Happy Secession day!

July 4, 2023 | Me.

[BroJoeK]

Ultra Sonic: "Even if Hyacinthe had booked it the MOMENT the case ended on 7/22, and drafted his appeal on the way, it was not possible to get to Washington D.C. from Indiana in 5 days; note that it would be over 15 years until the first railroad tracks were laid in Indiana, so he would have had to travel by foot.
Maybe he was actually a world-class sprinter/marathon runner."

I certainly appreciate your sincere efforts to make sense of what are, apparently, contradictory data.
What we know for certain are just two claims:

1. Wikipedia claims: Lasalle submitted an appeal to the US Supreme Court dated July 27, 1820, and that SCOTUS refused to hear it, thus upholding the Indiana court's decision abolishing slavery in Indiana.

2. woodpusher claims: none of that is true because, first, he can't find evidence of the appeal being submitted and second, Indiana's court did not really abolish slavery.

And, just so you understand, Ultra Sonic, our FRiend woodpusher is a lawyer-type doing what any good lawyer might do when assigned to defend a 100% guilty client.
Woodpusher naturally concentrates his work on obfuscating, misdirecting, blowing smoke to obscure, changing the subject and accusing his opponents of whatever nonsense he can imagine.
That's what's going on here.

The fundamental truth of this matter is that Northern states like Indiana, Illinois and New Jersey all gradually abolished slavery -- in Indiana's case, from 190 (no not 190,000 just 190) slaves in 1820 to 3 in 1830 to zero in 1850.
In the meantime, Southern slave populations tripled, from 1.1 million in 1820 to over 3.2 million in 1850.

But our Lost Causers, like woodpusher, wish us to ignore the larger picture and focus, focus, focus on the fact that Indiana's 1820 state supreme court ruling did not have the effect of immediately emancipating 100% of Indian's 190 slaves.
And in woodpusher's mind, that makes Indiana a "slave state" regardless of any claims made at the time, or since, to the contrary.

Indeed, nobody in 1850 or 1860 had any doubts as to which states were slave and which free, but our lawyer-woodpusher finds it amusing to throw as much shade on that as possible.

[jmacusa]

If you're paying attention I corrected my mistake.

You seem unable or unwilling to grasp the real reason for the war.

I used the tired excuses of the Lost Causers here in referring to The Civil War in their various descriptions of what the war was really about- preserving slavery.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

You seem unable or unwilling to grasp the real reason for the war.

Where have I talked about "the real reason for the war" in one sense or another? My commentary on this thread has solely revolved around the back-and-forth between various Freepers (as well as elaborating on why the claim made on Wikipedia that an appeal was made to the SCOTUS for the Indiana Laselle case could not have possibly happened as it's described).

My personal opinion is that way too many people in this country (on various sides of the political aisle) seem hellbent on re-litigating the Civil War and won't shut up about it for one reason or another.

[jmacusa]

Yeah. The side that lost won’t shut up.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Yeah. The side that lost won’t shut up.

Probably because so many modern leftists like to keep bringing up slavery as though it were the original sin of America and only America, which naturally provokes an overreaction.

[jmacusa]

No doubt. The CSA was a creation of the Democrat Party.

Today’s democrats do all they can to obscure that fact.

If there’s one reason I hate Joe Biden, perhaps more than any other is when he said of Republicans “They want to put y’all back in chains’’.

[BroJoeK]

woodpusher: "Nobody but a simple minded moron, such as yourself, would even consider arguing that any one of the states did not eventually abolish slavery."

But your lawyerly efforts here have been to obscure and obfuscate that fact, through endless irrelevant quotes to make it appear that such Northern states were really still "slave states".

woodpusher: "The case in point was the claim of jmacusa that the state of New Jersey aboished slavery in 1809.
No measure of your obfuscatory bullflop can change the fact that New Jersey did not abolish slavery in 1809."

I think I addressed that point directly and completely in post #108 above and yet you continue to blather on about it.

woodpusher: "Inspired directly by God, Thomas Jefferson espoused gradual emancipation.
And while so inspired, Thomas wrote down for posterity that such holy emancipation was to be a precursor for deportation of the Black population, and that their place was to be filled up by free white laborers."

I'm not certain I'd credit everything Jefferson ever wrote as "inspired by God", because some of his ideas were much better than others.

But in this example, Jefferson not only proposed gradual emancipations, but also compensated emancipations, paid from the public treasury.
And in Jefferson's time, "recolonizing" was considered a good idea worthy of government support.
So, circa 1820 Congress voted $100,000 (circa $3.6 billion in today's values) for recolonizing freed-blacks to Africa (Liberia) and several state governments had their own separate recolonizing programs to different countries, all of which continued at some level to the Civil War and some even beyond.

But, problems with "recolonizing" included being hugely expensive and only marginally successful.
In part, that's because half of arrivals in Liberia died within a few years, 22% in just the first year.
And there were not huge numbers who even wanted to go -- as bad as conditions were for freed-blacks here, they were good enough that only a few wanted to leave what they knew for something entirely different.

Then, by the 1830 there grew strong opposition to recolonizing from a small number of radical abolitionists.
Still, it remained official government policy and by 1860 something like 15,000 freed-blacks had recolonized in Liberia, and smaller numbers to other countries.

woodpusher: "And did the Great Emancipator not give the original NIMBY assurance to the nation?"

The truth that matters here is: Lincoln never supported forced deportations.
Rather, he intended to offer freed-blacks an opportunity to escape the USA, an offer he thought they would eagerly accept.

When he finally learned otherwise, then his ideas also changed.

quoting BJK: "in 1820 the US Supreme Court freed any slaves in Indiana"

woodpusher: "No, moron.
Not quoting BJK.
Quoting jmacusa #53.
You joined the conversation late, did not bother to read the thread, and proceeded to spam, not knowing what you were spammig about."

Admittedly, it's embarrassing to see you, woodpusher, so thoroughly confused and disoriented, but at my age it could just as easily happen to me, so I won't ridicule you for it, only correct your mistakes.

