Posted on 03/30/2019 12:39:26 PM PDT by CondoleezzaProtege
In his later years, Benjamin Franklin became vocal as an abolitionist and in 1787 began to serve as President of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery.
The Society was originally formed April 14, 1775, in Philadelphia, as The Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage...The Society not only advocated the abolition of slavery, but made efforts to integrate freed slaves into American society.
Preamble:
"It having pleased the Creator of the world, to make of one flesh all the children of men, it becomes them to consult and promote each other's happiness, as members of the same family, however diversified they may be, by colour, situation, religion, or different states of society. It is more especially the duty of those persons, who profess to maintain for themselves the rights of human nature, and who acknowledge the obligations of Christianity, to use such means as are in their power, to extend the blessings of freedom to every part of the human race; and in a more particular manner, to such of their fellow creatures as are entitled to freedom by the laws and constitutions of any of the United States, and who, notwithstanding, are detained in bondage, by fraud or violence.— From a full conviction of the truth and obligation of these principles, — from a desire to diffuse them, wherever the miseries and vices of slavery exist, and in humble confidence of the favour and support of the Father of Mankind, the subscribers have associated themselves, under the title of the 'Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, and the Relief of free Negroes unlawfully held in Bondage, and for improving the condition of the African race.'"
(Excerpt) Read more at benjaminfranklin.org ...
Not only Jefferson, but also Washington, Madison & many other Southerners who believed in 1776 that slavery was an evil which should be eventually abolished.
There was no big disagreement between North & South on the subject, a few like SC's Rutledge notwithstanding.
It's a key point that all you Lost Causers refuse to acknowledge -- that in 1776 and 1787 most Southerners and Northerners agreed slavery was morally wrong and should be restricted and abolished where possible.
The great change by 1860 was that virtually all slaveholders then viewed slavery as morally good and unchallengable.
But those were not our Founders' views, North or South.
quoting BJK: "Others like John Adams wrote state constitutions effectively abolishing slavery."
DiogenesLamp: "Lie.
John Adams was from Massachusetts.
The Massachusetts constitution of 1780 incorporated verbiage similar to the Declaration of Independence, ("All men are born free and equal") and it was upon that basis that Lying Liberal courts pretended this clause was intended to apply to slaves."
I'd say your words are the lie here and this is how you can test it: find a quote from Adams where he opposed the Massachusetts supreme court ruling.
Did he?
Of course not, Adams opposed slavery and was happy to see it abolished in Massachusetts.
So there's no reason not to suppose Adams himself didn't anticipate happily what the Massachusetts supreme court would do with the words of the Constitution Adams wrote.
DiogenesLamp: "This was clearly not the intention of the Massachusetts legislature, but the courts deliberately disregarded their intentions, and "interpreted" that clause as applying to slaves.
This was Judicial activism, and that is all it was."
Again, find where Adams himself opposed the Massachusetts supreme court interpretation of Adams' own words.
Then cite any serious opposition to it in Massachusetts, at the time or later.
In fact, there was none.
DiogenesLamp: "But to claim that this was the purpose when it was written?
That is a lie, or perhaps just serious ignorance."
No, sorry but the lie here is your claim that Adams was not an abolitionist who was very happy to see the Massachusetts constitution he wrote used for that purpose.
Heard this crap so many times i'm just going to pass on reading whatever comes after it.
Disagree on two points.
1. The founders did not stipulate "necessity", they stipulated "consent of the governed."
2. "Necessity" is in the eye of the beholder, and you are a presumptious bastard if you think you have the right to tell others that what they consider to be a "necessity", you consider to be a "whim."
*YOU* don't get to decide what are "necessities" for other people. *THEY* get to decide what *THEY* consider to be "necessity."
If they are in "rebellion", US Constitution applies. If they are a "foreign power", normal laws of war apply.
Pick.
As I have said numerous times, Lincoln treated them as both at the same time. He treated them as a foreign power to justify not following Constitutional law, and he treated them as "rebelled states" to justify invading them in the first place.
So far as the Lincoln administration was concerned, the Confederates states existed in a condition of quantum superposition, being both in the Union and out of the Union at the same time, depending on what abuse of power he needed to justify.
I guess you are a little unfamiliar with this concept of "representative." What was the state of Virginia's position on the matter?
