woodpusher:
"Racism has not been eliminated but has been greatly reduced.
It is no longer official government policy.
Race pimps such as Al Sharpton just wield race accusations as a political weapon." I'll repeat, in today's degraded political discourse there is no objective definition of "racism", there is only the weaponized epithet which Democrats use to mean, "you disagree with me about something important and that makes you a racist!" -- or "sexist", "homophobe", etc.
Not so many years ago the all-encompassing insult they used was "mean spirited", sounds almost quaint today.
Indeed, if you even try to make a legitimate effort to objectively define "racism" today, you are soon at questions like, for example, "if Latvians and Lithuanians living in the same city attend different churches because they like worshiping with their own neighbors, does that make them sort of "racists"?
Think about it.
woodpusher: "It is undeniable that the Constitutional union featured slavery as an integral and protected part.
That was done with the unanimous ratification of all the states."
The Fugitive Slave clause and the 3/5 rule were forced on Northern states as compromises to preserve the Union, and they should not be presented or understood as anything else.
Without such compromises, there would have been no Constitutional United States.
woodpusher: "Quotes of a slave owner expressing his desire to eliminate slavery, while never freeing his own slaves in his lifetime, fail to note that the sentiments expressing the desire to be free of slaves was part and parcel of the desire to be free of Blacks.
Those two desires were one and the same, and freely expressed as such from Jefferson to Lincoln."
As always, woodpusher, you misrepresent the facts.
The undeniable fact is that our Founders did pass numerous laws restricting and/or abolishing slavery.
Founders were usually content that abolition should be gradual and orderly, so long as it was also inevitable.
Our Founders also provided for voluntary recolonization of freed-black -- over several decades, beginning around 1820, with Democrats voting large sums of money, in both the US Congress and in many state legislatures, to pay for ships and supplies -- to transport & settle freed-blacks in Liberia and other countries.
The scale & failures of these Democrat recolonization projects were roughly equivalent to today's "green energy" spending.
Of course, not every leader of the American Colonization Society (ACS) was a Democrat, but I cannot find an example of a Federalist or Whig dominated legislature voting money for recolonization before 1861.
woodpusher: "Freeing the slaves in order to remove them from an all-white paradise is not exactly a non-racist sentiment.
That desire was made explicitly clear.
No amount of cherry-picking quotations can make that disappear from history."
And there is it again -- even when you full well know the truth, you just can't stop lying about it!
The truth is, every such law ever enacted and moneys ever authorized were for voluntary recolonization, not forced deportations.
Yes, Jefferson himself did propose both compensated emancipation (paid for from the public treasury) and forced deportations (to central America iirc), but Jefferson's proposal went nowhere.
Every law that was passed and money that was authorized was voluntary.
quoting BJK: "In the minds of our insane Democrats, "racist" simply means "you disagree with me on something important". It has no other meaningful definition or usage."
woodpusher: "If this were true, what would be the purpose of a collection of quotes from the Founders?"
It is certainly not to claim that our Founders were all modern "woke" progressive Democrats!
Rather, it is to prove beyond doubt that they opposed slavery and so restricted or abolished it wherever they could.
woodpusher: "In the case of the really lunatic fringe who argue as if they fought to abolish slavery, and all opposed to their glorious mission from Dog were necessarily insane, it is unfortunate that they must consider the Founders as having been insane for creating a Union which incorporated and protected slavery."
Such utterly insane claims are proof positive that you, woodpusher, are a true Democrat at heart, since only a Democrat could argue so insanely.
So I'll repeat the real truth, even though I know you loathe and despise it, just like all Democrats -- our Founders opposed slavery and wanted it abolished wherever and whenever possible.
They wanted abolition to be gradual and recolonization to be voluntary, but they knew slavery was morally wrong and should not be indefinitely tolerated.
woodpusher: "During the Revolutionary war, we sunk their ships and they sunk ours.
We did not pull into each others ports as welcome guests.
The curtailment of importation of everything was effected by the state of war.
That was not an action aimed at the slave trade."
And yet, and yet... they did restrict imports of slaves during the war and they restricted such imports again in the 1794 Slave Trade Act.
woodpusher: "Over 90% of the African slave trade did not deliver slaves to the English colonies, but to Central and South America, and to the islands.
That was not curtailed by the war.
Upon termination of the war, the African slave trade to the former colonies resumed."
All that is mostly irrelevant, since Americans were not the only, indeed were far from the primary slave traders.
Portuguese, Spaniards, Dutch, French and Brits all carried more than US ships and they brought the vast majority (well over 90+%) of slaves from Africa to the Americas.
The fact remains, deny it as much as you wish, that our Founders abolished slavery wherever and whenever they could because they knew it was morally wrong and should not be indefinitely tolerated.
woodpusher: "Beginning in 1777, Vermont waged a successful revolution and established itself as a free, sovereign, and independent state, with self-appointed borders; not part of any Union.
It remained a free, sovereign and independent state until 1791 when it joined the constitutional union."
The Vermont Republic was never formally recognized by any foreign government, and only ever discussed with Brits terms and conditions for becoming a province of Canada!
The fact remains that Vermont began to abolish slavery in its first constitution of 1777.
woodpusher: "The Fugitive Slave Clause still applied in Pennsylvania and a slave who escaped and fled to Pennsylvania no more enjoyed free status when than he was on the plantation."
President Washington himself recognized the right of Pennsylvania to abolish slavery and to declare freed any slaves that Washington himself kept too long in Philadelphia while he was President.
That's why he rotated his slaves in and out every few months.
woodpusher: "Rhode Island remained the foremost United States purveyor of slaves from the African coast.
Your unsubstantiated claim has a large clash with reality.
Rhode Island abolished slavery in its constitution of 1842, Art. 1, sec. 4.
That constitution, replacing the charter of 1643, went into effect May 2, 1843."
