US, not africans, responsible for slavery

[Pekka]

So you come here, insulting people personally. Way to go. Keep it up. At this rate you will be banned from this board in a week you racist pig vomit.

You have no class man, no class. Mind your own business.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Nickiow



In October, 1778, the General Assembly of Virginia, then freed from the control of the British King, passed an act forever prohibiting the further importation of slaves into her Commonwealth.

Could I point out that banning the importation of slaves from abroad by sea or land is not the abolition of slavery ? It is simply the cessation of an external slave trade- a different kettle of fish altogether.

Since slavery obviously persisted in Virginia and elsewhere, and slaves could also be exported from Virginia.

Well im sorry to say that the state of VA outlawed international and interstate slave trade several years before the Uk did and they are the first nation to do so

Also: Virginia was not a 'nation', but a colony, then a state.

The first nation officially to ban slavery and emancipate slaves was Revolutionary France, in 1794

In London, Judge Mansfield at the Court of King's Bench created a legal precedent by finding that the master of a young African man named James Somerset had no right to compel him to board a ship. Somerset had been bought by his master, Charles Stewart, in Boston, Massachusetts in 1769.

As soon as Mr. Somerset landed in England he put himself forward as a test case by declaring himself free, citing a legal ruling from 1771 by Judge Blackstone:

"... a slave or negro, the moment he lands in England falls under theprotection of the laws... and becomes
eo instanti a free man."

which ruling was in itself simply a restatement of Lord Chief Justice Holt's declaration from 1706:

"No man can have property in another...there is no such thing as a slave by the laws of England."


So technically, slavery in England was outlawed in 1772, although it could be argued as per Holt, that as a status it had no legal validity from 1706 onwards.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Pekka
So you come here, insulting people personally. Way to go. Keep it up. At this rate you will be banned from this board in a week you racist pig vomit.

You have no class man, no class. Mind your own business.

Funny!!.

Now, if you can, show where i have said anything that is not factually correct?.

[Pekka]

Same goes for you pig vomit. Everything I have said about you is true.

[Pekka]

Just apologize me and this will be done with. No additions, no crying or whining. You have gone to personal matters, so you should say you're sorry.

I'm waiting for your apology here.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by molly bloom

Could I point out that banning the importation of slaves from abroad by sea or land is not the abolition of slavery ? It is simply the cessation of an external slave trade- a different kettle of fish altogether.

Since slavery obviously persisted in Virginia and elsewhere, and slaves could also be exported from Virginia.

Yes thats a good point, its the same difference in the USA ending slavery withe the 13th and then ratification by state, that does not end slavery since some sates then made slaves free after 28 years more service.

The export of slaves from Va into another state is very important in legal terms, since after one year in a new state, unless the owner becomes a citizen of that new state, the slave may sue for freedom and under US fundamtal law is given it, this means of freedom was, after freddom after death of the owner the principle meaqns of gaining freedom by slaves.

The interstate commerce act forged the new states into a commercial single nation more effectivly than almost any other single piece of legiuslation untill the WBTS, it made it legal to move property beween states, had VA not acceded to it, slavery was no longer legal in it, on a specific technical point of law, VA pre dates the Uk on the banning of its slave trade.

However VA set the principle of what a Republcan form of government was, ie the consent to be governed, and made it clear thatv slavery was inconsistant with this principle, made clear its oposistion to it in its state constition, bill of rights and legal system as soon as it was codified.



The later non extension of slavery thus become avery important part of how to deall with emancipation, as this measure removed a centraql plank of emancipation.

Originally posted by molly bloom
Also: Virginia was not a 'nation', but a colony, then a state.

My bad i ment the nation of England was the first nation to ban the practice, or course your corrct that the colony of Va become a sov state, commonwealth, member of the Union etc.

Originally posted by molly bloom

The first nation officially to ban slavery and emancipate slaves was Revolutionary France, in 1794

Yes quite so, however 1772 Uk set free all slaves in the UK, this upset VA as its colonial charter contained the 15th caluse giving it the same legal rights as the UK, it was understandle upset that mansfields rulling in the Sumerset case that ends slavery in the Uk did not by extensiion apply to it as its Royal charter siad it must.

Repealed in 1802 in France though so rather short lived.


In L

Originally posted by molly bloom ondon, Judge Mansfield at the Court of King's Bench created a legal precedent by finding that the master of a young African man named James Somerset had no right to compel him to board a ship. Somerset had been bought by his master, Charles Stewart, in Boston, Massachusetts in 1769.

