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.
I'm not sure where you get that. Are you talking about the US Constitution, or are you talking about the Declaration of Independence? My recollection is that the committee assigned to write the Declaration of Independence objected to Jefferson's verbiage and made him strip it of the explicitly anti-slavery provisions. By the time it went to the larger body of representatives, it was in it's final form.
Your reference to "two states" sounds more like the debates on the US Constitution in which it was made clear by a small number of states that if slavery wasn't accepted, it wouldn't be ratified.
I have actually read some of the constitutional debate on the issue of slavery, and I have a bookmark for it on one of my other machines somewhere. They basically felt that the coalition was too important to be split apart over the issue of slavery, so the pro-abolition representatives relented.
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.
Whew! Far be it from me to defend progressivism, but surely it can't all be bad? And Teddy Roosevelt's legacy? I think the trust busting needed to be done.
Workplace safety rules and building safety rules were a good thing. Removing children from the workforce is a mixed bag, but I think most people today would regard it as a good thing. The creation of the pure food and drug act was a good thing. Health and sanitary conditions imposed on the meat packing industry was a good thing.
You are throwing it all out, and without better explanations I can't see it all as being bad. There were things the progressives did that were actually good for the people and good for the nation.
Yes, there was a lot of bad stuff done by the progressives, and I can sorta see how you might regard it as historical malpractice because nobody writes about all the stupid fascist type things they did.
Could you be a little more specific on one or two aspects of the progressive era you regard as historical malpractice?
Yes, Yellow Journalism was a bad thing, and we've endured it ever since.
In 1780, the Revolution was still going on. Tories were losing their property and being driven into exile. In that context a court decision abolishing slavery doesn’t seem like a terrible thing. There had already been such a decision in Britain, so there was precedent, and the population, inspired by ideas of freedom, did not reject or rebel against the decision. People who might like the courts to declare government intrusions and usurpation unconstitutional might not be quick to condemn the Massachusetts decision. Just what is and what isn’t illegitimate judicial activism isn’t always clear.