View single post by Joe Kelley
 Posted: Tue Feb 16th, 2016 02:09 pm
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
Joe Kelley

 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
 "That the state of South Carolina, as represented by the delegates to the said state, and by Mr. Huger, who has come hither at the request of the governour of the said state, on purpose to explain the particular circumstances thereof, is unable to make any efteclual efforts with militia, by reason of the great proportion of citizens necessary to remain at home, to prevent insurrections among the negroes, and to prevent the desertion of them to the enemy. That the slate of the country, and the great numbers of those people among them, expose the inhabitants to great danger from the endeavours of the enemy to excite them either to revolt or desert."

Keep in mind that the word Militia is used to describe a specific group of people led by a specific individual in command of said Militia. Is the commander of said Militia a Slave Trader, and are the individual commanded by the said Militia also Slave Traders themselves?

How many slaves were owned by how many people in the South?

Again, are the numbers fabricated, counterfeit, or is the useful information accurate, true, and not misleading?

I want to return to this soon...

http://newobserveronline.com/hidden-facts-about-slavery-in-america/

Georgia banned both slavery and Africans from the state; large numbers of “free blacks” owned black slaves; and less than 5 percent of pre-Civil War American families actually had slaves.

https://www.kon.org/urc/v4/tikhomirova.html

One can say that black slaveholders were the exception, but so, too, were white ones. According to McGrath (2001, p. 1) "only a small minority of Southern whites owned slaves, little more than five percent of the white population if calculated by individual owner, or some 20 to 25 percent if all members of the slave owners' families are included." This means that 75 percent or more of white Southerners neither owned slaves themselves nor were they members of slave owning families. This is not to imply that black slave owners were equal to their white counterparts in terms of power and control of the system. What seems clear is that black slave owners came to identify with their white counterparts in terms of ownership of slaves to such an extent that they had a vested interest in the system.

I may return to the task if finding (re-finding a link I failed to save in a place I can find it now) a more comprehensive study done on African Slave Demographics of Ownership. The idea is to understand the total damage done by the criminals who take over governments (those who enslave) and all who are victim (including the criminals themselves) to this type of crime "against nature itself."

I did find something relevant at Wikipedia, perhaps worth of inserting here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_at_common_law

It must be understood that the term common law has (as with Rule of Law) two opposing meanings:
1. Genuine, accurate, and true.
2. Counterfeit, inaccurate, and deceptive

Those who are criminals (Slave Traders) consider the common law on their side when those criminals explain what common law means.

Those who are not criminals may be those who offer the following:

For most of the early common law history, the courts were not called upon to consider the position in relation to slavery. However, the law did, from at least the time of the Magna Carta of 1215 recognise that all persons had a basic right to liberty, and it was recognised before that date that persons had a basic right not to be the subject of assaults by others.

That is foreign to moral understanding, which is the basis of rule of law, or due process, or the law of the land, or the common law. Liberty is what it is, and it is for all, not just for those who are powerful enough to deceive people into thinking otherwise.