woodpusher:
"You couldn't teach anybody anything unless it appears Wikipedia." It's true that I don't try to depend on my own memory to keep the facts straight, and Wikipedia is a convenient source, mostly free and ad-free, of "common knowledge."
And unlike some younger people, I don't have access to whole electronic libraries full of useful data.
Maybe someday I'll figure out how they do that, but one problem is, we are already at the point of overloading with far too much information for the average person to absorb.
I'm not certain it helps arguments to load them down with very lengthy quotes from obscure sources...
woodpusher: "But then as early as 1803, a loophole was created that [essentially] said: “Bring your slaves to Illinois.
It’s fine.
Just go through the formality of an indenture contract.”
Some contracts were for 99 years."
Right, I totally understand your point here, but my point totally sailed right over your head, didn't it?
My response was:
"...in 1845 Illinois supreme court freed any remaining indentured ex-slaves."
So, your 99 years turned out to be something considerably less, didn't it?
woodpusher: [slaves] "They worked in Illinois but were the slaves of another state.
In other words, after Illinois proclaimed itself slave-free, slaves in Ilinois were sheep-dipped in another state."
Right, and before the 1857 SCOTUS Dred Scott ruling, such practices were often disciplined by state courts, even in the South, who recognized Northern states' laws automatically manumitting slaves who were kept too long in a Northern state.
Those are the grounds on which Dred Scott sued for his freedom and which SCOTUS Chief Crazy Roger Taney struck down in his insane opinions.
woodpusher quoting: "At the outbreak of the Civil War, New Jersey slaveholders owned eighteen apprentices for life—or, as the federal census more accurately classified them, “slaves.”
A Princeton professor, Albert B. Dod owned a slave as late as 1840, one of the last men in the state to do so."
Right, and while Northern states like New Jersey and Illinois gradually abolished slavery in accordance with our Founders' original intentions, in Southern states, the numbers of slaves increased 6-fold, from 654,121 in 1790 to 3,950,511 in 1860, while Southern agitations to increase legal protections for slavery never even slackened.
woodpusher: "Perhaps you should have tried reading my linked paper from Princeton University.
I know Princeton is not up to your usual Wikipedia standards, but some of us make do."
Well, two points on this:
- I'm not such a big fan of Princeton, seems to me they've always been a bit "off", even going back to the days when an aristocratic Son of the Confederacy, a very progressive Democrat named Woodrow Wilson, was Princeton's president.
- The quotes I truly treasure say the most with the fewest words, and nothing I've ever seen posted by woodpusher meets that criterion.
woodpusher:
"A lifetime apprenticeship of New Jersey differed so little from African slavery that the official census ignored the bullflop and listed them as what they really were — slaves." And so, turns out, the alleged official hypocrisy which has you so highly agitated, did not, in fact, exist -- actual slaves were counted as what they really were.
And, in the meantime, while New Jersey's slaves dwindled from 11,423 in 1790 to 18 in 1860, in the South, slaves increased 6-fold, from 654,121 in 1790 to 3,950,511 in 1860.
woodpusher: "Not one of your alleged court cases was linked, cited, or quoted.
It is very doubtful you even know what cases you are talking about, much less what is in them."
If you can prove me wrong here, I'll submit your proofs to Wikipedia and ask them to correct their mistakes.
woodpusher: "Of course, slaves in New Jersey, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri, not to mention Washington, D.C., are inconvenient facts."
Naw, that's just Lost Cause crazy-talk because, first of all, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri and Washington, DC, were all slavery-legal with no laws restricting slavery and many laws supporting it.
New Jersey after 1804 was simply following the pattern previously set by Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.
Why that should so trigger your agitations is, frankly, a mystery to me.
woodpusher: "The fact that the 1860 census showed more free blacks in the slave states than in the free states gives the lie about the northern slaves having been set free.
They were not living as free men in the North.
They were sold South."
Naw, now you're just hallucinating.