In this particular case, the quote, "in 1820 the US Supreme Court freed any slaves in Indiana" originated with me in post #85 above.
It was one of a series of events I took from the Timeline of Abolition
There, the exact claim is: "The supreme court orders almost all slaves in the state to be freed in Polly v. Lasselle."

So, you can see, I changed the wording by adding "US" to Supreme Court and replacing "almost all" with "any", since the clear result was to eventually abolish all slavery in Indiana.

But those basic facts have driven you, woodpusher, insane (a short drive) with BS arguments and insults over how, supposedly, that's not what really happened.

Turns out, as we delve deeper into the facts, that there's plenty to clarify here, beginning with: the Indiana State Supreme Court, not SCOTUS, ruled and SCOTUS at most only confirmed the state court ruling by refusing to hear Laselle's appeal, if he truly made one.
And the name of the Indiana Supreme Court case was no longer "Polly v. Lasselle", but now "State vs Laselle".

But perhaps the more important question is whether State vs. Laselle" actually abolished slavery in Indiana.
Here you, woodpusher, insanely claim it did not, based on a random quote on a roadside historical marker!
And you are the same comedian who critiques me for referring to the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia!

The facts and truth of this matter are that the State vs. Laselle ruling clearly says slavery is illegal and slavery in Indiana, which was then only 190 slaves, gradually declined to zero by 1850.
So, despite your lawyerly arguments to obscure the facts, Indiana's slavery was abolished, in whole or in part due to its supreme court State vs. Laselle ruling.

All that other blather & nonsense, we see from woodpusher above, results from him confusing this particular quote with a different quote from jmacusa.
Jmacusa's quote I addressed in post #108 above, no need to rehearse it again here.

quoting BJK: "The vote was 7-2, an absolute Southern dominated majority."

woodpusher: The decision was 7-2, idiot.
The decision, as stated in the mandate, was to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.
You seem to be too legally incompetent to distinguish between the Opinion and the Decision."

Comments like this are proof positive of your babbling insanity, woodpusher.
Only a lunatic would make an issue and insult by distinguishing between a 7-2 "vote" and 7-2 "decision", when those are clearly the same thing.

As for "opinion" vs. "decision", I'm totally familiar with that, but it's irrelevant historically or politically.
Politically, "the South" got what it wanted from SCOTUS, namely expansive language supporting African slavery under virtually all circumstances.
Historically, "the North" was driven from largely indifferent-to-slavery Democrats to now anti-slavery Republicans.

That's what matters here and all your other nonsense about "opinions" vs "decisions" is irrelevant.

That's enough for now.
Will come back to this as time permits.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

I think I'm getting a clearer picture of why you seem to have agitated woodpusher so:

It was one of a series of events I took from the Timeline of Abolition. There, the exact claim is: "The supreme court orders almost all slaves in the state to be freed in Polly v. Lasselle." So, you can see, I changed the wording by adding "US" to Supreme Court and replacing "almost all" with "any", since the clear result was to eventually abolish all slavery in Indiana. But those basic facts have driven you, woodpusher, insane (a short drive) with BS arguments and insults over how, supposedly, that's not what really happened.

The underlined is the problem: actually looking at the Wikipedia article you cite, it references Indiana specifically, not the United States:

This blurb is specifically referring to the supreme court of the state of Indiana, not the United States. Likewise, the decision factually did not emancipate "any" slaves, but Polly Strong specifically, and ruled that the Indiana Constitution is the authority with regards to future cases involving slavery/involuntary servitude; what need is there to change the verbiage and imply that which the case did not actually make happen (since the same article you keep on citing likewise says that the decision "did not free other enslaved people")? To argue that this decision eventually led to the abolition of slaves in Indiana is one thing, and a perfectly valid inference; why then go the extra step and make a claim ("The supreme court orders [any] slaves in the state to be freed in Polly v. Lasselle.") that is just factually untrue?

(For what it's worth, "Polly v. Laselle" was the original case name that got decided on by the Knox County Circuit Court; when Knox County ruled that Polly Strong remained a slave, the case name apparently became "State v. Laselle" upon her appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court.)

But perhaps the more important question is whether "State vs. Laselle" actually abolished slavery in Indiana.

The same Wikipedia article you cite says that it did not actually abolish slavery entirely in Indiana:

The source cited by Wikipedia, the Indiana Historical Bureau, says the same thing:

We already know how history panned over the next decades with regards to slavery in Indiana. The Laselle case was doubtless instrumental to that eventual effect. But for what reason is there to go beyond what was actually decided, much less claim the existence of a SCOTUS appeal (which, based on available primary sources provided on this thread, could not possibly have existed) just because a blurb on Wikipedia says it happened?

[DiogenesLamp]

Hi.

I’m surprised this thread is still going.

I am too. It started out weak as Civil War threads go, and it never reached a normal level of discussion. It still has far fewer messages than a lot of other threads that discuss this topic, but maybe it will be the little train that could.

:)

[woodpusher]

I'm not a Southerner. Go look at the history Reb The Northern states ended the pt=practice in 1804.

[FYI DiogenesLamp - the case of Amy at the end may be of interest for your research on citizenship and subject not directly related to this thread.]

If you choose to call me Reb, you may as well get used to being called a Southerner. It's all relative. Until I joined the military and was stationed in Virginia, I had never traveled south of New Jersey, and had only seen the north of Jersey a few times for less than a day. You are more southern than I am. It appears that has left you scarred for life and fulminating with falsehoods to make amends for your inadequacies.

I wrote a correction to you inaccurate post. Your correction from 1809 to 1804 is no help. The correct date is 1866.

Hey, you maniacal Southern good ole boy, all that fulminating you saw came from the New Jersey Historical Commission. You southerners have a way with celebrating that Juneteenth and all. Any way, like I was saying,

https://nj.gov/state/historical/his-2021-juneteenth.shtml

New Jersey, The Last Northern State to End Slavery

Image collage: Peter Lee who may have been illegally enslaved as a young man by the Stevens Family in Hoboken, NJ, and Lockey White’s 1860 census entry indicating that she was a “slave for life.”

