Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
John Adams
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Saturday, 27th December 2008
What does everyone think about this drama, set during the American War of Independence? The first of a seven-episode series was shown on Channel 4 tonight....
IMHO, the jury's still out on it. I was pleased to see the series showed the English soldiers involved in the Boston massacre in a more positive light. And it was good to see they showed the oft-ignored Newton Prince, the black barber who testified on behalf of the redcoats. However, evidence shows that Prince was ignored by Adams after he secured the verdict he wanted. Angry American Patriots turned on Prince, and had him tarred and feathered. The experience was so terrible that Prince had no hesitation joining General Howe, and fighting on behalf of the British. I was disappointed that this episode ignored the consequences faced by Prince for supporting Adams. The series seemed to be more concerned with painting Admas whiter than white....
It has been recorded that Abigail Adams, his wife, made some bold statements about the institution of slavery, and how horrible it was, and how she wished that there was no slave in the entire state of Massachusetts. Adams himself, however, was far more hypocritical on this issue. Equality obviously did not extend to black slaves, as far as he was concerned.
Will the series bring out this double standards? Or will it be the usual Hollywood hero-worship stuff?
The jury's still out.... -
Message 2
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) ** on Sunday, 28th December 2008
Or will it be the usual Hollywood hero-worship stuff?Β
It's not a Hollywood production. The series is made by HBO television in New York. -
Message 3
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 29th December 2008
Watch the rest of it, shivfan, and let us know.
-
Message 4
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Saturday, 10th January 2009
My apologies for calling it a Hollywood production. Hollywood has moved on from the 1960s productions of WWII movies, where the Americans single-handedly won the War, in spite of the incompetent British and the machinations of the evil Russians. Here, in the third episode, the Americans single-handedly secured their independence, in spite of the incompetent, fobbish, homosexual behaviour of the dandies in the French government!
I missed the second episode last week, because I was watching the FA Cup. If this evening's third episode is anything to go by, it was a sensible decision. The third episode was absolute rot! Pure jingoistic rubbish....
The programme ignored the role the French navy played in securing the victory of the American War of Independence. It gave the impression that Adams alone was responsible for cajoling the French into doing their duty in fighting the British. I mean, really! When did the French need persuading to fight the British?
And still this programme perpetuated the myth that this war was fought solely between the Americans and the British. Benedict Arnold is labelled a traitor, as if he was the only colonist who fought on the side of the British. The programme again conveniently ignores the fact that this was, in many respects, a civil war - a war in which the Patriots triumphed over the Loyalists. One set of Americans beat another.
I was hopeful that this programme would explode some of these long-held myths. Instead, it perpetuated them, in spite of the historical evidence that has been staring them in the face for many years.... -
Message 5
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Saturday, 10th January 2009
The programme ignored the role the French navy played in securing the victory of the American War of Independence. It gave the impression that Adams alone was responsible for cajoling the French into doing their duty in fighting the British.Β
I don't think we saw the same episode.
In the one I watched, Adams didn't seem to achieve anything much in Paris. Franklin seemed to override him all the time.
As for Yorktown, it was attributed to "the Allied army under our glorious general" - presumably Washington - "and the fleet under Admiral De Grasse". Reasonable enough.
Benedict Arnold is labelled a traitor, as if he was the only colonist who fought on the side of the British. The programme again conveniently ignores the fact that this was, in many respects, a civil war - a war in which the Patriots triumphed over the Loyalists. One set of Americans beat another.Β
Agreed, it neglected the role of the loyalists. But Arnold was hardly a loyalist in the usual sense. He had been on the Rebel side from day one and accepted high rank in it - only to desert when he quarreled with certain of his compatriots, and the other side made him an offer. Whatever sympathy one may have for loyalists in general (I have a great deal. "Oliver Wiswell" is one of my favourite books) I think traitor is a fair description of one who acts as Arnold did. -
Message 6
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Saturday, 17th January 2009
Indeed, the episode did show Adams being overruled by Franklin on a regular basis, but of course that was countered by the programme portraying Franklin as immorally living with a Frenchwoman who's face is constantly covered in powder. The programme makes no effort to show that Adams was wrong in insisting that France needed to commit more ships, because the ships that France used was enough to serve the purpose of the French Revolution.