Reality is that while Southern states grew numbers of slaves 6-fold by 1860, in northern states slave totals were reduced from 40,086 in 1790 to 18 in 1860, while the number of free-blacks grew 8-fold, from 27,034 in 1790 to 225,961 in 1860.
So, your whole idea that Northerners "hated blacks" and "sold them down the river" is just crazy-talk, projections from more typical Southern behaviors.
woodpusher: "Nonsense.
Cite the U.S. Supreme Court decision that did this.
Where did you cut and paste this crap from?
Let me guess.
Wikipedia?
On what legal basis did the Federal U.S. Supreme Court free any slaves in Indiana?
The fact is that you have no clue what you are talking about."
Wrong again, but unlike you, I do think there's a huge value to brevity and eliminating unnecessary words.
In this particular case, to quote exactly:
"Indiana -- the supreme court orders almost all slaves in the state to be freed in Polly v. Lasselle."
Polly v Lasselle was in Indian state court and was appealed to the Indiana Supreme court as State vs Lasselle, which ruled in 1820:
"The ruling was made on July 22, 1820,[1] based upon the Indiana Constitution, 11th article, section 7, 'There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in this state, otherwise than for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
Nor shall any indenture of any negro or mulatto hereafter made, and executed out of the bounds of this state be of any validity within the state.'[6]"
The case was further appealed to the US Supreme Court, which refused to hear it, thus confirming the Indiana ruling.
![]()
woodpusher: "You couldn't teach anybody anything unless it appears Wikipedia."
It's true that I don't try to depend on my own memory to keep the facts straight, and Wikipedia is a convenient source, mostly free and ad-free, of "common knowledge."
And unlike some younger people, I don't have access to whole electronic libraries full of useful data.
Maybe someday I'll figure out how they do that, but one problem is, we are already at the point of overloading with far too much information for the average person to absorb.
I'm not certain it helps arguments to load them down with very lengthy quotes from obscure sources...
By "common knowledge" you refer to what is often palpable nonsense. By my obscure sources, you refer to court documents fromm volumes by the court reporter, official government websites, and the like.
To find the official copy of the court opinion, and the draft of an appeal requires nothing more than a computer, a search engine, and the ability to use them.
Stating what is in court opinions without reading them, or making any attempt to do so, is just blatant ignorance.
Cite the U.S. Supreme Court decision that did this. Where did you cut and paste this crap from?
Let me guess.
Wikipedia?
On what legal basis did the Federal U.S. Supreme Court free any slaves in Indiana?
The fact is that you have no clue what you are talking about."
Wrong again, but unlike you, I do think there's a huge value to brevity and eliminating unnecessary words.
If I am wrong about you not knowing what you are talking about, cite, link, and/or quote the U.S. Supreme Court opinion that made the alleged claims.
You can always try to babble and bluster your way through, but you are too incompetent to do a google search and find even the State court opinion. I repeat for your enlightenment that it is at 1 Blackf. 60 (1820). There are no U.S. Supreme Court opinions in 1 Blackf.
You can continue to try to make believe reference to an unlinked and uncited State court opinion justifies the claim about a U.S. Supreme Court opinion, however, that only reveals the depth of your bullsplat.
woodpusher: "Not one of your alleged court cases was linked, cited, or quoted. It is very doubtful you even know what cases you are talking about, much less what is in them."
If you can prove me wrong here, I'll submit your proofs to Wikipedia and ask them to correct their mistakes.
What you admit is that you have never read the court opinions, and having been challenged, you are too lazy or incompetent to find them on the internet.
The claim that a U.S. Supreme Court opinion said what as claimed in 1820 is an absurdity on its face. No further proof is needed. It is quite tellling that not only did you make no attempt to find the non-existent Supreme Court opinion, but you have no idea of the correct citation for the State court opinion, no actual knowledge of its contents, and you have rather hilariously misstated even what Wikipedia or whoever may have said.
Now there is a load of horsecrap. As long as you are too lazy to find and read court opinions, you should stop making believe with your atttempts to shovel piles of steaming turds as some sort of research on your part. Maybe a picture will not overly strain your limited abilities.