By Noelle Lorraine Williams,
Director, African American History Program
The New Jersey Historical Commission

This year forty-seven states including New Jersey will observe Juneteenth (also known as Freedom Day or Emancipation Day) as a state holiday—a holiday that commemorates when enslaved Blacks in Galveston, Texas learned that they were, in fact, freed by President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation two and half years earlier. The date was June 19, 1865. Juneteenth then is a holiday of celebration and a mournful remembrance of deep injustice and loss. It reveals the injustice of slavery and the legal repression of African American freedom, extending beyond the nineteenth century.

But we must remember that there were still enslaved Black men and women in New Jersey even after Juneteenth. Imagine, New Jersey’s death grip on slavery meant that until December 1865, six months after enslaved men, women, and children in Texas found out they were cheated of their freedom, approximately 16 African Americans were still technically enslaved in New Jersey.

But Why and How?

While there were many Black, mixed-race, and white people in New Jersey who fought against slavery, most legislators refused to condemn the institution. Profits from slaveholding organizations had built and maintained the state’s major cities and regional centers like Newark and those in Bergen County.

Lincoln's 1863 Emancipation Proclamation did not free enslaved African Americans in the Northern States; it freed only those in the mostly southern "rebellious states." Two years later, New Jersey bitterly refused to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment, the United States Constitutional Amendment that abolished slavery and involuntary servitude across the country.

Slavery’s final legal death in New Jersey occurred on January 23, 1866, when in his first official act as governor, Marcus L. Ward of Newark signed a state Constitutional Amendment that brought about an absolute end to slavery in the state. In other words, the institution of slavery in New Jersey survived for months following the declaration of freedom in Texas.

To understand this historical development, one needs to take a step back to 1804 when New Jersey passed its Gradual Abolition of Slavery law—an act that delayed the end of slavery in the state for decades. It allowed for the children of enslaved Blacks born after July 4, 1804 to be free, only after they attained the age of 21 years for women and 25 for men. Their family and everyone else near and dear to them, however, remained enslaved until they died or attained freedom by running away or waiting to be freed.

In a period when the average life expectancy was 40 years old, the 1804 law essentially took more than half of these people's lives to satisfy the economic and political demands of New Jersey enslavers.

In essence, Juneteenth, not only marks the day African Americans in Texas realized that they had been robbed of two years of their freedom, following the Emancipation Proclamation. It also commemorates all of our ancestors here in New Jersey who were the last Blacks in the North to be ensnared in that bloody institution.

The New Jersey Historical Commission (NJHC), a division of the New Jersey Department of State, is a state agency dedicated to the advancement of public knowledge and preservation of New Jersey history.

Now mostly, those nearing 21 or 25 just got sold South, never to be seen again.

Yeah, that 1809 date was a mistake. On the other hand, it was five years closer to 1866 than that 1804 claim. And as we know, that 1804 law didn't free anybody. It is good that you have a state historical commission performing such a great public service to dispel the myths, the lies and the legends.

As you state the Northern states eliminated slavery in 1804, that fine Union state of Kentucky brought forth the case of Amy.

The case of Amy (a woman of colour) v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 331-334 (1822) is directly on point.

3. It was not, however of that clause of the constitution of the United Stat an infraction; but of the clause which provides that “the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.”—1st clause, 2d section, and 4th article.* To entitle the plaintiff to the benefit of this clause, it is obviously necessary, that she should be a citizen of some one of the United States; and it is accordingly urged by her counsel, in support of her title to that character, that she was, before her removal from Pennsylvania, a citizen of that state, and that by her removal to Virginia, she became a citizen of the latter.

Before we can determine whether she was a citizen, or not, of either of those states, it is necessary to as. certain what it is that constitutes a citizen. In England, birth in the country was alone sufficient to make any one a subject. Even a villain or a slave, born within the king’s allegiance, is, according to the principles of the common law, a subject; but it never can be admitted that he is a citizen. One may, no doubt, be a citizen by birth, as well as a subject; but subject and citizen are evidently words of different import, and it indisputably requires something more to make a citizen, than it does to make a subject. It is, in fact, not the place of a man’s birth, but the rights and privileges he may be entitled to enjoy, which make him a citizen. The term, citizen, is derived from the Latin word, civis, and in its primary sense signifies one who is vested with the freedom and privileges of a city. At an early period after the subversion of the Roman empire, when civilization had again begun to progress, the cities in every part of Europe, either by usurpation or concession from their sovereigns, obtained extraordinary privileges, in addition to those which were common to the other subjects of their respective countries ; and one who was invested with these extraordinary privileges, whether he was an inhabitant of the city or not, or whether he was born in it or not, was deemed a citizen.—See Rees’ Cyclopædia, under the word Citizen. In England, a citizen is not only en. titled to ail the local privileges of the city to which he belongs but be has also the right of electing and being elected to parliament, which is itself rather an extraordinary privilege, since it does not belong to every class of subjects.—Com. Dig. Parliament, D. 6, 4 Inst. 6.

If we go back to Rome, whence the term, citizen, has its origin, we shall find, in the illustrious period of her republic, that citizens were the highest class of subjects to whom the jus civitatis belonged, and that the jus civitatis conferred upon those who were in possession of it, all rights and privileges, civil, political and religious.—Butler’s Horæ Juridicæ, 26, 27.

When the term came to be applied to the inhabitants of a state, it necessarily carried with it the same signification, with reference to the privileges of the state, which had been implied by it with reference to the privileges of a city, when it was applied to the inhabitants of the city; and it is in this sense, that the term, citizen, is believed to be generally, if not universally understood in the United States. This, indeed, evidently appears to be the sense in which the term is used in the clause of the constitution which is under consideration ; for the terms, “privileges and immunities,” which are expressive of the object intended to be secured to the citizens of each state, in every other, plainly import, according to the best usages of our language, something more than those ordinary rights of personal security and property, which, by the courtesy of all civilized nations, are extended to the citizens or subjects of other countries, while they reside among them.