Rhode Island began abolition in 1784: "In February 1784, the Rhode Island General Assembly passed a gradual emancipation law that increased the ratio of the free black population in Rhode Island to 78 percent by the 1790 U.S. Census; slavery was completely eliminated in Rhode Island by 1842."
woodpusher: "Some 60% of all slave trading voyages that launched from North America — amounting to 945 trips between 1700 and 1850 — began in tiny Rhode Island. "
Well over 90% of slaves transported from Africa to the Americas came in ships owned by Portuguese, Spaniards, Dutch, French and Brits, not US Americans.
woodpusher: "Although the city of 25,000 people is now over 80% white and only 8% Black, in the mid-1700s, approximately a quarter of Newport’s population was Black or African, the second-highest share in the U.S. at the time behind Charleston, South Carolina."
10% of Rhode Island's population in 1755: "The Rhode Island General Assembly legalized African and Native American slavery throughout the colony in 1703, and the slave trade fueled the growth of Providence and Newport into major ports.[14]: 11–13
By 1755, enslaved people made up 10% of the colony's population.[14]: 24–25 "
Rhode Island began to abolish slavery in 1784.
woodpusher: "Vermont gradually eliminated slavery by selling its slaves south.
It did not eliminate slavery, it ethnically cleansed Rhode Island and relocated its slaves.
It continued to go to Africa, obtain slaves, and deliver them to the colonies, and later states."
You don't mean "Vermont".
You might mean Rhode Island, except that even for Rhode Island your claims are maliciously false.
Your claim of "ethnic cleansing" is utter mindless insanity.
In fact, Rhode Island's freed-black population remained constant, around 3,500, between 1790 and 1830, while slaves slowly dwindled from 958 to zero.
I've seen no evidence confirming that large numbers, or any, Rhode Island slaves were sold off "down the river".
woodpusher: "As stated above, Vermont waged a successful revolution beginning in 1777, and was a free, sovereign and independent state from 1777 to 1791."
As stated previously, Vermont was never formally recognized by any foreign country and only ever discussed with Britain possibilities of becoming a province of Canada.
Vermont was even more of a fake country than the Confederacy.
woodpusher: "Under either the Articles or the Constitution, the Founders or Framers could have elected to make slavery unlawful.
It was a freely made decision by the States to not make slavery unlawful.
Neither the British nor the Evil Empire made the Framers or the States do anything.
The North could have chosen differently, but then there would have been two Unions, and the Northwest Territory would have belonged to the one with Virginia."
Regardless of your non-stop pettifogging, the facts remain that our Founders knew slavery was wrong and did gradually abolish it wherever and whenever they could.
woodpusher: "I believe you do not refer to a law but The Ordinance of July 13, 1787.
That was an Ordinance for the Territory, not a Federal law.
It organized the first government of the Territory."
In 1787, "The United States in Congress Assembled passes the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, outlawing any new slavery in the Northwest Territories."
Thus confirming the fact that our Founders abolished slavery wherever and whenever they could.
woodpusher: "The claim is nonsense.
The Act applied explicitly only to exports.
It is impossible to read the act and draw the ridiculous conclusion that it applied to imports.
Rhode Island was synonymous with the American slave trade for a long time after 1794."
Sorry, but as usual, you are confused and disoriented.
"The Slave Trade Act of 1794 was a law passed by the United States Congress that prohibited the building or outfitting of ships in U.S. ports for the international slave trade.
It was signed into law by President George Washington on March 22, 1794.
This was the first of several anti-slavery trade-acts of Congress.
In 1800, Congress strengthened it by sharply raising the fines and awarding informants the entire value of any ship seized, as well as additional prohibitions on American investment and employment in the trade.[1]"
What's certain is that restrictions on international imports of slaves began under President Washington (1794), were strengthened under President Adams (1800) and made total under Presidents Jefferson (1808), Madison and Monroe.
So the fact remains that our Founders opposed slavery, restricting and abolishing it wherever and whenever they could.
woodpusher: "Your list may go on, but you have only documented that you never looked at your claimed source material."
As opposed to woodpusher who always misrepresents whatever documentation you post.
Your documents never prove the points you're trying to make, and the points they do prove all support my arguments.
woodpusher: "Regardless of pull-quotes from selected Founders, history bears one unassailable truth: the Founders never ended slavery in their lifetime.
They talked about it.
They didn't do it. "
That is a total 100% lie, and you know it and yet you keep repeating it, over and over again and there's only one explanation I can think for you -- you're an utterly, stark-raving insane America-hating Democrat.
Nothing else can fully explain your behavior here.
![]()
I'll repeat, in today's degraded political discourse there is no objective definition of "racism", there is only the weaponized epithet which Democrats use to mean, "you disagree with me about something important and that makes you a racist!" -- or "sexist", "homophobe", etc.
And a book which "Collects the speeches, writings, public statements and legislative acts of the Founding Fathers and Framers of the United States against slavery," is then good for what? I am sorry you do not know what racism is, but I am sure you are on a lifelong crusade to stamp out whatever it is of which you profess no knowledge.
The Fugitive Slave clause and the 3/5 rule were forced on Northern states....
You mean they could not say "no." Poor babies. It was a union of compulsion, they were forced into it. It was not of their own free will. Had they said no, there would have been two unions, and Virginia held the Northwest Territory.
As always, woodpusher, you misrepresent the facts. The undeniable fact is that our Founders did pass numerous laws restricting and/or abolishing slavery.
Slavery was abolished after the 13th Amendment when New Jersey finally caved in. As for your icons, we have their own words as to their meeting your Democrat BLM progressive ideals.
The Founders abolished slavery, then grew old and died, and then there was a war to end slavery. Got it!
As is firmly documented in the statements of the historical characters, they were firmly committed to removing the Black presence from the country and its territories. As Jefferson stated it, "It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers."
What did Lincoln say?
I have said a hundred times and I have no inclination to take it back, that I believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination in the people of the free States to enter into the slave States, and interfere with the question of slavery at all. I have said that always. (CW 2:492, italics added).
