Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp


515 posted on 07/23/2013 3:37:52 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp
After Rawle died, his eulogy was published in a 45-page book. He was honored as a Christian gentleman of "the most devout and exemplary piety."

Of course, if you believe DiogenesLamp, he was a "liar."

Or the evidence.

This response is more for the purpose of providing salient information to 1rudeboy (and any other OBJECTIVE person) than you. You are just going to be my whipping boy in this narrative.

You will note that in his Eulogy to which you refer, that WILLIAM LEWIS was one of his Co-Counsel arguing that Case before the High Court of Errors and Appeals. (Which they lost)


Once again, I will point out that William Lewis

WAS a member of the Pennsylvania Legislature that Ratified the US Constitution. I will further point out that Samuel Roberts (the guy who published that book you hate regarding the English Statutes still in effect.) received his legal apprenticeship from WILLIAM LEWIS.


Lawyers taking on Apprentices was the Common practice for training new lawyers, during this era, and Samuel Roberts learned about American Law under the Auspices of William Lewis.

Given that it is inconceivable that Samuel Roberts could so badly have been led astray by his mentor regarding the Vattel-Natural-Law basis for American Citizenship, and given that William Lewis was in a far better position to know the ACCURATE understanding of the Legislators who ratified the US Constitution, and given that the same Principle is expressed in the Original Constitution of Pennsylvania created by Franklin, Wilson, et al, and given that the Position of William Lewis/Samuel Roberts/ Pennsylvania Constitution is so contrary to the position of William Rawle that the notion of a simple misunderstanding is highly improbable, the only remaining conclusion to which a reasonable person can come, is that William Rawle deliberately advocated a position that he knew to be contrary to better informed people.

In other words, he lied. Deliberately.

There is no way that Rawle could have missed that book Published by Samuel Roberts. There was no way ANYONE in the Legal Profession in Pennsylvania at that time could have been unfamiliar with the book "Digest of Select British Statutes, Comprising Those Which, According to the Report of the Judges of the Supreme Court Made to the Legislature, Appear to be in Force in Pennsylvania".

Law books were exceedingly rare at this time (which is why Rawle wrote one himself) and that particular book by Roberts was the result of the Pennsylvania Legislature ORDERING THE SUPREME COURT to determine which English Statutes remained in effect in Pennsylvania.

There simply was not so much stuff going on in Pennsylvania that anyone in the Legal Profession could have missed the order by the Legislature, nor could they have missed the Report of the Judges. The book resulting from this was WIDELY Used in Pennsylvania for at least the next forty years after it was Published. (Second Edition, 1847)

So now, I think i've made a pretty good argument that William Rawle lied. (or deluded himself and thereby misled others) But the question remains why, in Jeff's words, "a Christian gentleman of "the most devout and exemplary piety", might LIE about the Vattel-Natural-Law basis for American citizenship.

Simple. The small evil of lying, is far outweighed by the potentially greater good to be obtained by doing so. Men eventually shed much blood to end slavery. What is lying compared to this?

The English Common law basis for Citizenship meant that slaves were "citizens", because they were born on our soil. The Principles of Vattel require that a citizen be the child of a citizen, something which puts a slave beyond any hope of this legal argument. If sufficient numbers of people could be convinced that the English rule is, and ought to be followed, the legal system would have to recognize slaves as "citizens" and thereby emancipate them. A similar strategy worked in the State of Massachusetts. Slavery was ended there when a court agreed with various plaintiff's that Slaves were entitled to the rights of a citizen.

It failed in Pennsylvania, and it failed unanimously. Those Judges that ruled against Rawle's lawsuit (mentioned in the Eulogy above) were Rawle's close personal friends and associates, and yet even that could not induce them to side with his position.

Rawle lied, but he lied in a good cause. His argument was never accepted though, and it took the 14th amendment to finally achieve the objective which he sought in making it.

516 posted on 07/24/2013 8:04:28 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 515 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson