hat. That's what the progressives did decades ago before they decided to switch tracks and move forward with the 1619 Project.
If you weren't stuck with your head so deeply in the Civil War sand, you'd see what poison these progressives are pushing. You can't do much when you're a one-trick pony.
“Tens of thousands, perhaps as many as 100,000 people accused as witches were burned at the stake in Europe between 1400 and 1750.”
No reply needed. FYI only.
Well first of all, they didn't burn any "witches". They hung them. I believe they also pressed a man to death because he wouldn't enter a plea.
Secondly, Cotton Mather didn't come to his senses. The three girls behind the vast majority of the accusations of being a witch finally went too far and accused the governor's wife of being a witch, and the Governor immediately took steps to put a stop to all the nonsense.
And you want to lecture me about misrepresenting history?
And looking at your other responses doesn't impress. You want to dismiss the John Brown conspiracy because it's about the Civil War? I mention it in the context of Massachusetts insanity. It could have turned into a blood bath worse than the civil war, and that is no great shakes to you?
And loony Massachusetts enacting "gay marriage" against the desires of it's populace? Par for the course for that collection of authoritarian nutbags.
Europe is still crazy. All you have to do is look at what is going on over there right now.
Poland and Hungary seem to be the only ones that have any sense.
I’m dismissing the Civil War because the era is over. There’s no need to re-litigate it. This isn’t a Civil War discussion thread.
On the other hand, as Americans we have not left the progressive era. Progressivism is America’s cancer. We are still stuck in Wilsonianism/Rooseveltianism. The original article about slavery is a really poorly written response to what the progressives have come up with re: 1619 Project. That is the issue.
Fighting over Virginia or Massachusetts or any other is tiling at windmills and giving the progressives what they desire. Colonies of the empire are colonies of the empire. That is all. America as a country was founded in 1776.
This is where I wonder just how much you know about history. Have you not heard of the recent world women's swimming records smashed by that transgender fellow at the University of Pennsylvania?
Now you may be asking yourself, "WTH does that have to do with the Civil War?"
The court decisions that created this mess are a consequence of the Civil War. So is abortion. So is "gay marriage". So is banning prayer in schools. So is "anchor babies".
Do you have any idea of how much of our modern crap-fest is connected to the Civil War? A lot.
I was researching how we got abortion and how prayer got banned in schools long before I ever started discussing the civil war, and what I learned about these and other issues was that they were all the consequence of bad legislation created in and because of the aftermath of the Civil War. (Mostly through the 14th amendment.)
It isn't behind us. We deal with it every day.
On the other hand, as Americans we have not left the progressive era. Progressivism is America’s cancer.
And what was the "Progressive Party" from 1850 to 1932?
Colonies of the empire are colonies of the empire. That is all. America as a country was founded in 1776.
Thanks. Could you pass that bit of info on to Handy Dandy? She seems a little unclear on that particular point.
More correctly, and as you well know, the United States was formed by three founding documents collectively known as the Charters of Freedom. These three founding documents are, of course, The Declaration of Independence, the U.S Constitution and The Bill of Rights. (Compare that to Jeff Davis founding his country). Did you know that Massachusetts, where the shot heard ‘round the world was fired, began fighting the Brits in 1770? I’m sure you have heard of the midnight ride of Paul Revere. And the Battle of Bunker Hill and the Battles of Lexington/Concord. Not to mention the Boston Tea Party and the Boston Massacre(1770) and Crispus Attucks and so on and so forth. Also for your information the Witchcraft Delusion occurred in a very brief timespan during 1692, and in a very small area. It actually began as a boundary dispute between two Puritan families. The trials were held in Salem (because that’s where the Court House was). And no witches were “hung”, they were hanged. And the guy who was “pressed to death” died by the laying on of stones. His name was Giles Corey and his last words were, “more weight!” But I digress...... I am surprised that you would defend and back a “judicial activist” Supreme Court. The founding of the USA was much more than merely the signing of the DOI. Again, ask JeffDavis how that worked out. I think 8 or so of the signers of the DOI were Massachusetts men.
I have, actually. I just did a word search on the debates that created the 14th Amendment and guess what. The word "swimming" does not appear there, the word "transgender" does not appear there either. But "Pennsylvania" does, so I guess you're in luck.
In this instance I think you're purposefully trying to pick a fight. Just a few posts up at 49: https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4022315/posts?page=49#49 you made it clear that you know full well this isn't based on the 14th at all.
"Do you believe the legislative intent of the 14th amendment was to create a right to abortion and homosexual marriage? These are lies."
You know full well it isn't based on the 14th. So stop your charade that it's based on the 14th. Pick one and stay there. It'll make your life easier. "These are lies" isn't complicated. I would even say it's a beautiful thing. Short, simple, and to the point. "These are lies". And best of all, correct.
"The court decisions that created this mess are a consequence of the Civil War."
Not according to you they aren't. Your specific words were "These are lies". And you are in good company! Because the 150~ year old transcripts agree with you. Those civil war amendments were slavery amendments and nothing more. They were very narrow in scope.
This is exactly what I mean about the lies progressives tell. And this is why I don't have any interest in debating it with you. When you are happy to accept the progressives lies, you'll reply 100 or more times about how honest and truthful the progressives are and how bad the 14th is because it authorizes swimming pool junk. And when it suits you the other way? You'll boil it right down to the three correct words. The very three words I say.
"These are lies".
"And what was the "Progressive Party" from 1850 to 1932?"
Progressivism didn't exist until basically 1900, give or take a few years. It did stints first in the GOP for a little over a decade, ending around 1912 with the founding of the actual Progressive Party in 1912. Then progressivism found a home in the Democrat Party almost immediately thereafter. For about a decade, the progressives had some control over both parties on similar terms but not really in massive amounts. Herbert Hoover, for example, crows about how fantastic of a progressive he was back when he was helping Wilson in his centralized planning schemes. I've posted his own words about this here on FR some time ago. Hoover did mature much later on though.
The 14th amendment isn't your enemy. Progressives are. Progressivism is America's cancer.
"Thanks. Could you pass that bit of info on to Handy Dandy? She seems a little unclear on that particular point."
We really need to get an email out to that author on American Thinker. That article regarding Virginia or Massachusetts is dreadful and ought to be retracted.
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.