No one can, therefore, in the correct sense of the term, be a citizen of a state, who is not entitled, upon the terms prescribed by the institutions of the state, to all the rights and privileges conferred by those institutions upon the highest class of society. It is true, that females and infants do not personally possess those rights and privileges, in any state in the Union; but they are generally dependent upon adult males, through whom they enjoy the benefits of those rights and privileges; and it is a rule of common law, as well as of common sense, that females and infants should, in this respect, partake of the quality of those adult males who belong to the same class and condition in society, and of course they will or will not be citizens, as the adult males of the same class are or are not so. Nor do we mean to say, that it is necessary, even for an adult male to be a citizen, that he should be in the actual enjoyment of all those rights and privileges which belong to a citizen. He may not only not be in the actual enjoyment of those rights and privileges, but he may even not possess those qualifications, of property, of age, or of residence, which most of the states prescribe as requisites to the enjoyment of some of their highest privileges and immunities, and yet be a citizen ; but, to be a citizen, it is necessary, that he should be entitled to the enjoyment of those privileges and immunities, upon the same terms upon which they are conferred upon other citizens; and unless he is so entitled, he cannot, in the proper sense of the term, be a citizen.

Prior to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, each state had a right to make citizens of any persons they pleased; but as the federal constitution does not authorise any but white persons to become citizens of the United States, it furnishes a presumption that none other were then citizens of any state; which presumption will stand, until repelled by positive testimony.

It results, then, that the plaintiff cannot have been a citizen, either of Pennsylvania or of Virginia, unless she belonged to a class of society, upon which, by the institutions of the states, was conferred a right to enjoy all the privileges and immunities appertaining to the state. That this was the case, there is no evidence in the record to show, and the presumption is against it. Free negroes and mulattoes are, almost everywhere, considered and treated as a degraded race of people; insomuch so, that, under the constitution and laws of the United States, they cannot become citizens of the United States.

[woodpusher]

What we know for certain are just two claims:

Wikipedia claims: Lasalle submitted an appeal to the US Supreme Court dated July 27, 1820, and that SCOTUS refused to hear it, thus upholding the Indiana court's decision abolishing slavery in Indiana.

woodpusher claims: none of that is true because, first, he can't find evidence of the appeal being submitted and second, Indiana's court did not really abolish slavery.

And, just so you understand, Ultra Sonic, our FRiend woodpusher is a lawyer-type doing what any good lawyer might do when assigned to defend a 100% guilty client.

Woodpusher naturally concentrates his work on obfuscating, misdirecting, blowing smoke to obscure, changing the subject and accusing his opponents of whatever nonsense he can imagine.

No stupid. I can give you links but I cannot make you read what is there.

When the law is against BroJoeK, he pounds on spam. When the facts are against BroJoeK, he pounds on spam. When the law and the facts are against BroJoeK, he pounds on spam extra-hard.

You remember where I gave you a picture that did not strain your brain?

See for example my #107:

https://www.in.gov/history/state-historical-markers/find-a-marker/find-historical-markers-by-county/indiana-historical-markers-by-county/polly-strong-slavery-case/

Strong appealed to Indiana Supreme Court in Corydon which ruled in State v. Lasselle, July 22, 1820: “slavery can have no existence” in Indiana. This decision did not free remaining slaves in Indiana; it did establish 1816 Indiana Constitution as the authority for decisions in Indiana courts regarding slavery and involuntary servitude, including 1821 Mary Clark case.

Who are we to believe? Numbnuts with Wikipedia and unnamed sources, or the Indiana Historical Bureau?

BroJoeK entered the room and the IQ was instantly reduced by his spam.

[BroJoeK #85]: in 1820 the US Supreme Court freed any slaves in Indiana, in 1827 New York freed any remaining slaves and in 1845 Illinois supreme court freed any remaining indentured ex-slaves."

BroJoeK could not provide any link, cite, or quote of a Petition for writ of cert. Nor could he produce a docket number having been assigned, or an order of the Supreme Court denying cert. That is because no Petition was ever filed, and no appeal was ever filed.

[BroJoeK #105]: "Indiana -- the supreme court orders almost all slaves in the state to be freed in Polly v. Lasselle."

For those unaccustomed to the says of slick, sly weasels, rather than admit his error, he here refers to the supreme court, but with ambivalence, leaving out the direct, explicit reference to the United States supreme court. This will later morphj into the State supreme court.

Polly v. Leselle was the case in the lower court. It ruled that Polly was to remain a slave. There would not have been an appeal to the higher State court against Leselle had Leselle lost.

The State v. Leselle, 1 Blackf. 60 (1820) was the case in the Indiana Supreme Court. There never was a case in the U.S. Supreme Court.

https://www.in.gov/history/state-historical-markers/find-a-marker/find-historical-markers-by-county/indiana-historical-markers-by-county/polly-strong-slavery-case/

Note again that the memorial states: "This decision did not free remaining slaves in Indiana."

[Ron Popeil] "But wait! There's more!"

The Indiana gov site includes a lengthy resume of the case's journey through the courts and informs those who read of the following:

But by July 27, 1820, Lasselle had begun preparations to appeal the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The documents for such an appeal are located in Lasselle’s personal papers housed at the Indiana State Library. No additional information about this effort has been located. In April 1821, Polly sued Lasselle in the Knox County Circuit Court for $500 in damages. On August 13, 1821, attorney Amory Kinney received $10 from Lasselle for his fees in Polly’s case. In October, a Knox County jury decided in Polly’s favor that Hyacinthe Lasselle owed her $25.16 2/3 plus the costs of this trial. Lasselle’s personal papers show that Polly finally received a payment from him on April 9, 1822.

[...]

In 1830 in Vincennes, a census ordered by the town Board of Trustees counted thirty-two slaves. The 1830 U.S. Census for all of Indiana recorded only three slaves.

[...]

The Indiana General Assembly did not take up the challenge to liberate the remaining slaves in Indiana. In fact, as time passed, Indiana’s elected state representatives passed increasingly harsh laws that discriminated against African Americans and removed them from important protections of the law. This increasingly racist attitude carried into the 1851 Indiana Constitution in which Article XIII actually prohibited blacks and mulattoes from moving into the state.

Indiana historian James Madison summarizes “Indiana has never been color-blind. For a very long time, the state’s constitution, laws, courts, and majority white voice placed black Hoosiers in a separate and unequal place. White settlers had created a color line in the territorial period and had affirmed it by 1816. . . . Twists and turns brought some legal modifications by the centennial year of 1916, but separation and discrimination, whether legal or extra-legal, were the patterns of public life for African Americans.”

In my #107 I noted:

While you provide no link to your source, or its footnoted source, the footnoted source is an article by Sandra Boyd Williams at Ind. L. Rev. 30:305 which provides the same quote as I did, albeit without the italicized emphasis appearing in the official Reporter copy. While a Wikipedia legal meathead attributes the paragraph about "any negro or mulatto" to the Williams article, that paragraph is not to be found therein.

[Ron Popeil] "But wait! There's more!

https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/inlawrev/article/view/3223

The Indiana Supreme Court and the Struggle Against Slavery

Sandra Boyd Williams*
Indiana Law Review 30-305; 309 (1997)

In 1831, Judges Scott and Holman were replaced on the supreme court by Stephen C. Stevens and John T. McKinney. By this time, the political tide was changing in Indiana. Whereas Indiana legislation in the early 1800s was very much aimed at protecting the rights of persons of color within Indiana, later legislation retreated from this position. For example, in 1839, the Indiana legislature passed a general resolution on the subject of slavery, declaring that "Any interference in the domestic institutions of the slaveholding states of this Union . . . either by congress or the state legislatures, is contrary to the compact by which those states became members of the Union." This marked a significant change in Indiana's slavery policy and probably resulted from the pressures from Indiana's southern border state, Kentucky. In response to Indiana's changed policy, Kentucky adopted a resolution praising its "enlightened, liberal, and patriotic, sister State."

Resolution of Feb. 23, 1839, 1838 Ky. Acts 390

But our Lost Causers, like woodpusher, wish us to ignore the larger picture and focus, focus, focus on the fact that Indiana's 1820 state supreme court ruling did not have the effect of immediately emancipating 100% of Indian's 190 slaves.

And in woodpusher's mind, that makes Indiana a "slave state" regardless of any claims made at the time, or since, to the contrary.

I take umbrage with the lie at BroJoek #85, "in 1820 the US Supreme Court freed any slaves in Indiana. The State court did not do it and the U.S. Supreme Court never saw the case at all. The claim was complete, total, utter, bullflop.

I am a Yankee. My parents were Yankees. And I have no ancestors who go far enough back in the United States to be Causers or Lost Causers. I take issue with blatantly false claims. I take further issue with a clown who spams a thread to death to cover up his false claims, rather than just admit he was wrong.

In simple point of fact, BroJoeK exhibits a staggering ignorance of the facts on what he spams about. His research extends to Wikipedia which often provides information anonymously, sometimes citing a source that does not support a claim, or which contradicts a claim.

I invited BroJoeK to provide an example of what Taney wrote that was insane. That drew crickets. I will continue to document the invalidity of the case in Scott v. Sandford.

[Front page] https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn87075163/1857-03-26/ed-1/seq-1/

[Page 2] https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn87075163/1857-03-26/ed-1/seq-2/

The McArthur Democrat, March 26, 1857, page 1

From The McArthur Democrat, March 26, 1857, page 2, column 2

Dred Scott Owned by a Republican Member of Congress

From the following article, which we copy from the Springfield Argus, it appears that Dred Scott and his family became, by the recent decision of the Supreme Court, the property of the wife of Dr. Chaffee, the Republican Member of Congress from the Springfield (Mass.) district:

It may perhaps astonish some of our rabid Fremonters [Republicans], to know that the late decision in the Supreme Court remanding to slavery Dred Scott and his family, declaring the unconstitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, and establishing the right to slave-holders to carry their chattels into Northern States without affecting their security in them – was obtained on behalf of our present honorable member of Congress. The facts are simply these: —

Some years since, Dr. Chaffee, then a widower, married the widow of Dr. Emerson, of Missouri, who had died, leaving to his wife and only daughter a considerable slave property. Among those slaves was Dred Scott and his family. Among these slaves were Dred Scott and his family; and as Dr. Emerson, in the performance of his duties as a surgeon in the United States Army, has carried his family inti Illinois, they, on his death, claimed their freedom, and brought a suit to enforce it.

This suit, thus brought, was defended by the administrator of the estate on behalf, and with the consent of the wife of Dr. Chaffee and her daughter, who were the heirs at law. The decision of the Bench that Dred Scott was not a citizen of the United States, and could not sue in the U.S. Court, has remanded him and his family to the chattlehood of Mrs. Chaffee. What does the Doctor propose to do with this increasing property? Does he consent to the prosecution, and under cover of his wife’s crinoline, propose to keep good friends with the Black Republicans, by saying that he has nothing to do with her estate, and at the same time enjoying with her the benefit of that estate, which does not stop with the unfortunate Dred and his family?

These questions are open, and naturally suggest themselves to us, as they doubtless will to all who know the facts.

Stephen Douglas and the press (it was everywhere) knew way back then. Today, people make believe it was a real, contested case, with two real named parties. The phoniness was so public in the 1850's that Stephen Douglas used it in the Lincoln-Douglas debates. John Sanford was never the owner of Dred Scott, and was never a valid defendant.

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln3/1:20.1?rgn=div2;view=fulltext

Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 3.

Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois

September 18, 1858, pp. 166-167:

I will show you another charge made by Mr. Lincoln against me, as an offset to his determination of willingness to take back anything that is incorrect, and to correct any false statement he may have made. He has several times charged that the Supreme Court, President Pierce, President Buchanan and myself, at the time I introduced the Nebraska bill in January, 1854, at Washington, entered into a conspiracy to establish slavery all over this country. I branded this charge as a falsehood, and then he repeated it, asked me to analyze its truth and answer it. I told him, "Mr. Lincoln, I know what you are after—you want to occupy my time in personal matters, to prevent me from showing up the revolutionary principles which the Abolition party—whose candidate you are—have proclaimed to the world.'' But he asked me to analyze his proof, and I did so. I called his attention to the fact that at the time the Nebraska bill was introduced, there was no such case as the Dred Scott case pending in the Supreme Court, nor was it brought there for years afterwards, and hence that it was impossible there could have been any such conspiracy between the Judges of the Supreme Court and the other parties involved. I proved by the record that the charge was false, and what did he answer? Did he take it back like an honest man and say that he had been mistaken? No, he repeated the charge, and said, that although there was no such case pending that year, that there was an understanding between the Democratic owners of Dred Scott and the Judges of the Supreme Court and other parties involved that the case should be brought up. I then demanded to know who these Democratic owners of Dred Scott were. He could not or would not tell; he did not know. In truth, there were no Democratic owners of Dred Scott on the face of the land. (Laughter.)

Dred Scott was owned at that time by the Rev. Dr. Chaffee, an Abolition member of Congress from Springfield, Massachusetts, and his wife, (immense laughter and applause,) and Mr. Lincoln ought to have known that Dred Scott was so owned, for the reason that as soon as the decision was announced by the court, Dr. Chaffee and his wife executed a deed emancipting him, and put that deed on record. (Cheers.) It was a matter of public record, therefore, that at the time the case was taken to the Supreme Court, Dred Scott was owned by an Abolition member of Congress, a friend of Lincoln's, and a leading man of his party, while the defence was conducted by Abolition lawyers---and thus the Abolitionists managed both sides of the case. I have exposed these facts to Mr. Lincoln, and yet he will not withdraw his charge of conspiracy. I now submit to you whether you can place any confidence in a man who continues to make a charge when its utter falsity is proven by the public records. I will state another fact to show how utterly reckless and unscrupulous this charge against the Supreme Court, President Pierce, President Buchanan and myself is. Lincoln says that President Buchanan was in the conspiracy at Washington in the winter of 1854, when the Nebraska bill was introduced. The history of this country shows that James Buchanan was at that time representing this country at the court of St. James, Great Britain, with distinguished ability and usefulness, that he had not been in the United States for nearly a year previous, and that he did not return until about three years after. (Cheers.) Yet Mr. Lincoln keeps repeating this charge of conspiracy against Mr. Buchanan, when the public records prove it to be untrue. Having proved it to be false as far as the Supreme Court and President Buchanan are concerned, I drop it, leaving the public to say whether I, by myself, without their concurrence, could have gone into a conspiracy with them. (Laughter and cheers.)

[DiogenesLamp]

Before we can determine whether she was a citizen, or not, of either of those states, it is necessary to as. certain what it is that constitutes a citizen. In England, birth in the country was alone sufficient to make any one a subject. Even a villain or a slave, born within the king’s allegiance, is, according to the principles of the common law, a subject; but it never can be admitted that he is a citizen. One may, no doubt, be a citizen by birth, as well as a subject; but subject and citizen are evidently words of different import, and it indisputably requires something more to make a citizen, than it does to make a subject. It is, in fact, not the place of a man’s birth, but the rights and privileges he may be entitled to enjoy, which make him a citizen. The term, citizen, is derived from the Latin word, civis, and in its primary sense signifies one who is vested with the freedom and privileges of a city. At an early period after the subversion of the Roman empire, when civilization had again begun to progress, the cities in every part of Europe, either by usurpation or concession from their sovereigns, obtained extraordinary privileges, in addition to those which were common to the other subjects of their respective countries ; and one who was invested with these extraordinary privileges, whether he was an inhabitant of the city or not, or whether he was born in it or not, was deemed a citizen.—See Rees’ Cyclopædia, under the word Citizen. In England, a citizen is not only en. titled to ail the local privileges of the city to which he belongs but be has also the right of electing and being elected to parliament, which is itself rather an extraordinary privilege, since it does not belong to every class of subjects.—Com. Dig. Parliament, D. 6, 4 Inst. 6.

I long ago learned that "citizen" derives from "city-denizen." Someone who lives in a city. Which invokes the question of how a city dweller came to mean a member of a nation.

I have answered that question to my satisfaction. I don't think you want to entertain the notion.

but as the federal constitution does not authorise any but white persons to become citizens of the United States, it furnishes a presumption that none other were then citizens of any state;

On this particular case, I think the Judge is making an incorrect assumption (that the constitution forbids black people from being citizens) and then turning it into the force of law. (As Judges are wont to do.)

I realized long ago that judges are particularly bad at getting decisions right, and so I need no further convincing at this point.

[DiogenesLamp]

I think I knew of Congressman Chaffe's subterfuge on Dred Scot, but I had forgotten he was from Massachusetts.

After reading through one of your comments, It occurred to me that a lot of troublemakers seem to come from that state.

I was listening to a Catholic radio station the other day and they mentioned that the Puritan strain of "We are going to heaven but everyone else will burn in hell" comes from John Calvin. I've long realized the Puritan strain in Massachusetts never died out, it was just redirected into a love of government and being morally "superior" to everyone else.

I wonder if this has anything to do with it?

Next biggest take besides New York.

I know John Brown tried to organize Massachusetts sheep farmers into a cartel to get better prices from England, and the thought also occurred to me that a man in the wool business would have made out quite well if the entire cotton industry in the South went up in flames. I believe his five wealthy backers were from Massachusetts, but I don't remember for sure.

In any case, imputing a monetary motive to people often explains otherwise strange behavior on their part.

[woodpusher]

quoting BJK: "The vote was 7-2, an absolute Southern dominated majority."

woodpusher: The decision was 7-2, idiot.

The decision, as stated in the mandate, was to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.

You seem to be too legally incompetent to distinguish between the Opinion and the Decision."

Comments like this are proof positive of your babbling insanity, woodpusher.