If he said it a hundred times, he said it a thousand times:
I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion, neither the General government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists.. (CW 2:471)
Not only did he say it but he cited evidence to prove it.
He asserted positively, and proved conclusively by his former acts and speeches that he was not in favor of interfering with slavery in the States where it exists, nor ever had been. (CW 3:96)
See Forced Into Glory, by Lerone Bennett, Jr., pg. 248-250.
- - - - - - - - - -
This is a pivotal point, one that has been masked by rhetoric and imperfect analysis. For to say, as Lincoln said a thousand times, that one is only opposed to the extension of slavery is to say a thousand times that one is not opposed to slavery where it existed. Based on this record and the words of his own mouth, we can say that the "great emancipator" was one of the major supporters of slavery in the United States for at least fifty-four of his fifty six years.
See Forced Into Glory, by Lerone Bennett, Jr., pg. 251. Mr. Bennett was an editor with Ebony magazine for about a half century.
Regardless of pull-quotes from selected Founders, history bears one unassailable truth: the Founders never ended slavery in their lifetime. They talked about it. They didn't do it. They never found a solution to the deportation part of the problem. As Jefferson said, following deportation, "the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers." And after the Founders grew old and died, there came the Civil War. And after that came the 13th Amendment which finally coerced the last holdout Northern states to end slavery in the United States.
Lincoln, CW 2:276, Speech at Peoria, Illinois, March 16, 1854:
Fellow countrymen—Americans south, as well as north, shall we make no effort to arrest this? Already the liberal party throughout the world, express the apprehension "that the one retrograde institution in America, is undermining the principles of progress, and fatally violating the noblest political system the world ever saw.'' This is not the taunt of enemies, but the warning of friends. Is it quite safe to disregard it—to despise it? Is there no danger to liberty itself, in discarding the earliest practice, and first precept of our ancient faith? In our greedy chase to make profit of the negro, let us beware, lest we "cancel and tear to pieces'' even the white man's charter of freedom. Our republican robe is soiled, and trailed in the dust. Let us repurify it. Let us turn and wash it white, in the spirit, if not the blood, of the Revolution. Let us turn slavery from its claims of "moral right,'' back upon its existing legal rights, and its arguments of "necessity.'' Let us return it to the position our fathers gave it; and there let it rest in peace. Let us re-adopt the Declaration of Independence, and with it, the practices, and policy, which harmonize with it. Let north and south—let all Americans—let all lovers of liberty everywhere—join in the great and good work. If we do this, we shall not only have saved the Union; but we shall have so saved it, as to make, and to keep it, forever worthy of the saving. We shall have so saved it, that the succeeding millions of free happy people, the world over, shall rise up, and call us blessed, to the latest generations.
At Springfield, twelve days ago, where I had spoken substantially as I have here, Judge Douglas replied to me—and as he is to reply to me here, I shall attempt to anticipate him, by noticing some of the points he made there.
He commenced by stating I had assumed all the way through, that the principle of the Nebraska bill, would have the effect of extending slavery. He denied that this was INTENDED, or that this EFFECT would follow.
I will not re-open the argument upon this point. That such was the intention, the world believed at the start, and will continue to believe. This was the COUNTENANCE of the thing; and, both friends and enemies, instantly recognized it as such. That countenance can not now be changed by argument. You can as easily argue the color out of the negroes' skin. Like the "bloody hand'' you may wash it, and wash it, the red witness of guilt still sticks, and stares horribly at you.
Lerone Bennett, Jr. observed,
Lincoln said in passing: "You can as easily argue the color out of the Negroes' skin. Like the 'bloody hand' you may wash it, and wash it, the red witness of guilt still sticks, and stares horribly at you". In this horrible and horribly revealing statement, which indicated unhealthy obsessions at clinical proportions, Lincoln, or Lincoln's subconscious, said that the color of blackness, like the "bloody hand" of the murderer, was a "witness of guilt"—what did Lincoln, or Lincoln's subconscious think the Black race was guilty of?—that "sticks and stares horribly at you."
Jefferson's plan was no secret. See Sen. J.R. Doolittle of Wisconsin, in the Senate, March 19, 1862. All is well because it was Dog's plan to separate the races for the highest good. The White race dominates the temperate zone and will forever. Besides, as Lincoln observed, the Black race is guilty and like the bloody hand of a murderer, it sticks and stares horribly at you. It is just your good fortune that you are incapable of knowing what racism is.
JEFFERSON'S SOLUTION. I have stood and will continue to stand for that solution of the negro question which Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, himself proposes, which, while it will in the end give universal liberty to universal man, will gradually, and peacefully separate these two races for the highest good and to the joy of both; giving to each in their own place the enjoyment of their rights, civil, social, political. That solution is in accordance with that law of the Almighty by which the black man dominates the tropics, and always will; by which our race dominates the temperate zone, and will forever. It is easier to work with Him, than against Him.
- - - - -
The scale & failures of these Democrat recolonization projects were roughly equivalent to today's "green energy" spending.
Lincoln and James Mitchell, his Minister of Emigration, were Democrats. Who knew?
In July 1853, Rev. James Mitchell of Indiana desired to organize the state of Illinois for the cause of colonization. In an interview published in the St. Louis Daily Globe Democrat, August 26, 1896, Mitchell told of how a Presbyterian pastor recommended a local man to help him organize Illinois for the American Colonization Society. The pastor recommended Abraham Lincoln.
It would appear that Mitchell was quite successful in recruiting Abraham Lincoln to the cause. On August 30, 1853, the Illinois State Register said that Lincoln would speak that night on “colonization” at the First Presbyterian Church. Lincoln became one of the founding members of the Illinois State Colonization Society and one of its 11 managers. Lincoln kept up his deportation efforts until the day he died.
https://archive.org/details/ASPC0001878200
Note the following from Page 4:
Being grateful for the positions you have assumed, and the recommendations you have made, we herein respectfully submit a few reflections intended to sustain (thought feeble may be the effort) the policy proposed, and asking that, so long as God grants you place and power at the head of this great nation, you will continue to this subject the care its magnitude merits and our national dangers demand.
