Slavery in NJ

[cash]

Originally Posted by Hanny

Couple of things, there where no US citizens until Congress passed legislation post war to make them, before then there was only citizens in states who had equal rights while there state was in the union. the US naturlizations laws prevent any but free whites from being a citizen of the US, but stsate lawswere allow white and black to be citizens of states.

You do realize you contradicted yourself in your own sentence, don't you?

First of all, there were indeed US citizens before the war. Read the Constitution and the Dred Scott decision. Secondly, the last part of the above is what contradicts you. You admit that free whites could be citizens of the US. If there were no US citizens before the war, how could only free whites be US citizens?

Originally Posted by Hanny

The evidence was that many northern citizens wanted it contained with a specific geogrphical, where it was hoped it would die by natural causes, but its extension was to be prevented, so to have the west for free whites.

True, and many other free whites wanted it contained so it would die out and its extension was to be prevented so that slavery would be eventually abolished. While some were motivated by white supremacy, others were motivated by true antislavery feelings. And some were motivated by both.

Regards,
Cash

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by cash

You do realize you contradicted yourself in your own sentence, don't you?

No, i dont, shall i expalin for you?.

First of all, there were indeed US citizens before the war. Read the Constitution and the Dred Scott decision.

citizens of states in the Union, mostly free white, some still held in indenture, some negro free or not were only citizens of states, and non of them were citizens in the Constion, noi negro could carry thye mail, federal law prohibited any but a citizen to carry thge mail, and only white ones did the Constion apply to is what DS said.

I see no contradiction.

Secondly, the last part of the above is what contradicts you. You admit that free whites could be citizens of the US. If there were no US citizens before the war, how could only free whites be US citizens?

Ah you mean that bit, ok, any state can allow anoyone of any colour to become a citizen under naturlixzation ( unless denied by another state to that perosn yto be a citizen of that staste) and state emancipation laws, but only free whites are citizens under the constition, bceause the US Naturlization law only allows whites to be citizens in the Union under the constition, when a VA citizen moves to the west and becomes another states citizen by aplication to do so, he becomes a citizen of a differnt stste in the Union but retains the rights/privalges of Union membership as long as the stae bhe is a citizen off is in the Union, every state own the subject citizens feealty and loyatly and alleegence, ( secesion is not made iunconstional post war, but by mnakling everyone a citizen of the United states, secesion was prevented by aplication of this law, makeing everyone a citizen of the Union) anyone born in any state is the citizen of that state by Lex Soli, and everyone started out as a citizen of a state when that state asserted its sovreigty from the UK crowmn and stransfered, alleiegence and citizenship from the UK crown to the state authority.

True, and many other free whites wanted it contained so it would die out and its extension was to be prevented so that slavery would be eventually abolished. While some were motivated by white supremacy, others were motivated by true antislavery feelings. And some were motivated by both.

Regards,
Cash

Good god, i cant find anything i disagre with, i shall of course retire to thye drawing room and shoot myslef!.

Intresting tidbit, the drawing room is the room to which the women would withdraw to so the men folk after dinner could **** into a chamber pot, smoke a cigar to mask the odoer and await the wo0men folks return from the withdrawing room.

[cash]

Originally Posted by Hanny

citizens of states in the Union, mostly free white, some still held in indenture, some negro free or not were only citizens of states, and non of them were citizens in the Constion, noi negro could carry thye mail, federal law prohibited any but a citizen to carry thge mail, and only white ones did the Constion apply to is what DS said.

The Constitution contradicts your assertion that there were no US citizens.

Article I, Section 2: "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen." Note, "Citizen of the United States," not citizen of the Union or citizen of a state in the Union.

Article I, Section 3: "No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen." Ditto.

Article II, Section 1: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." Ditto.

Originally Posted by Hanny

Ah you mean that bit, ok, any state can allow anoyone of any colour to become a citizen under naturlixzation ( unless denied by another state to that perosn yto be a citizen of that staste) and state emancipation laws, but only free whites are citizens under the constition, bceause the US Naturlization law only allows whites to be citizens in the Union under the constition,

That's basically Taney's formulation, and it contradicts your earlier statement that there was no such thing as a US citizen before the war.

