General Discussion

factsarenotfair

(910 posts)

41. Well, maybe not.

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 12:35 PM

Aug 2013

EMANCIPATION in MASSACHUSETTS
The Massachusetts Legislature in 1777 tabled a proposal for gradual emancipation. The 1778 draft constitution legally recognized slavery and banned free blacks from voting. It was rejected at the polls, for other reasons. The more liberal state constitution approved two years later contained a bill of rights that declared "all men are born free and equal, and have ... the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberty."

This provided the basis for abolishing slavery in Massachusetts, but it clearly was not the intent of the Legislature to do so. Popular sentiment and the courts were pro-abolition, however. And it was a 1783 judicial decision, interpreting the wording of the 1780 constitution, that brought slavery to an end in Massachusetts.
http://www.slavenorth.com/massemancip.htm

And here is some fascinating reading about slavery in Massachusetts, about which I have been totally ignorant all of my life:
http://www.slavenorth.com/massachusetts.htm

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

106 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Thom Hartman: The 2nd Amendment was ratified to help preserve slavery. [View all] pnwmom Aug 2013 OP

I'd be uncomfortable saying there's one single reason for any part of the Constitution and BoR Recursion Aug 2013 #1

I'm not buying it. NYC_SKP Aug 2013 #2

Here is the original, thoroughly researched article from the UC Davis law review article. pnwmom Aug 2013 #3

I never meant to imply that the Bogus article didn't exist. NYC_SKP Aug 2013 #4

Yeah, Thom regularly makes silly statements about the constitution / law.. X_Digger Aug 2013 #5

Well, I was taught in school that judicial review was codified by Marbury vs. Madison... antigone382 Aug 2013 #55

First use in a SCOTUS case, yes. Thom believes it was created from whole cloth then. X_Digger Aug 2013 #58

Before you decide to be embarrassed for Mr. Hartmann, maybe you should read pnwmom Aug 2013 #10

Okay, granted. Another reason for the 2nd was so as not to abridge the Right to shoot Indians. leveymg Aug 2013 #7

Right. It's not an either-or issue. nt pnwmom Aug 2013 #11

Hey, our side gave away lots of little benefits from the Affordable Care Act in order to win votes calimary Aug 2013 #59

Fascinating. Just Saying Aug 2013 #6

Be on the lookout for confirmation bias. Igel Aug 2013 #8

Why does it even matter why the amendment was ratified other than historical curiosity? branford Aug 2013 #9

Why does it matter? It matters if you think it was enacted to fight tyranny -- pnwmom Aug 2013 #12

Haven't we been fighting that somewhat mythical external enemy to preserve the power of the planter leveymg Aug 2013 #15

The slave insurrection theory of the Second Amendment is an extreme fringe view. branford Aug 2013 #16

I don't totally oppose the right to keep and bear arms. pnwmom Aug 2013 #22

It's not an either / or proposition. branford Aug 2013 #26

No one questions that guns and gun ownership can't be regulated. hack89 Aug 2013 #29

I don't think I have to tell you... NYC_SKP Aug 2013 #14

I don't want to do away with the 2nd Amendment. pnwmom Aug 2013 #24

Again, who is saying that gun Jenoch Aug 2013 #77

That's basically the NRA's position. n/t pnwmom Aug 2013 #78

You HAVE to provide a link. Jenoch Aug 2013 #79

The ad hominem attacks are a 'tell': you are "embarassed" and X Digger calls Hartman "silly" live love laugh Aug 2013 #96

Poverty and hopelessness are the root of Detroit's problems. NYC_SKP Aug 2013 #98

LOL. Member since: Wed Jul 24, 2013. Favorite group: Gun Control & RKBA. DanTex Aug 2013 #30

Except virtually every one of my posts is in General Discussion on a variety of topics. branford Aug 2013 #34

As you can see, the subject of guns tends to attract self-appointed political officers. friendly_iconoclast Aug 2013 #49

If you've actually been reading for a while, then you are surely aware of the huge number of gun DanTex Aug 2013 #62

You are free to assume the worst motives from those with whom you disagree on this issue, branford Aug 2013 #67

Inevitable is a pretty strong word. DanTex Aug 2013 #69

Conservatives like me? Wow. branford Aug 2013 #72

Most of the Democratic party? LOL. DanTex Aug 2013 #75

I'm not "caving" to the GOP on guns, I agree with them on this issue as do many other Democrats. branford Aug 2013 #80

Depends what you mean by "many". DanTex Aug 2013 #81

Guns are somewhat unique politically. branford Aug 2013 #83

I don't see much evidence for that. DanTex Aug 2013 #86

My views on guns are largely irrelevant here in Manhattan. branford Aug 2013 #90

Bogus' theory has been savaged by respected historians for the partisan crap it is. X_Digger Aug 2013 #13

That's a pretty devastating debunking of the OP (nt) Nye Bevan Aug 2013 #17

Agreed. The assertion related in the OP is revisionist horseshit. (nt) Lizzie Poppet Aug 2013 #18

By "respected Historians" ThoughtCriminal Aug 2013 #19

Do you have a link to the work of these "respected historians"? pnwmom Aug 2013 #21