As for Arnold, he was not the only one to switch sides. He was an example of history being written by the victors....
The fourth episode was much better, but once again its portrayal of history leaves a lot to be desired. Adams does not like England becasue there are 'too many wigs, too much bowing and scraping, and too much pomp and ceremony'. Is that indeed all that can be said of England at that time? Sadly, the TV series does little to dispel that interpretation of England at that time.
The episode shows Adams meeting King George III, but not the prime minister, giving the impression that the king had more power in terms of policy than the party in power. That is a misinterpretation brought about by a convenient omission. Of course, the series seeks to portray Britain as an autocratic kingdom, so meeting a prime minister would not suit that interpretation, now would it? -
Message 7
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Saturday, 17th January 2009
Once again, an american TV show continues its deification of Washington and Jefferson. When are we going to get a series that takes a good, long hard at these two leaders, without looking at them thru rose-tinted glasses?
Both Washington and Jefferson were big slave-owners, and the freedom they envisaged was for the white Americans, not the black slaves. These two leaders - along with Adams himself - were very hypocritical in their pronouncements on slavery. Contrast their statements to those made by Abigail Adams, the wife of John, who lamented the institution, and wished it had never existed. Do we see any of that in this series? No, because it doesn't serve the process of hero-worship that makes up a lot of American historical television....
The loyalists offered black slaves their freedom if they fought alongside the British, which is why most blacks took up the offer. Of course, how they were treated by the British after the war was lost is another story worth telling. I've yet to see an American TV production debunk the myth created by the Mel Gibson movie aobut the Patriot and all Americans - black and white - fighting against the brutal British oppressor.... -
Message 8
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Sunday, 18th January 2009
What you call hero worship, I call good story telling. Why belabor the mundane and uninteresting parts of a man's life instead of the extraordinary characteristics and actions that make his life worth telling?
Perhaps I am wrong and a show entitled "How all those you thought heroes are hypocrites and scoundrels no better than you or I" would sell nicely. Perhaps you ought to produce it and get rich. I wouldn't watch it because I already know that those men were better than I am and also because I wouldn't find it interesting to learn that, yes, they were human too.
As Franklin said, "Even a King upon his throne is obliged to sit on his ass like everyone else". But is not his ass that makes him a King to be reckoned with but the crown on his head. Washington's slave ownership does not distinguish him from any other Virginia gentlemen. His courage in physical danger, steadfast commitment to republican self-government, his outstanding leadership in combat and civic affairs are what makes him outstanding and makes his story worth telling.
As for winners writing history, it is true, and they won because of great men of action like Jefferson, Washington, and Adams. Men who put all at risk to act on their belief instead of merely whining about what they thought others ought to be doing.
If you have never toured Monticello, I strongly suggest that you do so. My tour was conducted by a descendent of Jefferson's slaves and was an eye-opening experience regarding the nuances of the multigenerational relationship between two families. -
Message 9
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Sunday, 18th January 2009
Hi Kurt,
I went to see Mount Vernon, with some friends. The entire Estate shows the personality of George Washington so well. It is basically a simple house with a guest bedroom, nicely decorated, in the style of the 18th century, where Washington hosted many very important people, after his Presidency.
What a truly great man, to not accept the near monarchy that was offered him but convert the US Presidency to the wonderful, strong institution that it has become.
It seems clear to me that here was a man, who left his ego at the door, when he became President. And how wonderful it is to see the transfer of Power from one President to the other, in a highly civilized manner, as we are going to see once again in two days time.
It all really makes you proud to be American.
Tas -
Message 10
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Sunday, 18th January 2009
I like the remark of John F.Kennedy when he hosted a dinner during his Presidency for all the living US Nobel Prizewinners and began his speech by saying:
"This must be the greatest array of talent ever assembled in the White House since Thomas Jefferson dined alone." -
Message 11
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Sunday, 25th January 2009
One point from the latest episode. When Adams takes over from Washington as President, he finds his residence stripped bare by souvenir hunters.
Anyone know where the Residence was? Clearly not the White House, as the government didn't move to Washington until 1800. So presumably somewhere in Philadelphia. Was there a recognised place of residence there for the Chief Executive? -
Message 12
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Sunday, 25th January 2009
Both Washington and Adams lived in a house on Market Street, Philadelphia, the temporary seat of the Federal Government until 1800, although they had to pay $2,700 per annum in rent and Β£2,500 for carriages and horses out of the Presidential salary of $25,000.