Regards,
Cash

[Hanny]

Cash
The Constitution contradicts your assertion that there were no US citizens.
Article I, Section 2: "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen." Note, "Citizen of the United States," not citizen of the Union or citizen of a state in the Union.
Article I, Section 3: "No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen." Ditto.
Article II, Section 1: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." Ditto.

Firstly, no it says exactly what i said it says about a citizen

secondly then when congres pased the laws makeing everyone a citizen they were doing so for what reason then?.

So there were citzens of states who with the right defined qualifications could hold office and reprsent a specific state, for living in a specific state for a number of years to be a citizen of that state alble to represent it at federal level. Federal Milita Act 1792 through till 1862 prevented negros from serving because they were not citizens, even if free. First negro to congress was challneged on this provision and had to prove that in takeing J Davis seat for MIss he was indeeed a citizen of Miss and had lived there for the required period of time.
Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year 6

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 As already noted, the Congressmen under the former government were chosen for one year and were changeable in the meantime at the pleasure of the State.
By an act of the English Parliament in 1694 the term of a member of the House of Commons was fixed at three years. In 1716 the Septennial Act was passed extending the term to seven years. Because it extended the term of the members who passed it instead of applying to future Parliaments, and because it was intended to keep a party longer in power than the time for which the members were elected by the people, some authorities considered it illegal. The Parliament At of 1911 reduced the term from seven years to five.
Congress, unlike Parliament, is, by virtue of this clause, without power to fix its term.
In France the term of a member of the House of Deputies is four years. A member of the House of Commons in Canada sits for five years, and the term in the Australian House of Representatives is three years.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by the People of the several States 7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 Emphasis should be here laid upon the fact that ours is the only government in the world in which all the chief constitutional officers of the Executive and Legislative Departments are elected by the votes of the people. It stands unprecedented and unparalleled as a "government of the people, by the people, for the people."
Even in the countries which have closely patterned their governments on our Constitution, the election of officials is not so general. Thus in Canada, Australia, and in South Africa, until the breakup of the British Empire after World War II, the Governor General was appointed by the English Sovereign. In the Republic of France the President is chosen by the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies sitting together as the National Assembly. In Brazil the senators are chosen by the legislature (as ours once were) instead of being elected by the people.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 The property qualifications of the voters in the different States, as well as other requirements, were so various that it was concluded to let the practice in each State determine who should be qualified to vote for a candidate for a seat in the National House of Representatives. "To have reduced the different qualifications in the different States to one rule," wrote Hamilton in the "Federalist", "would probably have been as dissatisfactory to some of the States as it would have been difficult to the Convention."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty-five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant 9 of that State in which he shall be chosen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 A member of the English House of Commons need not be an inhabitant or even a resident of the district of his constituency.
This limitation had no reference to sex; and therefore it was permissible for a congressional district in a State to elect a woman to a seat in Congress. The first woman thus to be distinguished was Miss Jeanette Rankin of Montana, who was elected to the National House of Representatives in 1916, four years before the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment 187 gave suffrage to women under both State citizenship (where the State had not already granted it) and National citizenship.

cash
That's basically Taney's formulation, and it contradicts your earlier statement that there was no such thing as a US citizen before the war.

No quite, thats 6 of 9 SCOTUS rulling that to be the case in constional law, which contradicts nothing i said about who couldbe a citizen in the federal system and who could not be, there was only citizens of a state who had rights in the federal Union while they were citizens of a stat in the union, the loyalty of an citizen took was to the state he wasa citizen off, from there if he wanted to go into federal service he took another oath, (officers and cadets at WP took a different oath, cadets were loyal to there satte and instruters wewre not unless they resigned there commison, again in late 61 Congress changed that loyalty oath to prevent such action in the futuure from occuring) post war thius oath was changed to remove the primacy claim of a state on its citizens, the oath of federal employes was also changed in the same manner, and everyone became a citizen of all the states in 1865 with Congress making the apprpriate law, taking back stste issued passports and introduicing national passports to repalce them and so on.
lastly, your the most uniformed person to attempt to correct others, i suggest you curb your need to be right all tyhe time and admit your not actualy as well reads as you have convinced yourself to be.