I'd say your words are the lie here and this is how you can test it: find a quote from Adams where he opposed the Massachusetts supreme court ruling. Did he?
Adam's is not the sole word on the subject. The entire Massachusetts legislature must be consulted as to the meaning, not just *ONE* man.
I'm beginning to think you favor the "strong man" form of government, because you are always trying to make the opinions of the one or the few definitive instead of looking at the larger picture when it comes to "consent of the governed."
Yes, all the legislature of Massachusetts had a say in this, not just Adams.
If there had been strong support for slavery in Massachusetts, the electorate would have rebelled against the court decision. But there wasn't. Yankee-haters can still take comfort in the idea that what the public really hated was having to compete economically against unfree labor, but in any case, the court decision did reflect the public mood of the day.
“There is no natural right to independence.”
That is an interesting comment.
In the American Declaration of Rebellion it makes reference to “unalienable Rights.”
By your reckoning Jefferson should have said there is an unalienable right to rebellion; and no more.
I looked up the criticism of the proposed constitution of 1778, (called the "Essex result) and it barely mentions slavery. The vast bulk of the criticism for the 1778 proposed constitution was about everything except for slavery.
I have become accustomed to people dishonestly presenting the past as they wish it to be, and imparting motives to people that they wished them to have. The reason why the proposed constitution was rejected had little, or perhaps even nothing to do with slavery. They certainly spent a lot of time criticizing everything else about it.
If there had been strong support for slavery in Massachusetts, the electorate would have rebelled against the court decision.
No sequitur. Most people did not own slaves, and most people would not care if rich people got their slaves taken away from them. Only that tiny minority who cares about actual law and legal process would care about this.
The people of Massachusetts have a long history of accepting ridiculous judicial claims from their tyrannical liberal judges finding "penumbras" in the law. I suspect it is a byproduct of their Puritan history of religious edicts simply being accepted.
But there wasn't. Yankee-haters can still take comfort in the idea that what the public really hated was having to compete economically against unfree labor, but in any case, the court decision did reflect the public mood of the day.
I don't think anyone hates Yankees, but it is good to see you admit the real motivation behind Northern state hatred of slavery. Slaves were "scabs" before the term was known in what has become "Organized Labor America."
The vast majority of Northern people did not care about them as people. Only the small minority of religious abolitionist kooks did.
Because, like all Democrats, you hate the truth and refuse to deal with it whenever it contradicts your favorite fantasies.
FRiend, your brain is wired like a Democrat's, regardless of how conservative you think you are.
DiogenesLamp: "Disagree on two points.
1. The founders did not stipulate 'necessity', they stipulated 'consent of the governed.' "
Except your word "stipulate" is not in their documents, anywhere, so it's merely a projection of your own fantasies onto our Founders.
What our Founders clearly and unequivocally did say, repeatedly, was
DiogenesLamp: "2. "Necessity" is in the eye of the beholder, and you are a presumptious bastard if you think you have the right to tell others that what they consider to be a "necessity", you consider to be a "whim." "
The "presumptious bastard" on these threads would be DiogenesLamp for claiming that your own insane fantasies somehow equate to our Founders' beliefs.
DiogenesLamp: "*YOU* don't get to decide what are 'necessities' for other people.
*THEY* get to decide what *THEY* consider to be 'necessity.' "
Complete rubbish because our Founders considered necessity to be not some matter of your subjecting feeeeeeeeeelings, but rather of facts & law which they laid out to prove, for all to see.
No similar facts & law justified any 1860-1 declaration of secession.
Nonsense, the Constitution provides no particular protections for citizens in rebellion, whether they've formally declared "secession" or not.
It most especially provides no protections for "combinations too powerful" who formally declare war on the United States.
DiogenesLamp: "As I have said numerous times, Lincoln treated them as both at the same time.
He treated them as a foreign power to justify not following Constitutional law, and he treated them as "rebelled states" to justify invading them in the first place."
But no justification whatever is required when anyone provokes, starts, declares, invades and wages war against the United States -- Lincoln needed no "justification".
Lincoln could have used a "purple cow" as justification, it wouldn't matter!
DiogenesLamp: "So far as the Lincoln administration was concerned, the Confederates states existed in a condition of quantum superposition, being both in the Union and out of the Union at the same time, depending on what abuse of power he needed to justify."