Looking at the McCullough book on which the series is based the scene is rather fanciful since Abigail did not move into the house at the same time as John did since he wrote to her after moving in two and half weeks after his inauguration when he complains that "this house has been a scene of the most scandalous drinking and disorder that I have ever heard of." He doesn't mention anything about souvenir hunters.
Since this was not only the President's residence but, as in the case of the White House later, where executive branch business was transacted and Cabinet meetings were held and since in the scenes when Washington was President it seemed in excellent order I suspect that Washington transported most of the furnishings and fittings to Mount Vernon.
Congress did eventually allot $14,000 (worth about $235,000 or Β£173,000 at current prices and exchange rates) to buy new furniture. Adams was the first President to live in the White House although only for the last 4 months of his Presidency from December 1800 to March 1801.
After the capital was moved to Washington the President's House was turned into first a hotel then stores and warehouses but was gutted by fire in 1832 and the walls were demolished between 1935-51. There is currently a plan to turn the site of the house which has recently been excavated into a museum, no doubt using largesse from the bail-out programme.
An excellent history of the house may be found here:
-
Message 13
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Sunday, 25th January 2009
As for winners writing history, it is true, and they won because of great men of action like JeffersonΒ
Is that the good 'ol white racist who, having formally declared all men equal, used to sneak down to the barn each night and impregnate his favourite "created equal" black slave girl, Sally Hemings, by whom he had a number (probably 5+) young slave progeny?
Wonderful world, that 'land of the free' if you are white, of course!
Do they teach history at all in the US? -
Message 14
Posted by JBsidetheseaside (U13725236) on Monday, 26th January 2009
Not fair. The statement that all men were created equal clearly excludes women if you have an 18th century mindset, and if you are from a certain class you can clearly understand that 'men' would never include slaves who by definition never attain the status of adults.
Regards the question, what they teacch in the US Public school system varies from area to area, under the influence of the school board system, but in general they do tend to join with the great majority of the world in propogating The Great National Myth which students are required to repeat uncritically in machine-marked tick-box tests.
The TV series in question was created with the specific intention of addressing some of these national myths, humanising the demi-gods and showing how their motives and actions were often far from noble, but even then it seems some matters remain too great a leap, such as recognition of the loyal colonists and the persistent beleif that "King George"* as they insist on calling him was capable of tyrrany in spite of his madness.
(*The story goes that Alan Bennett's stage play had to be re-named for the screen in case US audiences were reluctant to see 'The Madness of George III' because assumed they had missed the first two films.) -
Message 15
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) ** on Monday, 26th January 2009
'men' would never include slaves who by definition never attain the status of adults.Β
Does this mean that Thomas Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemings would have been classified as committing the statutory rape of a minor? -
Message 16
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Monday, 26th January 2009
U Number,
You fall in the mistake of applying the values of our time to a period in the past.
At different periods of history societies have different values; I imagine people like you will be criticising us , our period for things that we do not regard as out of the ordinary, but in their times it might be a 'no-no'.
To do respect to history, you must look at a time in its own context. Here we are talking about 1770s, when most of Europe was under a monarchical system. In France the aristocrats regarded themselves as above the law. If they killed a commoner by treading on him with their carriages, by driving too fast, no one paid the slightest attention; there were no traffic cops at that timed even to give them a ticket for a traffic violation; hence the Revolution of 1789.
In the United States, they were setting up almost the first system of self-government any where. It was a gigantic leap for that time to say that "All men are created Equal." This was a period before the concept of general elections, yet these people were trying to set up a system of franchise.
What is incredible is not what they missed (woman, slaves, etc.) but rather what they included. Note that even with the Reform act of 1832, in Britain, there was no general adult franchise; that had to wait almost till Disraeli's legislation of 1873.
On these boards, we are used to some balance in our arguments. Think, sir a little before you post.
Tas -
Message 17
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Monday, 26th January 2009
Spot on, Tas! It needed saying and you said it well.
