I was actually thinking of the generation shortly after the Declaration of independence. They immediately started using the "all men are created equal" statement as justification for abolishing slavery, starting with Massachusetts adopting it into their 1780 Constitution. Liberal courts decided that this phrase in the Massachusetts constitutions meant that Massachusetts had abolished slavery by the adoption of this statement.
This is the exact sort of liberal lying that we have seen over and over again with liberal courts "interpreting" the US Constitution to mean things it was never intended to mean, such as the 14th Amendment creating a right to abortion.
It was this era that initiated the deliberate misinterpretation, and this misinterpretation simply got stronger from that point forward.
Do you know of a more significant example of "historical malpractice" than that of people trying to make the Declaration of Independence wholly and solely about slavery?
or:
Do you know of a more significant example of "historical malpractice" than that of people trying to make the Declaration of Independence in part about slavery?
I think either is correct depending on the people doing it and the time in which they were doing it. I think nowadays the Declaration of Independence has become entirely about slavery, and the only words modern people remember from it are "all men are created equal", but I think in the earlier part of the 19th century, they remembered what the Declaration was about, but they made conscious efforts to make it about slavery in an effort to further Abolition.
I think the entire body of work in regard to the Progressive Era takes the cake. The whole thing is a massive and flagrant coverup. Hence my username, and hence my main-target open source audiobooks.
To what specific thing in the progressive era do you refer? For myself, the only thing that comes to mind is Margaret Sanger's effort to control the population of "human weeds" through her reproductive planning and abortion efforts. Nowadays this behavior is ignored through a historical "omerta" or explained away as her being a "product of her time."
People nowadays try to cover up the reality of her efforts because it is too uncomfortable for them to face up to the truth of what she was doing and why.
I'm trying to think of another example of historical malpractice related to the progressive era, but nothing is coming to mind at the moment.
This is a decent clarification, thank you for providing it. It probably is fair to say that the courts were improper for manufacturing new law - on the surface at least - I do not know the details of the case. Given that less than a decade prior the legislature (that is the duly elected representatives of the people) passed an abolitionist law and was only prevented from clearance(was vetoed) by essentially a foreign power, this does not necessarily fit with the usual mold of judicial activism.
I think the most important question I have about the case is, when deciding the case did they reference the Original Rough Draught of the Declaration? Just because Jefferson's philippic was only removed because of two colonies that doesn't change much. Remember that. It was only two, not thirteen. The philippic makes it at least part about African slavery. I know we'll disagree so we will have to agree to disagree on this. The original draft makes it impossible to make the Declaration slavery-agnostic, as do the king's vetos. It's impossible. This was a big deal for people at the time. It was a big problem.
I am not sure you are aware of this, but even Virginia's State Constitution condemns King George for promoting the slave trade. I know its convenient for some to try to diminish Jefferson as just propagandizing or etc, but this was a common discussion point in many writings in that era and it was on both sides of the Atlantic. But to step back one step and focus on the Virginia Constitution, it probably was written with much Jefferson input but they all agreed to it. That's at least a dozen if not dozens of people who looked and they said "yeah, can't argue with that one. That is in fact what the king did."
"I think nowadays the Declaration of Independence has become entirely about slavery"
Agreed. In-whole is malpractice.
"To what specific thing in the progressive era do you refer?"
All of it. Sanger, the wider eugenics quagmire, the role of bureaucracy, Wilson's legacy, TR's legacy, the hoax that the era even ended, that progressivism has anything to do with progress, the similarity between progressivism "progress" and Evolutionary Socialism.(there is no Darwin here.) Everything. Progressive era IRR. Journalism is a hoax. Universities are a hoax. The beginnings of progressivism with Henry George and Edward Bellamy. The domestic effects of WWI. I couldn't possibly list it all. Pretty much anything you can go see in a history book about the progressive era, it's not wholly truthful enough to be called the truth. It's all lies. The only wholly honest thing contained are people's names. They have a massive incentive to make sure nobody sees the era for what it is.