Complete rubbish, since Lincoln never, ever acknowledged Confederates as "a separate country", and never claimed their existence as "a separate country" justified any actions he took.
Nor did Congress, nor did the US Supreme Court.
The existence of a Confederate "separate country" was not necessary to justify anything any Unionist ever said or did.
Barely?
All men are born equally free. The rights they possess at their births are equal, and of the same kind. Some of those rights are alienable, and may be parted with for an equivalent. Others are unalienable and inherent, and of that importance, that no equivalent can be received in exchange. Sometimes we shall mention the surrendering of a power to controul our natural rights, which perhaps is speaking with more precision, than when we use the expression of parting with natural rights--but the same thing is intended. Those rights which are unalienable, and of that importance, are called the rights of conscience. We have duties, for the discharge of which we are accountable to our Creator and benefactor, which no human power can cancel. What those duties are, is determinable by right reason, which may be, and is called, a well informed conscience. What this conscience dictates as our duty, is so; and that power which assumes a controul over it, is an usurper; for no consent can be pleaded to justify the controul, as any consent in this case is void. The alienation of some rights, in themselves alienable, may be also void, if the bargain is of that nature, that no equivalent can be received. Thus, if a man surrender all his alienable rights, without reserving a controul over the supreme power, or a right to resume in certain cases, the surrender is void, for he becomes a slave; and a slave can receive no equivalent. Common equity would set aside this bargain.
You seem to think that the founding generation were some kind of moral idiots who couldn't make the connection between their own enslavement and that of the Negroes or between their own rights and those of others. That wasn't entirely the case.
Even some prominent slaveowners felt ashamed about talking one way and acting another. They sensed that there was a contradiction between their ideals and their behavior and they hadn't developed ideologies to fully reconcile their ideas and their institutions.
There was a climate that promoted emancipation, and emancipation came - perhaps without people explicitly demanding it and working for it. Given so much of history, that's more something to be marveled at and admired, not churlishly condemned.
Most of the colonial rebellions going on in our hemisphere at about the same time recognized that emancipation would come with independence - and it did. Freedom for colonists implied freedom for slaves. The notion that it wouldn't is the outlier that has to be explained, not the norm.
I have become accustomed to people dishonestly presenting the past as they wish it to be, and imparting motives to people that they wished them to have.
Because you have so much experience of doing that yourself?
Most people did not own slaves, and most people would not care if rich people got their slaves taken away from them. Only that tiny minority who cares about actual law and legal process would care about this.
If there is no right to own another human being, would those who care about justice complain much about emancipation. In point of fact, though, many of the slaves were kept on as paid or unpaid servants. Emancipation was not a major burden on anyone, and there doesn't appear to be any great outcry.
I don't think anyone hates Yankees, but it is good to see you admit the real motivation behind Northern state hatred of slavery.
If you don't hate Yankees, nobody does, but you do. I said haters like you could "take comfort in the idea" not that it was true. The reasons for anything are more complicated than the simple-mindedly cynical explanation.
The vast majority of Northern people did not care about them as people. Only the small minority of religious abolitionist kooks did.
Some Northerners clearly did care about African-Americans and their right to be free. But "caring" really isn't the right word in this context. People don't usually share a loving concern for strangers, but they do take exception to their being abused in ways that shock them.
People "care" and they "don't care." They don't "care" and yet they "care." Someone who wasn't consumed by hate wouldn't treat whole groups of people as though they were uniform blocks who all thought and felt and acted the same way.
I guess you are a little unfamiliar with this concept of "representative".
Representatives sent to Philadelphia in 1776 and again in 1787 negotiated and wrote documents which framed our country.
They negotiated with some instructions from their home states, but often with none.
Their own opinions then, just as in representatives today, mattered, a lot.
DiogenesLamp: "Adam's is not the sole word on the subject.
The entire Massachusetts legislature must be consulted as to the meaning, not just *ONE* man."
Sure, I "get" that your brain is a fact-free zone, so let's add a few:
Did John Adams think his state constitution meant something different than what Massachusetts' supreme court ruled it said?
I doubt that, but feel free to find quotes from Adams himself expressing disapproval of the Mass court's rulings.