-
Message 18
Posted by JBsidetheseaside (U13725236) on Monday, 26th January 2009
Vizzer, Msg 15:
More likely it was in line with the first US Supreme Court judgement on the legality of slavery, the Dread Scott Case, which ruled that said petitioner's claim that he had the right to life nd liberty was not valid when his master's rights took precedence on account of Dread being property not person, they said. -
Message 19
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Monday, 26th January 2009
"Is that the good 'ol white racist who, having formally declared all men equal,"
Your confused, TJ did not mean that all men were to have equal rights under the constition, he ment all free property owners of the male gender would. Dont they teach history where you live?.
"used to sneak down to the barn each night and impregnate his favourite "created equal" black slave girl,"
Actually slaves held under contract, were under the US Constition exluded from being equal by the constition itself that recognised contracts and forbade any state from abrogating them, so under the highest law of the land, slaves as parties to a contract were not nor could ever be equal untill emnacipated. Dont they teach law where you live?.
"Sally Hemings, by whom he had a number (probably 5+) young slave progeny?"
Ok under existing US law he could free her and her ofspring, which he provided for, aparantly you think interacial sex activilty is a crime, care to share the evidence from the female of this alleged crime?.
"Wonderful world, that 'land of the free' if you are white, of course!"
Your confused between what constitutes a world, and what constitutes a portion of that world, and since land of the free is froma time period rather out of TJ i find your grasp of time somewhat elastic.
Since 000s of negros were free, and owing 30k others as slaves in La for instance.
"Do they teach history at all in the US?"
Yes they do, clearly you are not from the US tho. -
Message 20
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Monday, 26th January 2009
Note that even with the Reform act of 1832, in Britain, there was no general adult franchise; that had to wait almost till Disraeli's legislation of 1873.Β
I think you mean the 1867 Reform Act. However this only applied to the incorporated borough constituencies and to male householders who paid at least Β£10 in rent annually (about 3/6d per week). The more exclusive rules of the 1832 Act still applied to the more numerous county constituencies. Although this doubled the number of voters from abot 1m to 2m about 3m male householders (and the majority of adult males) were stiill left disenfranchised.
The Third Reform Act of 1884 passed by Gladstone's Second Ministry (although supported by Salisbury - who had famously walked out of the Cabinet when Disraeli had presented his proposals in 1867 condemning them as "a leap in the dark"- and the Conservative opposition) applied the 1867 rules to all constituencies and set up a Boundary Commission to equalise, as far as possible, all Parliamentary constituencies - one of the demands of the Chartists. However due to the shortage of housing and the extended family this still left around 40% of adult males without a vote.
In the election of December 1910, the last to be held under the 1884 rules, the electorate was only 7,700,000 in a total population of 42m. In his memoir, "Past Masters", Harold Macmillan describes attending pre-WWI political meetings when a youthful-looking heckler would be reprimanded by the chairman asking, "Are you a voter, Sir?"
The resentment towards the idea of female suffrage was not just male prejudice but due to the fact that so many men did not have the vote. This was particularly true amongst the working-class who could not afford to rent their own homes or could not afford to rent homes a\t the level to qualify for the vote.
The suffragette movement undermined its own cause by refusing to take on the issue of the property franchise. Even militant suffragists like Mrs Pankhurst were careful to point out that they only wanted the vote for women only as it currently applied to men, in other words only women who were householders of sufficient value or married to householders would qualify for the vote.
This also accounts for the reluctance of the pre-WWI Liberal Government to accede to the suffragists' demands since Asquith knew that granting some women the vote would inevitably give rise to the demand that the 40% of men who did not have the vote be given it and the abolition of the property franchise.
In the event it was the sacrifices of WWI which swept away the property franchise since many of those who fought in the trenches did not qualify for the vote (they were below the minimum age of 21 as well as being non-householders) and the Representation of the People Act 1918 enfranchised all adult males regardless of whether or not they owned or rented property (it also enfranxchised all those who had served in the Armed Forces regardless of age). It is really from this Act that we should see Britain as a mass-democracy and not before.
As an afterthought an amendment was presented which dealt with the enfranchisement of women. However oddly, the property qualification was retained for women, meaning they had to be householders or married to one as well as imposing a higher minimum voting age of 30.
It was only in 1928 (14 years after the last Suffragette demonstration) in an Act pushed through by a Conservative Government in a bid to regain popularity before a General Election that the rules were equalised for both men and women (it failed and many Conservatives blamed their loss of seats abnd the return of a second minority Labour Government - probably incorrectly - on the "flapper" vote). -
Message 21
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Monday, 26th January 2009
"You fall in the mistake of applying the values of our time to a period in the past."