Pick up any Sanford Levinson, William Van Alstyne, or Laurence Tribe treatise on the subject. X_Digger Aug 2013 #33

Flawed report ThoughtCriminal Aug 2013 #39

Read it for yourself and decide- X_Digger Aug 2013 #42

Both ThoughtCriminal Aug 2013 #44

Dear, my words are generally my own. I use DU's 'excerpt' to denote a cut and paste. X_Digger Aug 2013 #46

Generally your own ThoughtCriminal Aug 2013 #48

Lol, two sentences about two states (well three _sentences_). X_Digger Aug 2013 #51

"Research methods" ThoughtCriminal Aug 2013 #52

I'm not citing Kopel's opinion, I'm citing Kopel citing *state constitutions* X_Digger Aug 2013 #56

Does Kopel disagree with Bogus on the motivation of slavery? ThoughtCriminal Aug 2013 #64

That was the book, yep. X_Digger Aug 2013 #65

I still don't see why Vermont's state Constitution has to do with Virginia in 1788 ThoughtCriminal Aug 2013 #68

I've always only quoted Kopel for the state constitutions- to say otherwise is disingenuous. X_Digger Aug 2013 #76

Quite different motivations and wording ThoughtCriminal Aug 2013 #85

Semantic self-perturbation. X_Digger Aug 2013 #92

An example of the tyranny that is being sold us under the label of liberty. freshwest Aug 2013 #20

Wow. rrneck Aug 2013 #23

Unless they get stopped and frisked in NYC that is Motown_Johnny Aug 2013 #28

Thanks for the exceptional O.P. n/t Judi Lynn Aug 2013 #25

I've been saying that for years... Motown_Johnny Aug 2013 #27

"There really can't be any doubt." Really? branford Aug 2013 #38

An overstatement.. OK.. but still valid Motown_Johnny Aug 2013 #40

I'm certainly not going to defend slaveholders . . . branford Aug 2013 #47

As a lawyer then, please consider this evidence Motown_Johnny Aug 2013 #57

I am not asking you to agree with me, and do not doubt the sincerity of your beliefs. branford Aug 2013 #63

Lots of stuff in there Motown_Johnny Aug 2013 #94

Cue the gun trolls posting links to articles by Wayne LaPierre "debunking" this... DanTex Aug 2013 #31

When a DUer pointed out above that MA inserted the right to bear arms into its constitution in 1780, Nye Bevan Aug 2013 #32

Well, maybe not. factsarenotfair Aug 2013 #41

Interesting.... thanks. I often learn stuff at DU (nt) Nye Bevan Aug 2013 #43

Who needs Wayne LaPierre when we have the research and writings of Lawrence Tribe? branford Aug 2013 #36

This is an inherently intellectually dishonest argument Taitertots Aug 2013 #35

Thank you for pointing that out. 1-Old-Man Aug 2013 #37

Yeah, but it makes a nice bookend..... Paladin Aug 2013 #45

Gun control sometimes was and is racist- just not always. friendly_iconoclast Aug 2013 #50

That isn't/wasn't how the Gun Enthusiasts present/presented it. Paladin Aug 2013 #97

I am/was sure you do/did friendly_iconoclast Aug 2013 #101

The true meaning of the 2nd amendment will be revealed in 24 business hours. tritsofme Aug 2013 #53

The war on The Second Amendment (among others) continues. Skip Intro Aug 2013 #54

Shhh. Not so loud. NutmegYankee Aug 2013 #61

Ludicrous and irrelevant. nt Demo_Chris Aug 2013 #60

Pure nonsense. former9thward Aug 2013 #66

Madison is a dead old slave owner. What would he know? /sarc branford Aug 2013 #70

Doesn't really matter on the original intent of the amendment. roamer65 Aug 2013 #71

Be very careful what you wish for . . . branford Aug 2013 #74

Partly right...insurrections, invasions, enforcing the laws. jmg257 Aug 2013 #73

Your effort to repeal 2A is futile. GreenStormCloud Aug 2013 #82

In fairness, there's also the more leisurely route of a full Constitutional Convention . . . branford Aug 2013 #84

Sounds fitting. My experience leads me to believe most gun lovers are also bigots, especially Hoyt Aug 2013 #87

This message was self-deleted by its author tumtum Aug 2013 #89

I'd always Understood it as the Original Dads Wolf Frankula Aug 2013 #88

The Founders greatly feared the corrupting power of a strong, unrestrained central government. branford Aug 2013 #91

And even then, only piecemeal.. X_Digger Aug 2013 #93

It Has Been Argued the SCOTUS was in error Wolf Frankula Aug 2013 #104

exactly that's why it's so closely identified w the South and racist groups today. librechik Aug 2013 #95

Or . . . branford Aug 2013 #99

or librechik Aug 2013 #100

Which is precisely my point. branford Aug 2013 #102

And they hate mstinamotorcity2 Aug 2013 #103

I don't like the fact that the second amendment appears via Thom Hartman to preserve slave militia midnight Aug 2013 #105

That is discouraging, but I guess not too surprising. n/t pnwmom Aug 2013 #106