300 N. Capitol Ave., Corydon, between the Harrison County Courthouse and the First State Capitol building (Harrison County, Indiana). Installed 2016 Indiana Historical Bureau, Harrison County Committee for the Indiana Bicentennial, and Leora Brown School.
"THIS DECISION DID NOT FREE REMAINING SLAVES IN INDIANA.
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?
The correct citation for the State case is 1 Blackf. 60 (1820). The only reason you have not found it is that you are too lazy to look for it, or too incompetent to find it. Fortunately for me, I do not share your laziness or incompetence. But when you state some case says something, it is not my job to find the court opinions, or to tell you what they really say.
There is no citation to the U.S. Supreme Court. There is no indication that a petition for cert was ever drafted, filed or acted upon, and no indication of a docket number ever having been assigned. There is only evidence that the attorney drafted an appeal. The Appeal draft does not even read like a petition for cert which must precede any appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. There is no right of appeal of a case to the Supreme Court. One must obtain permission of the Court to file an appeal. The cert process obtains a Supreme Court docket number and a decision whether or not to consider the case.
Law Dictionary 2nd Ed., by Stephen H. Gifis:
CERTIORARI. Lat: to be informed of a means lf gaining appellate review; a common law writ issued from a superior court to one of inferior jurisdiction., commanding the latter to certify and return to the former the record in the particular case. 6 Cyr. 737. The writ is issued in order that the court issuing the writ may inspect the proceedings and determine whether there have been any irregularities. In the United StatesSupreme Court the writ is dicretionary with the Court and will be issued to any Court and will be to any court in the land to review a federal question if at least 4 of the 9 justices vote to hear the case. A similar writ used by some statecourts is called CERTIFICATION.
As is readily apparent, there must be a federal question placed to the Supreme Court. The highest court of a State is the ultimate authority in interpreting State law. An apppeal from the State court would normally be made first to the appropriate Circuit Court.
Should you, or anyone else, persist in a claim that this case was appealed to the Supreme Court, it is YOUR responsibility to produce some evidence that it happened.
Moreover, the crazy claim under review is:
in 1820 the US Supreme Court freed any slaves in Indiana
There was no case in the Supreme Court, and the case in the Indiana state court did NOT "free any slaves in Indiana." In context, any refers to any and all slaves remaining in Indiana, and does not refer to one or more slaves.
Strangely, the State monument states precisely the opposite. So you have a Supreme Court case that does not exist, and you have no court whatever that does what was claimed.
My response was:"...in 1845 Illinois supreme court freed any remaining indentured ex-slaves."
You have an innate ability for the irrelevant. We are discussing New Jersey which most definitely had slaves after the claimed end date of 1809. You constantly try to defend your child's nonsense with distracting nonsense of your own.
[jmacusa #53] "Slavery ended in NJ in 1809."
No it did not. And citing irrelevant events in Illinois changes nothing. Moreover, nothing challenges that Illinois replaced slavery with 99-year indentured servitude before it later abolished both.
In this particular case, to quote exactly:"Indiana -- the supreme court orders almost all slaves in the state to be freed in Polly v. Lasselle."
Polly v Lasselle was in Indian state court and was appealed to the Indiana Supreme court as State vs Lasselle, which ruled in 1820:
"The ruling was made on July 22, 1820,[1] based upon the Indiana Constitution, 11th article, section 7,
'There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in this state, otherwise than for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
Nor shall any indenture of any negro or mulatto hereafter made, and executed out of the bounds of this state be of any validity within the state.'[6]"
As you provide neither link nor footnotes, the citations to footnotes are meaningless.
The paragraph from the STATE opinion quoting the Indiana Constitution, 11th Article, section 7 is accurate and appears at 1 Blackf. 62. Unfortunately, the next paragraph does not appear on any page of the Court's opinion.
What the actual opinion of the STATE Court says at 1 Blackf. 62:
In the 11th Article of that instrument, section 7th, it is declared, that "There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in this statem otherwise than for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." It is evident that, by these provisions, the framers of our constitution intended a total and entire prohibition of slavery in this state; and we can conceive of no form of words in which that intention could have been more clearly expressed.