Indeed, in fact iv read others comment on TJ as being racist because of his oft used comment on negros and apes mating, as evidence of his racism, since at that time, this was the scientific answer, as oposed to biblical answer, of where negros came from and had been the man of science answer from the 1600 when it was first advanced by men of science asa better answer of the difference between human over the world.
I liked the rest of your post, i dont know if you know this but offer it asa histiorical tid bit, in the WBTS the elections were done in the open and you picked a coloured strip to show which party you placed you vote for, since this allowed for retribution etc, ( worst case being 10k of the voters in Marlyand proposed secesion being arrested for polouting the ballot by the Federal Army and detained at Ft Dix untill the ballot was over) the US adopted the scandanavian secret ballot system.
Revolution was new word back then as well, it ment something different as well, in the UK Royal dictionary it was used/invented to describe the political change in France in which one system of governemnet changed as a different section of society was repalced with another as the dominate political body. Revolution does not always have to be hand in hand with voilence, the GR in the Uk was one such, and Madison and others who wrote of the right of revolution were not refering only to go get your gun, but also to the idea of peacfull redress.
As ive not seen the program in question i cant comment on it, but i will write that films and Tv are for entertainemnt not education, so the balance of historial acuracy, irepsective of subjective viewpoint, is secondry to that goal. -
Message 22
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Monday, 26th January 2009
Supreme court in DS was forgone conclusion as to the status of the negro slave, there wasa massive body of legisl;ative rullings on this.
Hobbs v. Fogg
a free Black man sued for the right to vote in Pennsylvania. The State supreme court replied:
...[A] free negro or mulatto is not a citizen within the meaning of the Constitution and laws of the United States, and of the State of Pennsylvania, and, therefore, is not entitled to the right of suffrage.... But in addition to interpretation from usage, this antecedent legislation declared that no colored race was party to our social compact. Our ancestors settled the province as a community of white men; and the blacks were introduced into it as a race of slaves; whence an unconquerable prejudice of caste, which has come down to our day.... Consistently with this prejudice, is it to be credited that parity of rank would be allowed to such a race?... I have thought fair to treat the question as it stands affected by our own municipal regulations without illustration from those of other States, where the condition of the race has been still less favored. Yet it is proper to say that the second section of the fourth article of the Federal Constitution, presents an obstacle to the political freedom of the negro, which seems to be insuperable.
The Ohio supreme court Calvin v. Carter
It has always been admitted, that our political institutions embrace the white population only. Persons of color were not recognized as having any political existence. They had no agency in our political organizations, and possessed no political rights under it. Two or three of the States form exceptions. The constitutions of fourteen expressly exclude persons of color by a provision similar to our own; and, in the balance of the States, they are excluded on the ground that they were never recognized as a part of the body politic.... Indeed, it is a matter of history, that the very object of introducing the word white into our constitution, by the convention framing that instrument, was to put this question beyond all cavil or doubt, by, in express terms, excluding all persons from the enjoyment of the elective franchise, except persons of pure white blood.
Thacher v. Hawk Indiana supreme court
This exclusion of persons of color, or, of any degree of colored blood, from all political rights, is not founded upon a mere naked prejudice, but upon natural differences. The two races are placed as wide apart by the hand of nature as white from black, and, to break down the barriers, fixed, as it were, by the Creator himself, in a political and social amalgamation, shocks us, as something unnatural and wrong. It strikes us as a violation of the laws of nature. It would be productive of no good. It would degrade the white, if it could be accomplished, without elevating the black. Indeed, if we gather lessons of wisdom from the history of mankind β€” walk by the light of our experience, or consult the principles of human nature, we shall be convinced that the two races never can live together upon terms of equality and harmony.
Crandall v. The State Connecticut supreme court
The persons contemplated in this act are not citizens within the obvious meaning of that section of the Constitution of the United States which I have just read. Let me begin by putting this plain question: Are slaves citizens? At the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State was a slave State.... We all know that slavery is recognized in that Constitution; it is the duty of this court to take that Constitution as it is, for we have sworn to support it.... Then slaves were not considered citizens by the framers of the Constitution....