I'll wait.
DiogenesLamp: "I'm beginning to think you favor the 'strong man' form of government, because you are always trying to make the opinions of the one or the few definitive instead of looking at the larger picture when it comes to 'consent of the governed.' "
Of course DiogenesLamp has no interest whatever in "consent of the governed" in 1860 or 1865, if their ancestry was African, or if they were Unionists in, say, Eastern Tennessee.
Indeed, you've expressed no interest in their consent, even in 1960 or '65.
But more important, as a born & raised Democrat, you just can't think at all -- your brain won't work, it can only feeeeeeeeeel what you wish it to feeeeel.
And as a Democrat, your feeeeeeelings are all that matter to you.
That's how you can "begin to think" whatever fantasy might pop into your head...
DiogenesLamp: "Yes, all the legislature of Massachusetts had a say in this, not just Adams."
Sure, and the Massachusetts legislature said & did what, exactly -- then or later?
Some Democrat got to you, pal, and screwed with the wiring in your brain, so now you think & talk like a Democrat -- only your feeeeeeeelings matter, only the "eye of the beholder" counts.
Facts?
Irrelevant.
Proof?
Not necessary.
Laws?
Of no consequence, according to DiogenesLamp.
So I don't know who that Democrat was, or how he did it, but he messed you up bad, now no matter how conservative you think you are, you still come off sounding like Leftist.
Sad.
Right.
And welcome back from your long "vacation", I hope you're rested up & ready to take on whatever they throw at us!
;-)
And what in this text makes you think they were discussing black slavery? The context of your quote indicates they were referring to themselves.
I found a place where they refer to black slavery, but what you quoted isn't it. So yeah, "barely" seems about right to me.
Even some prominent slaveowners felt ashamed about talking one way and acting another. They sensed that there was a contradiction between their ideals and their behavior and they hadn't developed ideologies to fully reconcile their ideas and their institutions.
But for some reason, protections for slavery were originally included in the 1778 Massachusetts constitution created by the legislature. If there was such a widespread disgust with the practice, how did that ever make it into the work produced by the Massachusetts legislature?
Again, the vast majority of the criticism was about everything else they saw as wrong with the proposed 1778 constitution. The bit about black slavery is a very tiny portion of that body of criticism, and it was more to the position of wishing that slaveholding was unknown in America.
Freedom for colonists implied freedom for slaves.
13 slave holding states gaining their independence from Britain doesn't imply anything about freedom for the slaves. It has since been deliberately read that way, but it certainly was nobody's intention to conflate the two issues at the time. (Except perhaps Jefferson, but he was a bit of a kook.)
Because you have so much experience of doing that yourself?
You said in your previous message that most opposition to slavery in the North was based on opposition to free labor, and not out of any genuine concern for the well being of slaves. This is an accurate assessment of what was going on in those days. It is not a massaged, tarted up version of moral courage ascribed to the motives of Northerners, it is a realistic view that they were motivated primarily by self interest, as most people always have been.
In this you are presenting the past as it is, not as you wish it to be. In claiming the 1778 constitution was shot down because of the issue of slavery *IS* an example of you presenting history as you would prefer it to be. I have simply pointed out that the vast bulk of their concerns over that constitution had nothing to do with black slavery.
If there is no right to own another human being, would those who care about justice complain much about emancipation.
At the time and in that culture, there *was* a right to own other people. The fact that most people didn't care about protecting that "right", doesn't mean that it didn't exist. The issue here is deceit. Had the legislature proposed a law that emancipated all the slaves in Massachusetts, that would be the proper legal process. It would have been conducted in the right way, and it would constitute the assent of the people in the legislature who were the representatives of the people.
Had such a law been passed, it would have been completely valid. (prior to the formation of the Union with it's specifically slavery protecting clause of the Constitution)
Instead they had a judge decide to creatively interpret a clause of the Massachusetts constitution in a manner that obviously conflicts with what the Massachusetts legislature had believed was correct in 1778, and then proclaim all slavery is abolished. This is Judicial activism. This is Judicial abuse, and you know it. Though we agree with the result, we cannot countenance the methodology. It is far more likely to be abused to our detriment than it is to ever benefit our society or government.
Emancipation was not a major burden on anyone, and there doesn't appear to be any great outcry.
