Posted on 08/23/2025 4:28:03 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
That makes Corwin an important piece of anti-slavery legislation!
You are unbelievable. An absolute stab in the back to the slaves by the Republicans controlling Congress in 1861, and you are trying to convince people "it was part of a grand scheme to free them! "
And the 13th amendment is a fake amendment passed by tyranny. If the actual will of the people was enacted, there were never enough ratifying states to pass that "amendment."
We all like to pretend it is legitimate, but it was enacted through force, not democracy. It is a humiliation of our Constitutional law.
And on what basis do you say that? What particular thing did he do that makes you think he was a lunatic?
Well I couldn't find any. All I found was that most of the freed men were in Boston.
Some could & did vote. They could also use the courts to, for example, sue for freedom, and at least in theory, could sit on juries.
Do you have any supporting evidence for this contention?
That is hard to believe, because you often seem so unprepared for information I have revealed to you.
I am reminded of what President Reagan said about Liberals.
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant...
"... It's that they know so much which isn't so."
I’m over any race, to be honest.
What I’m not over, is the Founding Fathers. If they did some act that can be considered “good”, then I’m going to talk about it.
None of this makes any sense at all. I don’t know who is trying to review. Please explain.
Former. If the rule is good enough for a former slave trader, it's good for Americans too.
They are abolitionists. It is clear that you are not coping well with history that won't bend to what you wish it to be.
Again, you are just flat out wrong. In those days, only freeholders (I.e. citizens who owned real estate and therefore paid taxes) could vote. Not all whites were freeholders, i.e. taxpayers. Some blacks were freeholders, and could vote. It had nothing to do with their rights as individuals.
You just make stuff up as you go.
Slave owning abolitionists. Their position seems to be "Yeah, we know it is wrong, but we just can't help ourselves. "
It is clear that you are not coping well with history that won't bend to what you wish it to be.
I am reminded of BroJoeK's interpretation of the Corwin Amendment as a good thing for all the black people it tried to keep in slavery.
He just wants to believe what he wants to believe, as do you.
You want to preach, but you don't want to listen, or give any of my points a fair consideration.
You can believe what you like, but neither the Declaration of Independence, nor the Massachusetts constitution of 1780 were written with black people or slaves in mind when they were written. The *INTENT* of their respective governments was to articulate the rights of white people, with no thought given to slaves.
The fact that the reality of their society as slave holding states absolutely contradict what they later claimed those words mean, should be all the proof any rational man needs to understand what they actually meant in 1776 and 1780 respectively.
And Article IV, section 2 is referring to "slaves", not indentured servants. You are trying to put a fig leaf on it, but it isn't fooling anyone.
You really had to search for that obscure opinion. Do you know that most people who followed the court then considered Justice Baldwin to be insane? Literally insane.
Where you been you old fart.
“Slave owning abolitionists. Their position seems to be “Yeah, we know it is wrong, but we just can’t help ourselves.””
This applies equally to slave trading abolitionists like John Newton, whose position seems to be “Yeah, we know it is wrong, but we just can’t help ourselves.” you’re trying too hard to go out of your way to be inconsistent this can’t be accidental.
I am absolutely oblivious to any inconsistency that you seem to be noticing. I'm not trying to be anything. I'm noticing stuff that doesn't fit with what you wish to believe about the founding era.
I'm contrary like that.
You are like the painter who is painting the King, and removing all the warts and blemishes because he wants to present the king in the best possible light.
I'm just coming along and repainting the warts and blemishes so that it is more accurate.
Wow, that language is marvelous. Look at that! Aww the poor king. Look at that, would you just look at that language that was used. Unlike the rest of what we've had recently, this is getting at honesty though. Wow look, LOOK at that. :-)
Couldn't have anything make your precious slaving vetoing king or your precious slave trading abolitionists look any the bit like they actually are, but the Founding Fathers get the worst possible light and can't possibly be abolitionists if involved with slavery in any quantity even though it was the Empire who mistreated us. (and again I like John Newton; I enjoy that Newton changed his mind; it's your consistency that's bitter. Newton is just as much wonderful as the Founders are to me)
Your greatest consistency though is in that you do not make any effort to claim America First. That you do deserve credit for. See. I do notice.
"I'm noticing stuff that doesn't fit with what you wish to believe about the founding era."
Yep, yep. But not a single flaw anywhere else do you see. It's only West of the Atlantic. What you don't say is what holds the key. Nothing at home on the Isles was ever wrong, ever. That marvelous language up above deserves to be framed of "painting the king".
"I'm just coming along and repainting the warts and blemishes so that it is more accurate."
Yes, I see how every bit of it is only on one side of the Atlantic, the West side. I do see that. Its entirely stacked on this one side. Almost as if it isn't accidental. Almost as if you've chosen a side - not the American side. It's not actually that the King literally did veto anti-slaving laws, look at your language, look at that marvelous language up above "painting the king". In your view I'm just painting the veto on. For you, the fact and evidence in the first draft of the Declaration, the Virginia Constitution 1776, the Constitutional Convention they say it originated with the Empire, the text of Virginia's law the text of the veto itself and the text of Virginia's response.