Are free blacks citizens?... To my mind it would be a perversion of terms, and the well known rules of construction, to say that slaves, free blacks, or Indians were citizens, within the meaning of that term as used in the Constitution. God forbid that I should add to the degradation of this race of men; but I am bound, by my duty, to say that they are not citizens. -
Message 23
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Monday, 26th January 2009
Thanks Allan for clarifying!
When I wrote 1873, I thought I had got the year wrong, but your message provides all the clarity one needs to see what a long struggle there was for complete democracy in even in the country which has been called "The Mother of Parliaments".
Hence it makes our American efforts to impose democracies in very infertile soil, like that of Iraq and Afghanistan even more questionable.
You only realise the importance of your vote after a period of struggle to acquire it.
Tas -
Message 24
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Tuesday, 27th January 2009
"In the United States, they were setting up almost the first system of self-government any where. It was a gigantic leap for that time to say that "All men are created Equal." This was a period before the concept of general elections, yet these people were trying to set up a system of franchise."
Problem was that at taht point in time, and remained so in law, negros were part of the body politic, nor part of the DOI as being included in all men etc. this does not changte in law until the Constitional amendments and subsequest change in USSC ruillings on equality for all races.
Some USSC examples, of which DS was meerly the last one before secesion.
Hobbs v. Fogg
a free Black man sued for the right to vote in Pennsylvania. The State supreme court replied:
...[A] free negro or mulatto is not a citizen within the meaning of the Constitution and laws of the United States, and of the State of Pennsylvania, and, therefore, is not entitled to the right of suffrage.... But in addition to interpretation from usage, this antecedent legislation declared that no colored race was party to our social compact. Our ancestors settled the province as a community of white men; and the blacks were introduced into it as a race of slaves; whence an unconquerable prejudice of caste, which has come down to our day.... Consistently with this prejudice, is it to be credited that parity of rank would be allowed to such a race?... I have thought fair to treat the question as it stands affected by our own municipal regulations without illustration from those of other States, where the condition of the race has been still less favored. Yet it is proper to say that the second section of the fourth article of the Federal Constitution, presents an obstacle to the political freedom of the negro, which seems to be insuperable.
The Ohio supreme court Calvin v. Carter
It has always been admitted, that our political institutions embrace the white population only. Persons of color were not recognized as having any political existence. They had no agency in our political organizations, and possessed no political rights under it. Two or three of the States form exceptions. The constitutions of fourteen expressly exclude persons of color by a provision similar to our own; and, in the balance of the States, they are excluded on the ground that they were never recognized as a part of the body politic.... Indeed, it is a matter of history, that the very object of introducing the word white into our constitution, by the convention framing that instrument, was to put this question beyond all cavil or doubt, by, in express terms, excluding all persons from the enjoyment of the elective franchise, except persons of pure white blood.
Thacher v. Hawk Indiana supreme court
This exclusion of persons of color, or, of any degree of colored blood, from all political rights, is not founded upon a mere naked prejudice, but upon natural differences. The two races are placed as wide apart by the hand of nature as white from black, and, to break down the barriers, fixed, as it were, by the Creator himself, in a political and social amalgamation, shocks us, as something unnatural and wrong. It strikes us as a violation of the laws of nature. It would be productive of no good. It would degrade the white, if it could be accomplished, without elevating the black. Indeed, if we gather lessons of wisdom from the history of mankind β€” walk by the light of our experience, or consult the principles of human nature, we shall be convinced that the two races never can live together upon terms of equality and harmony.
Crandall v. The State Connecticut supreme court
The persons contemplated in this act are not citizens within the obvious meaning of that section of the Constitution of the United States which I have just read. Let me begin by putting this plain question: Are slaves citizens? At the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State was a slave State.... We all know that slavery is recognized in that Constitution; it is the duty of this court to take that Constitution as it is, for we have sworn to support it.... Then slaves were not considered citizens by the framers of the Constitution....
Are free blacks citizens?... To my mind it would be a perversion of terms, and the well known rules of construction, to say that slaves, free blacks, or Indians were citizens, within the meaning of that term as used in the Constitution. God forbid that I should add to the degradation of this race of men; but I am bound, by my duty, to say that they are not citizens. -
Message 25
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 27th January 2009
shivfan,
Exactly what series have you been watching?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.