Only a lunatic would make an issue and insult by distinguishing between a 7-2 "vote" and 7-2 "decision", when those are clearly the same thing.

As for "opinion" vs. "decision", I'm totally familiar with that, but it's irrelevant historically or politically.

Correcting your premise:

[woodpusher] That Taney’s opinion was captioned Opinion of the Court does not make everything in it an opinion of the Court."

[BroJoeK] The vote was 7-2, an absolute Southern dominated majority.

Only a compete jackass would think that Taney's Opinion of the Court was voted upon.

Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed., by Stephen H. Gifis

OPINION. the reason given for a court's judgment, finding, or conclusion, as opposed to the decision which is the judgment itself.

When you do not know what you are talking about, it is time to shut up, rather than to blabber on and remove all doubt that you are clueless.

For modern practice, which was not followed in the 1800's, see the Opinion of the Court by Justice Alito in the RKBA case of McDonald v. Chicago 561 U.S. 742 (2010). Pages 748-779 contain the header Opinion of the Court. Thereafter the pages contain the header Opinion of Alito, J. What happened? The opinions of Alito, J. following page 779 did not have the approval of a majority and were not opinions of the Court.

Going back to page 748, it opens up with, "JUSTICE ALITO announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-A, II-B, I-D, and III, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE,JUSTICE SCALIA, JUSTICE KENNEDY, and JUSTICE THOMAS join, and an opinion with respects to Parts II-C, IV, and , in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE SCALIA, and JUSTICE KENNEDY join.

In 1857 they did not distinguish the pages which contained Opinions of the Court and which were Opinions only of the author. In Scott, There were 7 justices who concurred in the judgment to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction. There was no majority regarding whether the plea in abatement was properly before the Court. There was no majority on whether black person could be a citizen of the United States.

Six justices the Missouri Compromise restriction was invalid.

Seven justices held the laws of Missouri determined Scott's status as a slave.

Seven justices held that Scott was still a slave.

Having found that Scott was still a slave, and that he was not a citizen of Missouri, the judgment was that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction, and that the lower court lacked jurisdiction. The case was remaned with instructions to dismiss for lack of juridiction.

The vast majority of Taney's Opinion is dicta, responding to the even greater mass of dicta filed by Justice Curtis. None of that crap was an opinion of the Court. None of it is citable as an opinion of the court.

You have still weasel out on what Taney stated that was insane.

As for your claim of "an absolute Southern dominated majority," the facts prove you wrong, as previously stated.

FOUR justices were from what were to become Confederate states, FIVE justices were from what were Union states during the Civil War.

Justice Curtis was from Massachusetts

Justice Nelson was from New York.

Justice McLean was from New Jesey.

Justice Grier was from Pennsylvania.

CJ Taney was from Maryland.

Justice Wayne was from Georgia.

Justice Daniel was from Virginia.

Justice Campbell was from Alabama.

Justice Catron was from Tennessee.

Even if one counts CJ Taney from the Union state of Maryland as part of your "Southern dominated majority," there were still four distinctly Northern justices, from Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.

[jmacusa]

Delaware ended slavery in February, 1901. Wood isn't the only thing you push . None of this matters a hill of beans to the fact that the South fought a war to preserve slavery.

[jmacusa]

No. It was a rebellion against a degenerate monarchy an ocean away.

You know Lampster you love to go on about ‘’rich Northern bankers’’ as if the Southern slave owners weren’t getting rich off of selling and buying human beings.

It might interest you to know that according to historian William Marvel the average median income of a Union soldier was a paltry $200 while the median income of a soldier in Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia was 6 1/2 times that much.

Howlit Irvin was the son of the former lieutenant governor of Georgia who had a net worth of $170,000 dollars and owned 177 slaves. He was one of the richest men in the South.

So much for ‘’rich Northern bankers’’.

[BroJoeK]

Ultra Sonic 007: "The underlined is the problem: actually looking at the Wikipedia article you cite, it references Indiana specifically, not the United States:"

No, it doesn't. It simply says, "the supreme court" without making clear which supreme court.
Sure, you can argue, reasonably, that I should have known or guessed they meant state supreme court, but when you drill down into it, turns out, according to Wikipedia, both state and US supreme courts were involved in making and confirming their Indiana vs. Laselle ruling.

Wikipedia tells us that SCOTUS confirmed Indiana's ruling by refusing to accept Laselle's appeal.
Woodpusher responds: that's not what happened, and he might be right, but it's irrelevant to the question of whether their words "supreme court" meant the state or SCOTUS.
Clearly, according to Wikipedia's own claims, in this particular case, "supreme court" could refer to either one.

On top of all that, the whole matter is a totally minor technicality which woodpusher is blowing up in order to obscure the fact that his own arguments are totally weak and irrelevant.

Ultra Sonic 007: "Likewise, the decision factually did not emancipate "any" slaves, but Polly Strong specifically, and ruled that the Indiana Constitution is the authority with regards to future cases involving slavery/involuntary servitude; what need is there to change the verbiage and imply that which the case did not actually make happen (since the same article you keep on citing likewise says that the decision "did not free other enslaved people")?
To argue that this decision eventually led to the abolition of slaves in Indiana is one thing, and a perfectly valid inference; why then go the extra step and make a claim ("The supreme court orders [any] slaves in the state to be freed in Polly v. Lasselle.") that is just factually untrue?"

So, now you've admitted the case I've been making, "this decision eventually led to the abolition of slaves in Indiana", but you still want to argue that this is not exactly the same thing as saying "The supreme court orders [any] slaves in the state to be freed in Polly v. Lasselle."

I disagree, I think the 1820 Indiana supreme court's language makes 100% clear that slavey is illegal in Indiana and so no court from then on can rule in its favor.
I think this did everything that court could do to order slavery's abolition.

And just so we remember, in 1820 Indiana had 190 slaves (no, not 190,000 just 190) and these were reduced to 3 by 1830 and zero by 1850.
In the meantime, Southern slaves tripled, from 1.1 million in 1820 to over 3.2 million in 1850, so clearly, Indiana's laws were adequate for their intended purposes.

