Virginia did introduce slavery first, and the courts there upheld it. Massachusetts did write slavery into its laws, but the courts there later abolished it. One might often wish it to be otherwise, but courts do make law. In any event, slavery was abolished a long time ago and no living American is responsible for it, so the writer can FOAD painfully.
Had it been the intent of the Drafters of the Massachusetts constitution to abolish slavery, they would have written it plainly. Trying to use the language they borrowed from the Declaration as an argument that slavery was abolished is just lying and deceitful.
Judicial activism is what happened in Massachusetts. It was not democracy or legislation which did it, but judges.
Courts should not be tolerated in making law. That is not their job, and when they are allowed to do that, it is a threat to everyone because Laws don't mean what they say.
Courts are ex post facto law, and that is specifically forbidden.
It’s worse than this though.
I’m tired of seeing an entirely one-sided account on this. This essay even brings up the Somersett case, but it doesn’t bring up Somersett’s hypocrisy. Even Franklin called out Londen over its hypocrisy - so it’s not just me.
Britain had its chance to abolish slavery on this continent. It was a monarchy. It was a dictatorship. It could have done so at any time.
It. Didn’t. Want. That.
Britain wanted slavery here. And there wasn’t a thing our Founders could’ve done about it until breaking off in some sort of independence movement.
America isn’t at fault here. The British Empire did this. We should not be ripping each other to shreds over this.