I had hoped there would have been some indication from you of a non persoanl attitude in any exchange, i assure i do like a bit of snpe when posting, espaecially when one thinks they have the goods on another argument, and except some when somone has the goods on my logic/fact etc, but yours is lacking in any humour and i can only conclude you really angry about not being right all the time, now if you can post in no different style than that i am forced to treat you as a hostile poster and treat you acordingly. Should you express/demostrate a wish to post in a normal manner, you will of course save us time and effort by reducing the im right your wrong nonsense from posts. take it as read your right and im wrong by all means, dont even bother to menmtion it, just explain why that may be the case and you and i will get along just fine, you can be right all thge time and i can expose myself(in a non sexual manner) to your line of reasing and perhps modify my opinion, belief etc bt reasoned argument.

If not, ill try and keep it as unpersonal as i can, and urge you to consider and accept that i do not lie to decieve with intent, but do make errors, so i request you modify your acuastions.

[trice]

Originally Posted by Hanny

...

While perhaps interesting, what does all this have to do with the topic of the thread, "Slavery in NJ"?

Since you have stuck it in, I suppose I'll have to point out that Blacks were regarded as citizens and allowed to vote in NJ in the early days, as long as they were free and could satify the other requirements. So were women in those days (1776-1807), as long as they satisfied the other requirements.

The big requirement was possession of fifty pounds, not an overly-large sum at the time of the American Revolution. A goodly number of widows and unmarried women could manage that; harder for married women because their property belonged to their husbands and they had to prove they had been given the sum. In an 1802 Trenton election, it is estimated about 25% of the votes came from women, and some sources claim 10,000 voters/year for women in NJ at that time.

Women and Blacks were essentially dis-enfranchised after 1807 election fraud charges. Both parties in elections mocked the other party for relying on "petticoat electors" and accused the other of allowing unqualified women to vote. The legislature passed an act stripping them of the right, restricting it to white males in accord with practice in other states. I would not be surprised if the looming freedom of many black males who might one day be voters played a part as well.

In 1844, the NJ Constitution was revised, and the following was included:
"Every white male citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been a resident of this State one year, and of the county in which he claims his vote for five months, next before the election, shall be entitled to vote for all officers that now are, or hereafter can be elective of the people ..."

So, at least in the days when NJ actually voted for emancipation (1804), free Blacks were regarded as citizens and possibly voting.

Regards,
Tim

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by trice

While perhaps interesting, what does all this have to do with the topic of the thread, "Slavery in NJ"?

very little, but it everything to do with answering your question, which is why you were reading it in this thread, but NJ slavery was ended by making them indentured for life, and ended when NJ ratified, and helf=d of doing so faor as long as it could.

Trice
Since you have stuck it in, I suppose I'll have to point out that Blacks were regarded as citizens and allowed to vote in NJ in the early days, as long as they were free and could satify the other requirements. So were women in those days (1776-1807), as long as they satisfied the other requirements.

The big requirement was possession of fifty pounds, not an overly-large sum at the time of the American Revolution. A goodly number of widows and unmarried women could manage that; harder for married women because their property belonged to their husbands and they had to prove they had been given the sum. In an 1802 Trenton election, it is estimated about 25% of the votes came from women, and some sources claim 10,000 voters/year for women in NJ at that time.

Women and Blacks were essentially dis-enfranchised after 1807 election fraud charges. Both parties in elections mocked the other party for relying on "petticoat electors" and accused the other of allowing unqualified women to vote. The legislature passed an act stripping them of the right, restricting it to white males in accord with practice in other states. I would not be surprised if the looming freedom of many black males who might one day be voters played a part as well.

In 1844, the NJ Constitution was revised, and the following was included:
"Every white male citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been a resident of this State one year, and of the county in which he claims his vote for five months, next before the election, shall be entitled to vote for all officers that now are, or hereafter can be elective of the people ..."

So, at least in the days when NJ actually voted for emancipation (1804), free Blacks were regarded as citizens and possibly voting.

Regards,
Tim

Yes NJ can make anyone a citizen of its state, the only ones of those who can also be citizens in the Union however are those that are free negros before the ratification of membership into the Union, for therafter no negro in any state can be a citizen in the Union, as it is whites only.

So yes free NJ men of colour were voting in federal elections, and southern states found this unlawfull because of the number doing so made it clear those doing so were more than was feasable. Sc did not allow its free negros the vote in federal elections but it around 200 free negros owning 20 or more slaves in the 10-49 age group min 1860, it did not allow tham to be exempt from conscription, for it did not allow them militai aor federal service in arms. NJ fought the law because it not only made slaves free but all indentures for life free, rather an irony actually.

