[DiogenesLamp]

Not only aren't you saying anything new, you're ignoring what I'm saying. A jury in the 1780s deciding a case based on the constitution...

You keep saying the jury decided the case, and I keep telling you that is a pretense. Once the judge allowed the case to go forward on it's ridiculous premise, the jury decision was already fore ordained. No Jury in the world would resist the emotional arguments that would have been brought to bear.

The decision of law was to allow the Jury to even consider this line of argument, and that was the judge's decision.

... that it had just approved at the polls...

Objection! It is speculation that the public approved this interpretation at the polls. I would think if anyone believed the public would have approved this interpretation, they could have clearly stated it in plain language rather than hiding it in decorative verbiage. That Adams didn't write it out plainly implies he didn't think such plain language would pass muster.

... and judges approving their decision is a different story from a high court "finding" new things in constitution drafted centuries before.

Not that I can see. All I see is that we like one decision, and we dislike the other, even though they were made through the very same creative interpretation of words about freedom for citizens.

What I am trying to communicate to you is that I don't think this discussion is going anywhere so I'm not going to continue, but I guess you really are on the spectrum, because you don't seem to be picking up on that.

I believed that you wouldn't want to even engage on this topic because I can see no possible way that you can reconcile what you want to believe in the one case, with what has happened in the other.

Yes, I "get it" that you don't want to talk about this. I knew you wouldn't want to talk about this before I sent you that first message. If *I* were you, *I* wouldn't want to talk about it either, because I see no possible way to defend your position.

I think though that I have made my point, and so I shall accede to your preference to discontinue discussing this "tale of two articles" with you.

Perhaps someone else will try to defend your position. I would relish that. :)

[x]

Yes, I "get it" that you don't want to talk about this. I knew you wouldn't want to talk about this before I sent you that first message. If *I* were you, *I* wouldn't want to talk about it either, because I see no possible way to defend your position.

Shameless! You keep bothering people saying the same thing over and over and over again and never taking into account objections and counterarguments and then when people tell you to get lost, you cackle and think that you've won. No, all you've done is tick people off with your nonsense.

If I wanted to understand an 18th century legal case, I would at least try to understand something about 18th century law. Britain and the colonies had the common law, a body of traditional, ancestral judge-made law. Few objected to it because it was based on tradition and precedent and principles derived from precedent. It wasn't an attempt at social engineering or social control, it was an attempt to work out and apply a few simple principles of law.

Slavery was abolished in Britain by degree in 1381, and was on shaky legal ground with the courts ever since, so it wasn't from out of the blue that courts banned Negro slavery in Britain and in Massachusetts four centuries later, without any great social outcry. People knew that slavery wasn't secure legally or morally (or constitutionally, after Massachusetts adopted its own written constitution). Most people would be glad that slavery could be abolished peacefully, but then, most people don't show your loving concern for the welfare of the slave owners.

I said before, not to ping me unless you had something new to say. But after that last post, just don't ping me at all with your garbage.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "You keep saying the jury decided the case, and I keep telling you that is a pretense.
Once the judge allowed the case to go forward on it's ridiculous premise, the jury decision was already fore ordained.
No Jury in the world would resist the emotional arguments that would have been brought to bear.
The decision of law was to allow the Jury to even consider this line of argument, and that was the judge's decision."

We're talking here about the 1781 Massachusetts court cases which effectively abolished slavery, based on their new state constitution which begins:

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."

Now DiogenesLamp wishes us to believe than no normal jury would read those words as applying to slavery, except if some judge arbitrarily imposed such a meaning on it.
But those words do speak for themselves, and "all men are born free and equal", seems pretty hard to misconstrue, regardless of what a judge may or may not say about it.

As to the judge's jury instructions, in this particular example, he referred to slavery as "usage" not explicit law, and told the jury that by finding against slavery they were not overturning law, but simply "usage".
That's why DiogenesLamp's argument must boil down to this: what the 1781 Massachusetts judge called "usage" was, in fact, inviolable Massachusetts law supporting slavery and as such it could not be overthrown by mere "flowery language" in their new state constitution, according to DiogenesLamp.

One problem with DiogenesLamp's argument is that nobody at the time or since ever successfully made it in court, or in the Massachusetts' legislature.
So we have to conclude it's just another of DiogenesLamp's endless Lost Cause fantasies, not supported by actual history.

DiogenesLamp to x: "Perhaps someone else will try to defend your position. I would relish that. :)"

I doubt it.