The abolitionist movement in Massachusetts could have gotten its job done in 1768. Instead, the empire set them back by 15 years.
15 years. You have nothing to say that can change the fact. Say 1620 all you want. 15 years, that's what England cost us. Had England gotten out of the way, had England stopped stonewalling, Massachusetts would've been free-soil state #1 when the United States was born in 1776, and they would've been that way for 8 stinking years already.
You have nothing to say that can change the fact. That's just in the one state, when we consider how the empire forced slavery on the United States.
15 years. One state alone.
The kicker is, you don't even deny that the king's creature Governor Hutchinson did the dirty deed!!! All you do is throw mud at the wall and hope your lies stick. They won't. I have too much information at my disposal. Go try your trickery with someone else.
woodpusher #137: American-born Hutchinson was not the Governor in 1768.
ProgressingAmerica #138: The kicker is, you don't even deny that the king's creature Governor Hutchinson did the dirty deed!!! All you do is throw mud at the wall and hope your lies stick. They won't. I have too much information at my disposal. Go try your trickery with someone else.
It is a point of fact that Thomas Hutchinson was not the governor of the Province of Massachusetts Bay in 1768; that would have been Francis Bernard. Hutchinson was lieutenant governor at the time, yet was forced into the role of acting governor as of 8-01-1769, when Bernard left for England. As such, Hutchinson dealt with the aftermath of the Townshend Acts (which, as far as I'm aware, had nothing to do with slavery or abolition), the subsequent protests, and the 1770 Boston Massacre, and everything that came as a result of that.
What "dirty deed" are you imagining that Hutchinson did in 1768? Because whatever it was, he certainly didn't do it as "Governor".
Yes. I'm sick of your lying, distortions, and hate America left wing BS.The abolitionist movement in Massachusetts could have gotten its job done in 1768. Instead, the empire set them back by 15 years.
15 years. You have nothing to say that can change the fact. Say 1620 all you want. 15 years, that's what England cost us. Had England gotten out of the way, had England stopped stonewalling, Massachusetts would've been free-soil state #1 when the United States was born in 1776, and they would've been that way for 8 stinking years already.
You have nothing to say that can change the fact. That's just in the one state, when we consider how the empire forced slavery on the United States.
15 years. One state alone.
I grow weary of your ignorance of what you are talking about. You know so little history you should research some history before attempting to share your ignorance.
Nothing in British or American law required citizens of the State of Massachusetts, or any other State, to own slaves. Massachusetts outlawed slavery in 1780.
In the Mum Bett case, Bett won her case for freedom in the County Court of Common Pleas in Great Barrington on August 22, 1781. The prevailing argument was that the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 had outlawed slavery in the state. That case was not appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Dozens of cases followed before the Quock Case was taken up to the state Supreme Court.
Slaves were considered both property and persons. They had the right to sue in court in Massachusetts. In the Quock Case, the Massachusetts Supreme Court found that the 1780 constitution had, indeed, prohibited slavery. That was 1783.
Massachusetts is the only state to have zero slaves enumerated on the 1790 federal census.
No Evil Empire stopped the STATE of Massachusetts from outlawing slavery.
The voluntary act of the STATE of Massachusetts in ratifying the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution voluntarily subjected itself to the Fugitive Slave Clause.
U.S. Const., Art IV, ยง2, Cl. 3:
No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
Articles of Confederation, Art. IV. Massachusetts voluntarily ratified the Articles on July 9, 1778.
The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them. If any person guilty of, or charged with, treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor in any State, shall flee from justice, and be found in any of the United States, he shall, upon demand of the Governor or executive power of the State from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the State having jurisdiction of his offense. Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State.
[ProgressingAmerica #135] Massachusetts' legislature was considering abolition as early as 1768 IIRC until it got vetoed by their royal creature Hutchinson.[Woodpusher #137] And your memory appears to serve you
serves youill. American-born Hutchinson was not the Governor in 1768.[ProgressingAmerica #138] The kicker is, you don't even deny that the king's creature Governor Hutchinson did the dirty deed!!!
To clarify, you do not remember correctly. Hutchison was not Governor in 1768 and did not do the dirty deed as you claim to recall. You are simply uninformed or misinformed.
In any case, the alleged dirty deed of 1768, which Hutchinson did not do, would not have been a dirty deed but the act of a British Colonial Governor, appointed to his position to carry out the Royal will, doing his duty.
You try to remember,
Your brain's in a blender,
Like Jello!