James Mitchell refers to the positions Lincoln had assumed, and he refers to the recommendations made by Lincoln, and identifies his own effort as one intended to sustain the Lincoln policy proposed. Being well-known to Abraham Lincoln, James Mitchell was quickly hired and made part of the administration. Mitchell’s profound reflections were seen to have such merit as to warrant being turned into a pamphlet with copies produced by the Government Printing Office. The below example of the Lincoln position on race was submitted to Lincoln by that James Mitchell. Mitchell was promptly appointed as Commissioner of [Black] Emigration. The letter of Mitchell was made into a pamphlet and copies were printed by the Government Printing Office (GPO) at taxpayer expense. Mitchell remained in the administration until Lincoln’s death. He was removed by Andrew Johnson. However, this is what was written to sustain the positions, recommendations, and policies proposed by Lincoln.
From page 25:
It further suggests that our legislation should cover the wants and well-being of both races, and that statesmen should consider, first, the good of the white race, then, the good and well-being of the black; making at least as liberal appropriations for the colonization of the Indian, upon whom millions on millions have been expended with but imperfect success in the cause of civilization, whilst the slender means of the friends of the African civilization have produced lasting results. Some affect to fear that the man of color will not remove to a separate locality. It is not to be expected that a race, which has hardly attained a mental majority, will rise in a day to the stature of the men who found empires, build cities, and lay the ground work of civil institutions like ours; nor should they be expected to do this unaided and alone. They should receive the kind attention, direction, and aid of those who understand such things; nor will the world condemn a gentle pressure in the forward course to overcome the natural inertia of masses long used to the driver’s will and rod. Let us do justice in the provision we make for their future comfort, and surely they will do justice to our distracted Republic. If they should fail to do this, there would then be more propriety in weighing the requirement of some to remove without consultation, but not till then. The more intelligent men of color can now see the necessity that rests upon us, and they will aid us in this work. We know that there is a growing sentiment in the country which considered the removal of the freed man, without consulting him, “a moral and military necessity” — as a measure necessary to the purity of public morals and the peace of the country; and this unhappy war of white man with white man, about the condition of the black, will multiply this sentiment. But we cannot go further now than suggesting, that the mandatory relation held by the rebel master should escheat to the Federal government in a modified sense, so as to enable his proper government and gradual removal to a proper home where he can be independent.
It was to be voluntary deportation unless they declined to volunteer, and then they would be volunteered.
woodpusher: "Freeing the slaves in order to remove them from an all-white paradise is not exactly a non-racist sentiment. That desire was made explicitly clear. No amount of cherry-picking quotations can make that disappear from history."
And there is it again -- even when you full well know the truth, you just can't stop lying about it!
Lerone Bennett, Jr., Forced Into Glory, Johnson Publishing Company, Chicago, 2000, pg. 514:
More ominously, Lincoln said he was still committed still committed to an all-White nation, with a transitional period of quasi-freedom followed by the deportation of the freedmen. This is what he said: Heretofore colored people, to some extent, have fled north from bondage; and now, perhaps, from both bondage and destitution. But if gradual emancipation and deportation be adopted, they will have neither to flee from. Their old masters will give them wages at least until new laborers can be procured; and the freed men, in turn, will gladly give their labor for the wages, till new homes can be found for them, in congenial climes, and with people of their own blood and race.
Here then in unexpurgated language, is Lincoln's blueprint for the American future. It's all there, all of it—his gradualism, his racism, his deeply rooted belief that this land was the White man's land—and there is no possibility of understanding him or the Proclamation without an understanding of the official plan for a new White America he unfolded in this State of the Union message.
Despite its thrice-repeated calls for deportation of Blacks, despite its passionate plea for a continuation of slavery for thirty-seven years, despite its official projection of the notion of an all- white nation, the whole American cultural structure—historians, curators, writers, editors—has endorsed this message.
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln3/1:1.1?rgn=div2;view=fulltext
First Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Ottawa, Illinois, CW 3:14-15
Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist amongst them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses north and south. Doubtless there are individuals, on both sides, who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some southern men do free their slaves, go north, and become tip-top abolitionists; while some northern ones go south, and become most cruel slave-masters. When southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery, than we; I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,—to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery, at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough to me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, can not be safely disregarded. We can not, then, make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the south.
It is certainly not to claim that our Founders were all modern "woke" progressive Democrats!
Nobody ever claimed they could all be like you, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and John Marshall on the slavery issue. Not many could meet your standards, but that great pre-eminent conservative Willard Romney rose up and proposed "voluntary deportation." That is like separate but equal, but different. I had the same reception in the 21st century as it had in the 19th century.
Only when the States UNANIMOUSLY adopted the Constitution, and all that was in it, was it a case of force too powerful to resist.
woodpusher: "In the case of the really lunatic fringe who argue as if they fought to abolish slavery, and all opposed to their glorious mission from Dog were necessarily insane, it is unfortunate that they must consider the Founders as having been insane for creating a Union which incorporated and protected slavery."
Such utterly insane claims are proof positive that you, woodpusher, are a true Democrat at heart, since only a Democrat could argue so insanely.
What is insane is arguing that verified, factual history, with quoted words and recorded deeds, never happened. But, here you are.... sounding like an idiot liberal Democrat.
Slavery as incorporated into the Constitution, by unanimous consent of the States, and kept there with their consent for over 75 years.
woodpusher: "Over 90% of the African slave trade did not deliver slaves to the English colonies, but to Central and South America, and to the islands. That was not curtailed by the war. Upon termination of the war, the African slave trade to the former colonies resumed."
All that is mostly irrelevant, since Americans were not the only, indeed were far from the primary slave traders.
Portuguese, Spaniards, Dutch, French and Brits all carried more than US ships and they brought the vast majority (well over 90+%) of slaves from Africa to the Americas.