Who would dare? The Overton window had shifted in that state, again because of their Puritan predispositions, I think.
If you don't hate Yankees, nobody does, but you do.
I do not hate Yankees. In fact, I'm not sure I know anyone who isn't a Yankee. One of my best friends died a month ago, and he was from Allentown Pennsylvania. I loved him like a brother. He was a wonderful person, a Desert Storm veteran, and I shall miss him greatly.
Some Northerners clearly did care about African-Americans and their right to be free.
Some did. Mostly very religious people. Their numbers probably corresponded roughly to the percentages of people today who care about LGBTQ issues. Maybe 2% of the population. They were a very small minority. Most everyone else didn't see black people as equal, and would have in fact been offended if anyone suggested as much at the time.
They simply didn't want free labor competing with them.
They were talking about freedom. Why would you assume that it didn't refer to Africans?
13 slave holding states gaining their independence from Britain doesn't imply anything about freedom for the slaves. It has since been deliberately read that way, but it certainly was nobody's intention to conflate the two issues at the time.
Look around the hemisphere. Countries that won their independence in the first half of the 19th century moved towards emancipation. It was not quite as fast as I thought, but the connection between independence and emancipation was present in Latin America, as it was in the US.
You said in your previous message that most opposition to slavery in the North was based on opposition to free labor, and not out of any genuine concern for the well being of slaves.
No. I said that's what people like you would say. The reality was more complicated and doesn't fit wholly into your cynical, materialistic explanations.
At the time and in that culture, there *was* a right to own other people. The fact that most people didn't care about protecting that "right", doesn't mean that it didn't exist.
Actually no. Somebody who goes on and on about a supposed natural right to secession ought to recognize that there was a natural right to personal freedom. That implied that there was no natural right to own other people. There was no common law right either. Convention and existing practice allowed it, but that doesn't mean it was a well-founded human or civic right.
Instead they had a judge decide to creatively interpret a clause of the Massachusetts constitution in a manner that obviously conflicts with what the Massachusetts legislature had believed was correct in 1778, and then proclaim all slavery is abolished. This is Judicial activism. This is Judicial abuse, and you know it.
Not so much. A court in Britain ruled in 1772 that the common law didn't allow for slavery. That's not the courts using their power to increase the power of the state. It's something akin to jury nullification.
Many a libertarian contrasts the evolution of the common law (people working out rules based on principles) and the exercise of state power from above. If voters and legislators didn't like it, they could easily take back their power and legislate protections for slavery.
Most everyone else didn't see black people as equal, and would have in fact been offended if anyone suggested as much at the time.
What Lincoln said about the black woman that Douglas accused him of wanting to marry: "In some respects she certainly is not my equal; but in her natural right to eat the bread she earns with her own hands without asking leave of any one else, she is my equal, and the equal of all others."
The author wasn't saying that he rejected the proposed state constitution because of slavery, but he did make clear how he and others felt about the institution of slavery. He believed in freedom and equality for those like himself, but didn't rigidly exclude black slaves from the ranks of those entitled to basic freedom from oppression.
Ah, you found it! :)
Now how much of the total document does that little statement take up out of the entire document?
The author wasn't saying that he rejected the proposed state constitution because of slavery, but he did make clear how he and others felt about the institution of slavery.
But it hardly constitutes the primary reason they opposed the 1778 proposed constitution. It also says nothing about the legality of the institution and what where their opinions on that point. Clearly the author of the Essex result didn't like slavery, but a lament about it is not the same thing as an assertion that they were going to use the power of government to make it illegal. I dare say many of the founders lamented it as well, but would not go so far as to say they will force it to be illegal through sneaky methods of interpretation.
If their intent was to make it illegal, some words to that effect needs to be put forth in a clear cut manner.
He believed in freedom and equality for those like himself, but didn't rigidly exclude black slaves from the ranks of those entitled to basic freedom from oppression.
It is clear that the author supported this idea, but not so strongly as to propose that it should be illegal as part of the constitution. For that matter, Adams doesn't come out and say it either. It's left to sneaky and creative "penumbra" finding to come to that conclusion.
Is the interests of the people served by "penumbra" finding? I believe it is not, because "penumbras" are in the eye of the beholder.