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.
Wikipedia: "Lasselle filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of the United States on July 27, 1820." This load of crap is not just wrong but impossible for 1820. The court opinion was handed down on Saturday, July 22, 1820. The draft Appeal is dated July 27, 1820. And for this load of crap to be accurate, on the day the document was drafted in Indiana, it was also filed in the U.S. Supreme Court. I doubt they had electronic filing in 1820.
Right, and before the 1857 SCOTUS Dred Scott ruling, such practices were often disciplined by state courts, even in the South, who recognized Northern states' laws automatically manumitting slaves who were kept too long in a Northern state. Those are the grounds on which Dred Scott sued for his freedom and which SCOTUS Chief Crazy Roger Taney struck down in his insane opinions.
In point of fact, Chief Justice Taney did not, and could not, strike down anuything with his opinions. Only Opinions of the Court do that. For any stated opinion to rise above the level of dicta, and have legal effect, it must be supported by a majority of the justices; in the case of Scott, that being five. It must also be necessary to resolve the issue before the court. Extremely little in Taney's opinion was so supported. All nine opinions must be read to sort out what the Court opined. As you do not read court opinions, you only blather about them, once again, you do not know what you are talking about.
The crazy manufactured plea of Dred Scott was properly shot down by showing a lack of standing on the part of Scott and a lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Court. The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the U.S. Supreme Court and remanded to the lower court with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction in that court.
Scott's claim to federal jurisdiction was made on a claim of diversity of state citizenship, with Scott claiming to be a citizen of Missouri, and claiming the defendant Sanford was a citizen of New York. In previous litigation, the Supreme Court of Missouri determined that Scott was not a citizen of Missouri according to Missouri law. The highest court of a state is the ultimate authority in interpreting state law. Absent citizenship in the state of Missouri, pursuant to the laws of Missouri, Scott had no claim to invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Scott claimed that Sanford purhased him directly from Dr. John Emerson about ten years after Emerson died. The real owner was a Massachusetts abolitionist congressman, Calvin Chaffee, husband of Elizabeth Irene Sanford Emerson Chaffee who was the owner of Scott before her husband became the owner.
While the litigation was pending for years, Dred Scott was in the custody of a sheriff who hired him out and put the earnings in escrow. When the case was decided, Mrs. Chaffee claimed the funds in escrow. Congressman Chaffee of Massachusetts executed a quitclaim deed to transfer his ownership of Scott.
Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857) was decided March 6, 1857. In May 1857, Massachusetts Congressman Calvin Chaffee executed a quitclaim deed in favor of Taylor Blow in Missouri giving Blow ownership of Dred Scott and family. The ownership story had hit the major newspapers. On May 26, 1857 Taylor Blow emancipated the Scotts.
26 Saint Louis Circuit Court Record 2631
Tuesday May 26th 1857 Taylor Blow, who is personally known to the court, comes into open court, and acknowledges the execution by him of a Deed of Emancipation to his slaves, Dred Scott, aged about forty eight years, of full negro blood and color, and Harriet Scott wife of said Dred, aged thirty nine years, also of full negro blood & color, and Eliza Scott a daughter of said Dred & Harriet, aged nineteen years of full negro color, and Lizzy Scott, also a daughter of said Dred & Harriet, aged ten years likewise of full negro blood & color.
1 26 Saint Louis Circuit Record 263
The next day, Eliza Irene Sanford Emerson Chaffee’s attorney filed the motion to claim all of the wages earned by Scott, held by the Sheriff.
26 Saint Louis Circuit Court Record 2671
Wednesday May 27th 1857
Dred Scott.
vs. )
Irene Emerson. ) On motion of defendants attorney it is ordered that the Sheriff of St. Louis County do render his account to the court of the wages that have come to his hands of the earnings of the above named plaintiff and that the said sheriff do pay to the defendant all such wages that now remain in his hands, excepting all commissions and expenses to which the said Sheriff may be legally entitled.
1 26 Saint Louis Circuit Record 267