None of that matters for you. The evidence could not be more irrelevant. It's still the Founders at fault for you, and the King only needs to be the King to be the innocent because (POOF) there is no evidence. What text? What Virginia Constitution, Virginia never wrote a Constitution! What evidence? Where! Who! It might as well be that I wrote the text of the veto, I got in my time machine and put it into the historical record. Because the king is clearly innocent and there's just painting going on.
The sad thing is, you're usually proclaiming how the North mistreated the South and you can't get enough of the civil war, which at least on the surface places you on the side of the South in Civil War contexts but that's not really where you stand. You're not in any way on the South's side. A part of me wants to goad you into how big of a God Lincoln was just to see you disconnect from it all and forget that you put yourself on Britain's side. But its not worth it because you don't see how you undermined your usual Civil War schtick.
You're apparently not seeing that Virginia is a Southern State. How did you forget that Virginia is a part of the South? These were Southerners who were mistreated by the King. That still isn't enough to register with you and your Civil War ideology. God bless your King. God bless your King and all his mistreatment of even Southerners. Even if you want to marginalize it as if the Virginians authored the most racist of all laws in all of world history and they wanted to throw Blacks into gas chambers at the end of the day Virginia did in fact pass this law and the King did in fact veto that law that the people hoped for. There's no way to not cast this as the King mistreating the South. But that doesn't register with you. God bless your King. There's your priority. Right there.
That makes all your Civil War stuff fake. I'm really glad I never got sucked into that boring topic after all, cause in the end you didn't even mean it. All the decades you've invested into it, it's all fake. Virginia was a Southern state and the King mistreated the South.
I have previously commented on your ability to notice things that aren't there. Here is another example.
Of course I want America first. What sort of moron doesn't?
But why should we slap a coat of pain on our ugly past? I think truth serves us better.
I see you have been reading Wikipedia again.
Maybe not. Maybe you are just taking a page out of Brother Joe's playbook. Less than 48 hours ago Brother Joe woke up and realized he didn't like an 1857 Supreme Court decision so he posted thusly: “Crazy Roger Taney was out of his fricken’ mind, a raging lunatic in judicial robes.”
This was in regards to a 7-2 Supreme Court decision. No indication if Brother Joe thought the other six justices were raging lunatics.
Or maybe you are taking a page out of the playbook of our good friend across the aisle: Sister Maxine Waters. A little over 48 hours ago she announced a campaign to overturn the 2024 presidential election using the 25th amendment.
Same general theme: President Trump is probably crazy.
The smear that President Trump is insane has actually been going on for some time headlines show.
https://newrepublic.com/article/192786/trump-tariffs-insane-method-madness
There is no shame in your being blindsided by the finding of a northern Supreme Court Justice that slavery was the corner stone of the United States Constitution. That information is not part of the “Won Cause Myths” that you have been taught.
Just don't be like Brother Joe and let it happen to you over and over again.
No, not Wikipedia,
Baldwin missed the 1833 term of the Court while he was hospitalized for what was called "incurable lunacy." Justice Joseph Story felt that his colleague was "partially deranged at all times." Baldwin reportedly continued to suffer from bouts of bizarre, even violent behavior on the bench after he returned. Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions Richard Peters, Jr. wrote that five people in one day said that the Justice was "crazy." His views were also highly unconventional, as Baldwin acknowledged in a treatise on the Constitution and U.S. government. He left scant impact on the law.
Source: https://supreme.justia.com/justices/henry-baldwin/
But ya, I know. Just another damn yankee source trying to contradict your impeccable rebel history.
Maybe not. Maybe you are just taking a page out of Brother Joe's playbook. Less than 48 hours ago Brother Joe woke up and realized he didn't like an 1857 Supreme Court decision so he posted thusly: “Crazy Roger Taney was out of his fricken’ mind, a raging lunatic in judicial robes.”This was in regards to a 7-2 Supreme Court decision. No indication if Brother Joe thought the other six justices were raging lunatics.
This was an opinion that was never judicially overruled with a finding that it was wrong on the law. It was overturned by a constitutional amendment.
The Opinion of the Court found that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, and therefore the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.
Conclusion of Dred Scott opinion by Taney:
Upon the whole, therefore, it is the judgment of this court, that it appears by the record before us that the plaintiff in error is not a citizen of Missouri, in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution; and that the Circuit Court of the United States, for that reason, had no jurisdiction in the case, and could give no judgment in it. Its judgment for the defendant must, consequently, be reversed, and a mandate issued, directing the suit to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
The Mandate is an official mode of communicating the judgment of the appellate court to the lower court.
As the mandate issued to the Circuit Court in the case of Scott v. Sandford shows, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case, and remanded the case to that court with instructions to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.
Missouri, C.C.U.S.No. 7
Dred Scott, Ptff. in Er.
vs.
John F.A. SandfordFiled 30th December 1854.
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
March 6th, 1857. —
- - - - - - - - - -
No. 7
Ptff. in Er.
Dred Scott
vs.
John F.A. SandfordIn error to the Circuit Court of the United Stated for the District of Missouri.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Missouri and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the said Circuit Court in this cause be and the same is hereby reversed for the want of jurisdiction in that court and that this cause be and the same is hereby remanded to the said Circuit Court with directions to dismiss the case for the want of jurisdiction in that court. —
Ch. Jus. Taney
6th March 1857
“I’m sure somewhere in you Lost Cause myths you imagined that but I sure have never seen it and I have studied the Civil War era far more than you have.” (sic)
That sure didn’t age well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.