Something that significantly upturns the existing societal norms should be spelled out clearly and in no uncertain terms. Things like Roe v Wade and "Gay Marriage" should not be tolerated because someone looks at the constitution through their own distorted perception.
Because the people who signed on to similar verbiage in the Declaration of Independence were clearly not referring to Africans, but instead were referring to themselves. If they were specifically referring to Africans, they would have made it quite clear that they were, as in that bit you found in the Essex result to which I already responded in my previous post. Otherwise, the default is themselves, because everything else in the document is referring to themselves and how they feel about the proposed constitution.
Look around the hemisphere. Countries that won their independence in the first half of the 19th century moved towards emancipation. It was not quite as fast as I thought, but the connection between independence and emancipation was present in Latin America, as it was in the US.
I caution people against reading interpretations into historical events that are not necessarily there. Slavery existed in Latin and South America since the Spanish arrived, and it is not necessarily as a result of a newly discovered morality that the nations below the United States gave it up. Having the United States turn hostile to it's practice may have had more to do with it then a suddenly discovered concern for the milk of human kindness.
Call me a cynic, but I think that so long as something is profitable, it will continue, and I think Europe and the US together pretty much destroyed it's profitability in the nations to the South of the US.
No. I said that's what people like you would say. The reality was more complicated and doesn't fit wholly into your cynical, materialistic explanations.
How much more complicated could it be? Massachusetts had laws prohibiting marriage between whites and blacks, and these continued long after slavery had been abolished through creative interpretation by the courts. Clearly the people of Massachusetts did not believe in true equality for blacks, and I haven't yet bothered to check to see if they had any "black" laws in that state. I should not be surprised to find that they did.
So yes, some people believed they should have freedom and equal rights, and the majority just didn't want them undermining their ability to earn wages. Seems pretty simple to me.
Actually no. Somebody who goes on and on about a supposed natural right to secession ought to recognize that there was a natural right to personal freedom.
I have always said that, but the actual laws of that era did not. Are we to pretend otherwise?
That implied that there was no natural right to own other people.
"Implied" is also in the eye of the beholder. This is reading into the law what is not clearly stated. If they want it in the law, it should be clearly stated that it is to be part of the law. "Implied" simply means "Penumbra."
There was no common law right either. Convention and existing practice allowed it, but that doesn't mean it was a well-founded human or civic right.
It was a "right" that wasn't founded on natural law, and in fact one which was in conflict with it, but it was adopted as a right before the body of philosophy known as "natural law" became prominent. Corruption of blood, or the passing on to the sons the sins of the father, is another example of law that was contrary to natural law, but was part of the common law at that time. I disagree that slavery was not part of the common law, because at that point in history, it had clearly become part of the common law.
As a matter of fact, I have been repeatedly told that it became legal in the US as a consequence of another judge creatively interpreting the law to allow it.
Not so much. A court in Britain ruled in 1772 that the common law didn't allow for slavery.
So from whence did the legal right to it emerge then? It was clearly legal in England up until the 1830s, I think. 1830 is a long way away from 1772. If it was not common law, then it could only have been actual law passed by parliament.
Many a libertarian contrasts the evolution of the common law (people working out rules based on principles) and the exercise of state power from above. If voters and legislators didn't like it, they could easily take back their power and legislate protections for slavery.
Roe v Wade. Gay Marriage. Anchor babies. Prayer in public schools. Gun Control.
See? Not so easy to "take back" their power and legislate protections for something. When a court issues a decree, there are plenty enough people who will support it whether it be in fact wrong or incorrect.
What Lincoln said about the black woman that Douglas accused him of wanting to marry: "In some respects she certainly is not my equal; but in her natural right to eat the bread she earns with her own hands without asking leave of any one else, she is my equal, and the equal of all others."
Well he is certainly correct on that point, but this doesn't prove that most people thought this in Massachusetts in 1778. Getting back to the topic at hand, you implied that the 1778 constitution was rejected on the basis that it allowed slavery.
I think I have proved my point that it was mostly rejected for quite different reasons.
Also, the Adams constitution does not clearly say it is making slavery illegal, which it should if it is intending to upturn such a significant existing paradigm. Sneaking it through in flowery language is hardly securing the "consent of the governed." It's tricking them into allowing something that they didn't actually vote for.
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.