It is the slave trade with the rest of the world which is irrelevant to this discussion. About 94% of the trade did not go to the United States or the former colonies. That 94% was not affected by the curtailment of United States importation due to the Revolutionary War.
You stated, quite mindlessly, "Beginning in 1775 the Atlantic slave trade was banned or suspended during the Revolutionary War. It was only the 6% that had been going to the former colonies that was affected.
The fact remains, deny it as much as you wish, that our Founders abolished slavery wherever and whenever they could because they knew it was morally wrong and should not be indefinitely tolerated.
The fact is that the Founders did not even abolish slavery in Washington, D.C. where it only required a majority vote of Congress. The Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution remained the Supreme Law of the Land until after the Civil War. Before the Constitution, the Founders put a Fugitive Slave Clause in the Articles of Confederation and the Ordinance of the Northwest Territory. Neither Dog, nor the Evil Empire forced them to do that. Slavery was abolished after the 13th Amendment when New Jersey finally capitulated.
Articles of Confederation
IV. 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.
In the Ordinance of the Northwest Territory
Article the Sixth. There shall be neither Slavery nor involuntary Servitude in the said territory otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted; provided always that any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid.
In the Constitution:
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. - - - - -
The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
- - - - -
no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article
Slave labor participated in every phase of building the White House. They were not freed by some insane jerk on FR.
woodpusher: "[Rhode Island] gradually eliminated slavery by selling its slaves south. It did not eliminate slavery, it ethnically cleansed Rhode Island and relocated its slaves. It continued to go to Africa, obtain slaves, and deliver them to the colonies, and later states."
You might mean Rhode Island, except that even for Rhode Island your claims are maliciously false.
Your claim of "ethnic cleansing" is utter mindless insanity.
In fact, Rhode Island's freed-black population remained constant, around 3,500, between 1790 and 1830, while slaves slowly dwindled from 958 to zero.
I've seen no evidence confirming that large numbers, or any, Rhode Island slaves were sold off "down the river".
Yes, I obviously meant Rhode Island. My quotes came from Rhode Island.
Rhode Island remained the foremost United States purveyor of slaves from the African coast. Your unsubstantiated claim has a large clash with reality. Rhode Island abolished slavery in its constitution of 1842, Art. 1, sec. 4. That constitution, replacing the charter of 1643, went into effect May 2, 1843.
https://www.the74million.org/article/slave-money-paved-the-streets-now-this-posh-ri-city-strives-to-teach-its-past/
Some 60% of all slave trading voyages that launched from North America — amounting to 945 trips between 1700 and 1850 — began in tiny Rhode Island. In some years, it was more than 90% and most of those journeys set out from Newport, making it the most trafficked slaving port of origin on the continent. “The streets of Newport were paved with the duties paid on enslaved people,” said the UW-Madison scholar, who wrote the book Dark Work: The Business of Slavery in Rhode Island.
[...]
Although the city of 25,000 people is now over 80% white and only 8% Black, in the mid-1700s, approximately a quarter of Newport’s population was Black or African, the second-highest share in the U.S. at the time behind Charleston, South Carolina.
http://smallstatebighistory.com/rhode-island-dominates-north-american-slave-trade-in-18th-century/
African enslaved persons were sparse in the colony of Rhode Island throughout the 17th century, with only 175 in total in 1680. Prior to 1696, the English Royal African Company monopolized the Atlantic slave trade. However, when this was lifted, Rhode Islanders aggressively expanded into the Atlantic trading system, and therefore, the slave trade. Within 30 years the colony of Rhode Island, and in particular Newport, came to dominate the North American slave trade. Even though it was the smallest of the colonies, the great majority of slave ships leaving British North America came from Rhode Island ports. Historian Christy Clark-Pujara, in her book Dark Work, The Business of Slavery in Rhode Island, indicates that during “the colonial period in total, Rhode Island sent 514 slave ships to the coast of West Africa, while the rest of the colonists sent just 189.” Historian Jay Coughtry in The Notorious Triangle, argues that “the Rhode Island slave trade and the American slave trade were virtually synonymous” and that “only in Rhode Island was there anything that can properly be termed a slave trade.”
http://southcountyhistorycenter.org/slavery-southern-rhode-island
The owners of these larger farms became known as “Narragansett Planters,” referencing southern Rhode Island’s nickname at the time, “Narragansett Country.” Through their connections to the Atlantic slave trade, these men began to buy enslaved African people from colonies in the Caribbean (and eventually directly from Africa) to work on their farms and increase production of goods for export. At the height of the Narragansett Planter’s operations in the mid-18th century, there were 25 – 30 large plantations, and it is estimated that between 15% and 25% of Washington County’s population was enslaved. The plantations in southern Rhode Island were very profitable. Their owners were some of the wealthiest people in the colony of Rhode Island, allowing them to develop a leisurely lifestyle that mirrored that of the upper classes in England.
https://www.economicprogressri.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/SOBFRI-2017-Infographic-FINAL-PRINT.pdf
black population of Rhode Island: 68,243
U.S. born: 70.6%, 48,180
foreign born 29.4% ~20,063
proving there is something in the water in Rhode Island preventing Black's from multiplying.
Rhode Island abolished slavery in its constitution of 1842, Art. 1, sec. 4. That constitution, replacing the charter of 1643, went into effect May 2, 1843."
Rhode Island began abolition in 1784: "In February 1784, the Rhode Island General Assembly passed a gradual emancipation law that increased the ratio of the free black population in Rhode Island to 78 percent by the 1790 U.S. Census; slavery was completely eliminated in Rhode Island by 1842."
An anonymous quote without a link or citation is meaningless. Quotation marks leading to an anonymous article at a notoriously unreliable site hardly qualifies as an appeal to authority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_of_Rhode_Island_and_Providence_Plantations
In February 1784, the Rhode Island General Assembly passed a gradual emancipation law that increased the ratio of the free black population in Rhode Island to 78 percent by the 1790 U.S. Census; slavery was completely eliminated in Rhode Island by 1842.