Ultra Sonic 007: "The same Wikipedia article you cite says that it did not actually abolish slavery entirely in Indiana:"

As I read your quote, it says:

"...it made the Indiana Constitution the authority for decisions regarding slavery"

Which effectively abolished slavery over time.
Everything else is 100% irrelevant, just smokescreen intended to obscure what really happened.

Ultra Sonic 007: "We already know how history panned over the next decades with regards to slavery in Indiana.
The Laselle case was doubtless instrumental to that eventual effect.
But for what reason is there to go beyond what was actually decided, much less claim the existence of a SCOTUS appeal (which, based on available primary sources provided on this thread, could not possibly have existed) just because a blurb on Wikipedia says it happened?"

You are obviously much closer to the real truth here than our FRiend woodpusher would ever acknowledge.
For Lost Causers like woodpusher, the important point here is that Indiana was still a slave state, and therefore Civil War was not over slavey, but rather something else, anything else you might imagine, just not slavery.

But the 100% truth is, by woodpusher's admission there is some evidence of an intended appeal to SCOTUS.
What exactly happened to this appeal we don't know, but what's 100% certain is that SCOTUS never overturned Indiana's constitution or laws on abolition, and thus in effect confirmed them.

Indeed, the real story here may be something along these lines -- Laselle did write up an appeal, but, realizing he had zero chances of success with SCOTUS, never actually submittted it, though he may well have claimed to others that he did.

In that case, Laselle himself would have confirmed Indiana's ruling by failing to submit an appeal he knew was doomed to fail,

Again, the bottom line here is that while states like Indiana, Illinois and New Jersey gradually abolished slavery, in the South slave populations tripled and kept rising with no efforts made to even restrict, much less abolish slavery.

[BroJoeK]

jmacusa: "Yeah. The side that lost won’t shut up."

Ultra Sonic: "Probably because so many modern leftists like to keep bringing up slavery as though it were the original sin of America and only America, which naturally provokes an overreaction."

I think there's no need for us to argue with Democrats over slavery, so long as they admit that Democrats were the slavers, Democrats declared secession, Democrats declared and waged war against the United States and after the Civil War & Reconstruction, Democrats replaced slavery with Black Codes, Jim Crow, KKK enforcers, voting restrictions and official segregation.

So, once we understand who's to blame -- Democrats -- then we can go ahead and talk about all the evils of slavery and segregation anybody wants to.

Republicans won't ever defend any of that.

[BroJoeK]

woodpusher: "No stupid. I can give you links but I cannot make you read what is there."

All you've ever done is fill up Jim Robinson's servers with endless useless quotes and insults that prove nothing about points which are irrelevant to begin with.

The fact remains, obfuscate and blow as much smoke at it as you wish, Indiana's 1820 Laselle ruling effectively made slavery illegal and resulted in Indiana's slave population being reduced by 98% over the next 10 years.

All your other arguments, even if true, are irrelevant.

woodpusher: "I take umbrage with the lie at BroJoek #85, "in 1820 the US Supreme Court freed any slaves in Indiana.
The State court did not do it and the U.S. Supreme Court never saw the case at all.
The claim was complete, total, utter, bullflop."

And yet... and yet... after the 1820 ruling, Indiana's slave population was reduced by 98% -- from 190 to 3.
That's what matters.
Everything else woodpusher posts is, to use your own colorful words, "complete, total, utter, bullflop".

woodpusher: "I am a Yankee.
My parents were Yankees.
And I have no ancestors who go far enough back in the United States to be Causers or Lost Causers.
I take issue with blatantly false claims.
I take further issue with a clown who spams a thread to death to cover up his false claims, rather than just admit he was wrong."

Your word "Yankee" is irrelevant, what matters is, you were and are a GD Democrat, and Democrats, by definition, are insane, always have been, always will be.
Nothing rational goes on inside your Democrat-brain, it's all just pure hatred and anger against everything good and decent about the United States of America.

I can't help that, I can't fix it, but I sure as heck don't have to accept it.

woodpusher: "I invited BroJoeK to provide an example of what Taney wrote that was insane.
That drew crickets.
I will continue to document the invalidity of the case in Scott v. Sandford."

All of Crazy Roger's words are insane, none are rational and if you think they make sense, then there's something wrong going on inside your brain, woodpusher.

woodpusher: "Stephen Douglas and the press (it was everywhere) knew way back then.
Today, people make believe it was a real, contested case, with two real named parties.
The phoniness was so public in the 1850's that Stephen Douglas used it in the Lincoln-Douglas debates. "

None of that matters, none of it is relevant to the facts of history which include Crazy Roger giving Southerners what they wanted -- Supreme Court language justifying slavery under virtually all conditions.
The result was to drive many Northern Democrats, previously indifferent to slavery in the South, to become anti-slavery Republicans.

In effect, Crazy Roger helped elect President Lincoln.
That's what matters, the rest is just meaningless chatter.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

No, it doesn't. It simply says, "the supreme court" without making clear which supreme court.

But it does: the context and the primary evidence available makes it absolutely clear that the Supreme Court in question was for Indiana, not the United States.

according to Wikipedia

Who cares about Wikipedia? It says the SCOTUS was involved, but the sources it provides either do not support or outright contradict that claim. That's the issue: Wikipedia is not gospel.

What exactly happened to this appeal we don't know, but what's 100% certain is that SCOTUS never overturned Indiana's constitution or laws on abolition, and thus in effect confirmed them.

If an appeal never made it to the SCOTUS, it's erroneous to say that "the SCOTUS in effect confirmed them", because the SCOTUS didn't do anything.

Again, the bottom line here is that while states like Indiana, Illinois and New Jersey gradually abolished slavery, in the South slave populations tripled and kept rising with no efforts made to even restrict, much less abolish slavery.

I don't think anyone's questioning that particular bottom line. What has been questioned is why you apparently feel the need to play fast and loose with the factual data when there's no need to.

When you are convinced of the moral superiority of your own position, to still fudge with the hard facts of actual historical events is downright bizarre.