[trice]

Originally Posted by Hanny

very little, but it everything to do with answering your question, which is why you were reading it in this thread, but NJ slavery was ended by making them indentured for life, and ended when NJ ratified, and helf=d of doing so faor as long as it could.

1) I don't believe I have asked any question at all in this thread, merely seeking to provide information. Please review the posts. If that is right, I suggest you have once again attributed something to me that was said by others. In that case, once again, please stop this behavior.

2) No, your statement "NJ slavery was ended by making them indentured for life" is incorrect. This did not happen, although some masters did convince their newly freed slaves to sign up as "indentured-for-life".

3) If you look at what I posted instead of imagining what I posted, you'll see that all this was covered in the beginning of the thread.

Originally Posted by Hanny

Yes NJ can make anyone a citizen of its state, the only ones of those who can also be citizens in the Union however are those that are free negros before the ratification of membership into the Union, for therafter no negro in any state can be a citizen in the Union, as it is whites only.

As has been pointed out to you by someone else, this is the gist of the Taney Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford. It was not a definite part of law before that. If it had been, the case never would have been accepted by the Federal court system in 1854.

Originally Posted by Hanny

So yes free NJ men of colour were voting in federal elections, and southern states found this unlawfull because of the number doing so made it clear those doing so were more than was feasable. Sc did not allow its free negros the vote in federal elections but it around 200 free negros owning 20 or more slaves in the 10-49 age group min 1860, it did not allow tham to be exempt from conscription, for it did not allow them militai aor federal service in arms. NJ fought the law because it not only made slaves free but all indentures for life free, rather an irony actually.

This passage makes no sense. Perhaps you could repost it after clearing up what you mean a bit.

Regards,
Tim

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by trice

1) I don't believe I have asked any question at all in this thread, merely seeking to provide information. Please review the posts. If that is right, I suggest you have once again attributed something to me that was said by others. In that case, once again, please stop this behavior.

Your posting style of supporting others posts with your own inclines me to conclude you agree with them, now if you dont actually agree with all that they say then make that clear, otherwise i shall continue to conclude you do and post acordingly.

You began this thread and set out your stall, of what you undrstood the case to be, its to that i spoke.

2) No, your statement "NJ slavery was ended by making them indentured for life" is incorrect. This did not happen, although some masters did convince their newly freed slaves to sign up as "indentured-for-life".

So you say. yet the fact remains the last persons freed in NJ were indentured for life negros. You go onto say that indentured for life did happen, but ommit any refernce to scale, i suggest you look at that ommision as its rather important, you end by saying what you say happened did not happen when i say it happened, i suggest you look at that as well.

3) If you look at what I posted instead of imagining what I posted, you'll see that all this was covered in the beginning of the thread.

Pot calls kettle black, you began with a version of history not supported by the evidence and have meerly continued with that premise, i suggest you look at that as well while your ta it.

As has been pointed out to you by someone else, this is the gist of the Taney Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford. It was not a definite part of law before that. If it had been, the case never would have been accepted by the Federal court system in 1854.

Well yes, you and he are difficult to seperate because you both post the same nonsense and i treat you as the same, i gave him thge case history that does as you claim did not exist, i suggest you get a good book on the subject befopre posting again.

[trice]

Hanny,

You are obviously totally confused. I rarely even mention the posts of others in my posts unless I am quoting them specifically.

ONCE AGAIN, STOP attributing things to me that you understand were said by other people. Your continued use of this offensive and confusing tactic -- which you seem to be saying you do knowingly -- shows you for what you are. Doing it will damage your credibility even more than you have already damaged it.

Regards,
Tim

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by trice

Hanny,

You are obviously totally confused. I rarely even mention the posts of others in my posts unless I am quoting them specifically.

ONCE AGAIN, STOP attributing things to me that you understand were said by other people. Your continued use of this offensive and confusing tactic -- which you seem to be saying you do knowingly -- shows you for what you are. Doing it will damage your credibility even more than you have already damaged it.

Regards,
Tim

I can only say again, dont support others posts and continue their argument without excpecting to be treated as agreeing with all there argument and treated acordingly, if im confuised its because thats what you do, and you complaining about being treated for doing it is hardly my problem.