Only proving that Wikipedia, your only source ever, could screw up a soup sandwich. This idiot thinks the Rhode Island constitution of 1842 completely eliminated slavery in 1842. If you read the constitution of Rhode Island of 1842, rather than Wikipedia, you would know that Article XIV, On the Adoption of this Constitution, states, "Section 1. This constitution, if adopted, shall go into operation of the first Tuesday of May, in the year one thousand eight hundred and forty-three."
Prior to May 2, 1843, the first constitution had not gone into effect. As I stated, Rhode Island prohibited slavery in 1843, Wikipedia and its faithful slave, BroJoeK notwithstanding.
The footnoted source states, "By 1804 slavery had been abolished throughout New England, ignoring the 1800 census, which shows 1,488 slaves in New England." By 1804 slavery had been eliminated throughout the United States, ignoring all those census reports and all those slaves.
What a wonderful statistic that the free Black population ratio rose by 78% from 1784 to 1842. Sell slaves and the free Black population ratio goes up.
Perhaps we are to believe that when they were freed, the freed blacks no longer reproduced.
https://www.sos.ri.gov/divisions/civics-and-education/for-educators/themed-collections/black-rhode-islanders
The first Africans were brought to Rhode Island as part of the transatlantic maritime trade known as the Triangle Trade. Traders made rum in Rhode Island using sugar cane harvested in the Caribbean; the rum was then used to purchase African men, women, and children who were sold into slavery. Between 1700-1800, Rhode Island merchants sponsored approximately 1,000 slaving voyages, bringing over 100,000 Africans to America. While many were sold to plantation owners in the southern colonies, some were enslaved or retained as indentured servants in Rhode Island. By the 1770s Rhode Island had the greatest population of enslaved people per capita in New England.
Rhode Island would account for about 20% of all slaves brought to the English colonies which are now States.
Your documents never prove the points you're trying to make, and the points they do prove all support my arguments.
That will be tested in separate posts. I will provide complete documents and you may try to select and demonstrate which part or parts support your brainfarts.
Your insane assertion that the Founders "restricted such imports again in the 1794 Slave Trade Act" will be shown to be another turd excreted from your imagination. I will provide the entire Act from the Statutes at Large, with footnote.
Your insane assertion that the Founders "restrictions on international imports of slaves began under President Washington (1794), were strengthened under President Adams (1800)"restrictions on international imports of slaves began under President Washington (1794), were strengthened under President Adams (1800)" will be shown to be yet another turd excreted from your imagination. I will provide the entire Act from the Statutes at Large, with footnote.
Your insane claim that "Vermont was even more of a fake country than the Confederacy" will be shown to be directly contradicting a unanimous opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court. Indeed, your claim that "The fact remains that Vermont began to abolish slavery in its first constitution of 1777," seems strange coming with your claim that the state of Vermont did not exist in 1777. Vermont was admitted to the Union in 1791 as the 14th state, and yet, and yet... Vermont had a state constitution in 1777.
woodpusher: "During the Revolutionary war, we sunk their ships and they sunk ours. We did not pull into each others ports as welcome guests. The curtailment of importation of everything was effected by the state of war. That was not an action aimed at the slave trade."
And yet, and yet... they did restrict imports of slaves during the war and they restricted such imports again in the 1794 Slave Trade Act.
And yet, and yet... you sub-cretinous dolt, I provided you with a link to the Act itself. An Act to restrict imports of slaves in 1794 would have been unconstitutional as being in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution.
You are not entitled to your own fictional "facts." Stop making crap up about statutes you have been too lazy to look up in an authoritative source.
The Constitution:
The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight,
BroJoeK sees an imaginary statute law that strikes down the Constitution by restricting the importation of slaves prior to 1808. Such law does not exist.
1 Stat. 347, Third Congress, Sess. I., Ch. 11, 1794, The Slave Trade Act of March 22 1794. "An Act to prohibit the carrying on the Slave Trade from the United States to any foreign place or country." Please stop citing sources you have never seen. If your source is Wikipedia, just go ahead and cite Wikipedia. Wikipedia on the law is sometimes correct.
"The African slave trade is a trade which has been authorized and protected by the laws of all commercial nations. The right to carry it on has been claimed by each, and exercised by each; and it therefore cannot be considered as contrary to the laws of nations. The slave trade remains lawful to those nations which have not forbidden it. The Antelope, 10 Wheat. 66; 6 Cond. Rep. 30." At 1 Stat. 347.
Below is the full text of the Act of March 22, 1794. It absolutely has nothing whatever to do with the importation of slaves into the United States.
The reader is left to believe BroJoeK, the Professor of Wikipedia, or the words of the Statute itself, as it officially appears in Statutes at Large, Volume I, Part 1, page 347.
https://www.loc.gov/resource/llsalvol.llsal_001/?sp=470&st=image
[footnote significantly longer than the Act itself.]
Statute I. March 22, 1794
Chap. XI.—An Act to prohibit the carrying on the Slave Trade from the United States to any foreign place or country.(a)
SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That no citizen or citizens of the United States, or foreigner, or any other persons coming into, or residing within the same, shall, for himself or any other person whatsoever, either as master, factor or owner, build, fit, equip, load or otherwise prepare any ship or vessel, within any port or place of the said United States nor shall cause any ship or vessel to sail from any port or place within the same, for the purpose of carrying on any trade or traffic in slaves, to any foreign country; or for the purpose of procuring, from any foreign kingdom, place or country, the Inhabitants of such kingdom, place or country, to be transported to any foreign country, port, or place whatever, to be sold or disposed of, as slaves. And if any ship or vessel shall be so fitted out, as aforesaid, for the said purposes, or shall be caused to sail, so as aforesaid, every such ship or vessel her tackle, furniture, apparel and other appurtenances, shall be forfeited to the United States; and shall be liable to be seized, prosecuted ant condemned, in any of the circuit courts, or district court for the district where the said ship or vessel may be found and seized..
SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That all and every person, so building, fitting out, equipping, loading, or otherwise preparing, or sending away, any ship or vessel, knowing or intending that the same shall be employed in such trade or business, contrary to the true intent and meaning of this act, or any ways aiding or abetting therein, shall severally forfeit and pay the sum of two thousand dollars, one moiety thereof to the use of the United States, and the other moiety thereof to the use of him or her who shall sue for and prosecute the same.
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the owner, master or factor of each and every foreign ship or vessel, clearing out for any of the coasts or kingdoms of Africa, or suspected to be intended for the slave trade, and the suspicion being declared to the officer of the customs, by any citizen, on oath or affirmation, and such information being to the satisfaction of the said officer, shall first give bond with sufficient sureties, to the treasurer of the United States, that none of the natives of Africa, or any other foreign country or place, shall be taken on board the said ship or vessel, to be transported, or sold as slaves, in any other foreign port or place whatever, within nine months thereafter.
SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That if any citizen or citizens of the United States shall, contrary to the true intent and meaning of this act, take on board, receive or transport any such persons, as above described, in this act, for the purpose of selling them as slaves, as aforessaid, he or they shall forfeit and pay, for each and every person, so received on board, transported, or sold as aforesaid, the sum of two hundred dollars, to be recovered in any court of the United States pro per to try the same; the one moiety thereof to the use of the United States, and the other moiety to the use of such person or persons, who shall sue for and prosecute the same.
APPROVED. March 22. 1794.
(a) The acts prohibiting and punishing the Slave trade, are: An act to prohibit the carrying on the slave trade from the United States to any foreign place or country, March 22, 1794, chap. II; an act in addition to the act entitled, "An act to prohibit the carrying on the slave trade from the United States to any foreign place or country," May 10, 1800; an act to prevent the introduction of certain persons into certain states, where by the laws thereof their admission is prohibited, February 28, 1803, chap. 10; an act to prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States from and after the first of January one thousand eight hundred and eight, March 2, 1807, chap. 22; an act in addition to an act entitled, "An act to prohibit the importation of staves within the jurisdiction of the United States from and after the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and eight:" April 20, 1818, chap. 91; an act to continue in force "an act to protect the commerce of the United States, and punish the crime of piracy," and also to make further provision for punishing the crime of piracy, May 13, 1820, chap. 113, sec. 4, 5. Decisions of the Courts of the United States on the acts prohibiting and punishing the Stave Trade.—A libel or information under the 9th section of the slave trade act of March 2, 1797, alleging that the vessel sailed from the port of New York and Perth Amboy, without the captain having delivered the manifest required by law, to the collector or surveyor of the port of New York and Perth Amboy, is defective; the act requiring the manifest to be delivered to the collector or surveyor of a single port. The Mary Ann, 8 Wheat. 350; 5 Cond. Rep. 471.
Under the same section, the libel must charge the vessel to be of the burthen or forty tons or more. In general it is sufficient to charge the offence in the words directing the forfeiture. But if the words are general, embracing a whole class of individual subjects, they must necessarily be so construed as to embrace only a subdivision of that class; the allegation must conform to the legislative sense and meaning. Ibid.
The prohibitions in the slave trade acts of May 10, 1800, and April 20, 1818, extend as well to carrying slaves on freight, as to cases where the persons transported are the property of the United States; and the carrying of them from one part to another of the same foreign empire, as well as from one foreign country to another, The Merino, 9 Wheat. 391 5 Cond. Rep. 623.
Under the 4th section of the act of May 10, 1800, the owner or the slaves transported contrary to the provisions of that act, cannot claim the same in a court of the United States, although, according to the laws of his own country, they may be held in servitude. But if at the time of capture by a commissioned vessel, the offending ship was in the possession of a non-conmissioned captor, who had made a seizure for the same offence, the owner of the slaves may claim them; the section only applying to persons interested in the enterprise or voyage in which the ship was employed, at the time of such capture, Ibid.
Under the slave trade act of 1794, sec. 1, it is not necessary, in order to incur the forfeiture, that the vessel shall be completely fitted and ready for sea. As soon as the preparations have proceeded so far as clearly to manifest the intention, the right of seizure attaches. The Emily and Caroline, 9 Wheat. 381; 5 Cond. Rep. 623.
The African slave trade is a trade which has been authorized and protected by the laws of all commercial nations. The right to carry it on has been claimed by each, and exercised by each; and it therefore cannot be considered as contrary to the laws of nations. The slave trade remains lawful to these nations which have not forbidden it. The Antelope, 10 Wheat. 66; 6 Cond. Rep, 30.
If the slave trade is not contrary to the laws of nations, it cannot be piracy, unless so declared by statute and the obligations of such statute cannot exceed the power of the state which has enacted it. Ibid.
A foreign vessel engaged in the slave trade, captured on the high seas, in time of peace, by an American cruiser, and brought in for adjudication, will be restored, even where the vessel belongs to a nation which has prohibited the trade. Ibid.
The right of visitation and search does not exist in time of peace. A vessel engaged in the slave trade in time of peace, even if belonging to a nation which has prohibited the trade, cannot, for that cause alone, he seized on the high seas, and brought in for adjudication in the courts of another country. But if the laws of that other country be violated, or the proceeding be authorized by treaty, the capture is not illegal. Ibid.
Africans who are first captured by a belligerent privateer, fitted out in violation of our neutrality, or by a pirate, and then recaptured and brought into the ports of the United States, under a reasonable suspicion that a violation of the slave trade acts was intended, are not to be restored without full proof of the proprietary interests; for in such a case the capture is lawful. And whether in such a case restitution ought to be decreed or not, was a question on which the court was equally divided. Ibid.
The District Courts have jurisdiction under the slave trade acts, to determine who are the actual captors, under a state law made in pursuance or the 4th section of the slave trade act of 1807; and directing the proceeds of the Degrees to be paid, "one moiety for the use of the commanding officer of the capturing vessel," &c. The Josepha Segunda, 10 Wheat. 312; 6 Cond. Rep. 111.