As soon as Mr. Somerset landed in England he put himself forward as a test case by declaring himself free, citing a legal ruling from 1771 by Judge Blackstone:

"... a slave or negro, the moment he lands in England falls under theprotection of the laws... and becomes
eo instanti a free man."

which ruling was in itself simply a restatement of Lord Chief Justice Holt's declaration from 1706:

"No man can have property in another...there is no such thing as a slave by the laws of England."


So technically, slavery in England was outlawed in 1772, although it could be argued as per Holt, that as a status it had no legal validity from 1706 onwards.

Yes all correct, we can by extension then apply the same to the US, fundamtal law of Tuckers Blackstone and also popular Sov both echoeing the exact same legal norms and parctice.

Do you wish to talk more specifficly about the Somerset case?

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Pekka
Same goes for you pig vomit. Everything I have said about you is true.

All i ask is some examples for verification, something a little more than i say so if you please.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Pekka
Just apologize me and this will be done with. No additions, no crying or whining. You have gone to personal matters, so you should say you're sorry.

I'm waiting for your apology here.

Prove your point and i will do so.

[Pekka]

Do I have to prove that you went personal with me? What are you, an idiot? I know that's a fact, but still.. I can't believe how rude you are. Come on, be the bigger man and apologize to me. You have nothing to lose here, just get on your knees, kiss my shoes and pray for forgiveness!

[Nickiow]

Molly you might want to consider the legal simularities between Va and the Uk on the intpretation of positive law on slavery.

Mansfield conclusion in the UK Somerset case

"The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only bybpossitve law, which preserves its force lonmg after the reasons, occaisons and time itself from which it was created are erased from memory. It is so odious that nothing can be suffered to support it but positive law. whatever inconvieniances therfore may floow from the descion, i cannot say thi case is allowed or approved by the law of England, and therfcore the black must be dischaarged."

In VA this was exactly the precedent followed, as under its charter the law of England applied the same to Va as did to England and had not been repealled, Oct 1778 the Sov State of Va in its statutues at large, ie law of the state, codified this as law.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Pekka
Do I have to prove that you went personal with me? What are you, an idiot? I know that's a fact, but still.. I can't believe how rude you are. Come on, be the bigger man and apologize to me. You have nothing to lose here, just get on your knees, kiss my shoes and pray for forgiveness!

Funny!!.

Having committed nothing to apologise for, since your unable to post exactly what has given offence in large measure, btw i find i cannot in all honesty apoligise for giving offence because all i have from you is that your offended, not what has caused the offense, now if you want me to apoligise that your offended by me pointing out you will answer both yes and no to the same question, are unable to support your claims and so on, your in for a long, long wait.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Nickiow


VA pre dates the Uk on the banning of its slave trade.

Actually it predates the United Kingdom only in the banning of an external slave trade, since as I've shown, the legal status of 'slave' in England did not exist- servants of African origin were on the same footing as non-African servants- as was proved by the crowd of black servants outside court where the Somerset trial was held, who staged a celebration of the court's decision at a public house in Westminster.

And of course, Francis Barber famously became the legal heir of Dr. Johnson.

In 1785 in Virginia, Carter Harrison made a motion in the Virginia House of Delegates to repeal the act of 1782 which had allowed slave owners to voluntarily manumit their slaves. The measure was passed by a single vote.

Do you wish to talk more specifficly about the Somerset case?

No, not really.

[Pekka]

Is that a threat? Are you threatning me?

[Nickiow]

Only you could feel threatened by a post on the web.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Actually it predates the United Kingdom only in the banning of an external slave trade, since as I've shown, the legal status of 'slave' in England did not exist- servants of African origin were on the same footing as non-African servants- as was proved by the crowd of black servants outside court where the Somerset trial was held, who staged a celebration of the court's decision at a public house in Westminster.

And of course, Francis Barber famously became the legal heir of Dr. Johnson.

In 1785 in Virginia, Carter Harrison made a motion in the Virginia House of Delegates to repeal the act of 1782 which had allowed slave owners to voluntarily manumit their slaves. The measure was passed by a single vote.




No, not really.

Ok looked back at what i said that caught your attmnetion "Well im sorry to say that the state of VA outlawed international and interstate slave trade several years before the Uk did."

which we now both agree on, and why i presume?, or have i not clarified your intrest enough?.

secondly
Well UK had slavery in law, it was called sefdom and then Vieliange under the Norman law, villiens ended in law in 1618 in the case of Peg v Calley for England, but slavery as a seperate issue was codified in 1699, 1732 and 1759 for overseas colonies.

Thats ( Harrisons) the emacipation by deed or will, without reference to the state legislature, and under ther provision that the aged and infirm were protected, passed may 1782.

ok so what shall we debate?.