Under the 7th section of the slave trade act of 1807, the entire proceeds of the vessel are forfeited to the use of the United States; unless the seizure be made by armed vessels of the navy, or by revenue cutters; in which case distribution is to be made in the same manner as prizes taken from the enemy. Ibid.
Upon an indictment under the stave trade act of April 20, 1818, against the owner of the ship, testimony of the declarations of the master, being a part of the res gestae, connected with acts in furtherance of the voyage and within the scope of his authority as the agent of the owner, in the conduct of the guilty enterprise, is admissible. Upon such an indictment against the owner, charging him with fitting out the ship, with an intent to employ her in the illegal voyage, evidence is admissible that her commander authorized, and direrted the fitment through the instrumentality of his agent, without being personally present. The United States v. Gooding, 12 Wheat. 460; 6 Cond. Rep. 572.
It is not essential to constitute the fitting out, under the acts of Congress, that every equipment necessary for a slave voyage, or any equipment peculiarly adapted to such a voyage, should be taken on board. It is sufficient if the vessel is actually fitted out with intent to be employed in the illegal voyage. The offence may be laid in the words of the statute. Ibid.
Nor is it necessary that there should be come principal offender, to whom the defendant might be aiding and abetting. Those terms in the statute do not refer to the relation of principal and. accessory in cases of felony, but to the actor; and they who aid and abet the act, are considered as principals. The offence must be alleged to have been committed within the United States. Ibid.
Under the act of March 22, 1794, prohibiting the slave trade, if the original object and equipment of the voyage from the United States, was to carry on the African slave trade, the forfeiture attaches, whether the vessel was then owned by American citizens or by foreigners. It is equally unimportant if the act was done by the party, suo jure, or for the benefit of another. The Margaret, 9 Wheat. 421; 5 Cond. Rep. 638.
Even if the equipments are innocent, and adapted to ordinary voyages, if there is positive proof of a guilty intention, forfeiture will attach. Nor is it necessary that the equipments shall have been completed. It is sufficient if any preparations have been made for the unlawfnl voyage. Ibid.
Under the 2d and 3d sections of the act of April, 1818, the offence of sailing from a port to engage in the slave trade, is not committed unless the vessel sails out of the port. United States v. La Coste, 2 Mason's C. C. R. 129.
If a foreign claimant of a vessel seized for being engaged in the slave trade, sets up a title derived from an American owner, he mast prove affirmatively that the case has an admixture of American ownership. United States v. La Jeune Eugenia, 2 Mason's C. C. R. 409.
The 1st section of the slave trade act of May 10, 1800, prohibits not only the transportation of slaves, but the being employed on the business of the slave trade; and therefore a vessel caught in each trade, though before she has taken on board any slaves, is liable to forfeiture. The Alexander, 3 Mason's C. C. R. 175.
The offence against the law of the United States, under the 7th section of the act of March 2, 1807, is not that of importing or bringing into the United States persons of colour, with intent to hold or sell those persons as slaves, but that of hovering on the coast of the United States with such intent; and although it forfeits the vessel and any goods or effects found on board, it is silent as to disposing of any persons found on board, any further than to impose a duty upon the officers of any armed vessels, who make the capture, to keep them safely, to be delivered to the overseers of the poor, or to the governor of the state, or persons appointed by the respective states to receive them. United States v. Preston, 3 Peters, 57.
Certain persons who were slaves in Louisiana, were, by their owners, taken to France as servants, and after some time, they, by their own consent, were sent back to Louisiana. The ships in which these persons were passengers, were, after the arrival of the vessels in the United States, libelled for alleged breaches of the act of Congress of April 20, 1818, prohibiting the importation of slaves into the United States. Held that the provisions of the act of Congress do not apply to such cases. The United States v. Garonne, 11 Peters. 73.
The act of March 22, 1794, was intended to prohibit any citizen or resident of the United States from equipping vessels within the United States, carrying on trade or traffic in slaves to any foreign country. The Tryphernea, 1 Wash. C. C. R. 622.
The act of May 10, 1800, extends the prohibitions to citizens of the United States, in any manner concerned in this kind of traffic, either by personal service on board of American or foreign vessels wherever equipped, and to the owners of such vessels, citizens of the United States. Ibid.
The act of Congress declares that no person shall build, fit, equip, load, or otherwise prepare any ship or vessel, to sail from any port of the United States, for the purpose of carrying on any trade or traffic in slaves to any foreign country." And it declares that "if any ship or vessel shall be so fitted out as aforesaid, or shall be caused to sail as aforesaid, such ship or vessel shall be forfeited to the United States." And the 2d section inflicts a penalty of two thousand dollars on any person who shall build, fit out, &c., any ship or vessel knowing or intending that the same shall be so employed. Held, 1. That the forfeiture of the vessel is not incurred by the building of the vessel for the illegal purpose; aforesaid, but only for the fitting out and causing her to sail as aforesaid. 2. An information against the vessel which charges that she was built, fitted, equipped, loaded, or otherwise prepared, or caused to sail, &c., is bad for uncertainty as to which of the several offences is charged, and on such information, a forfeiture ought not to be pronounced. The Brig Caroline, 1 Brockenb. C. C. R. 384.
The act of Congress of February 23, 1803, forbidding any master or captain of a ship or vessel, to import or bring into any port of the United States, any negro, mulatto, or person of colour, under certain penalties, where the admission of such persons is prohibited by the laws of such state, does not apply to coloured seamen employed in navigating such ship or vessel. The Brig Wilson, 1 Brockenb. C. C. R. 423.
If under the act of April 22, 1818, sec. 2, 3, the offence of causing a vessel to sail from the United States, with an intent, be alleged in an indictment to be one day now last past, and on divers days before and since that day, the allegation is sufficient. United States v. La Cone, 2 Mason's C. C. R. 119.
It is not neceesaty in an indictment on the act of 1818, to aver the defendant knowingly committed the offence. United States v. Smith, 2 Mason's C. C. R. 143.