I have been spreading the news for at least 8 years on this subject. While our public schools teach persons of African, American and Asian descent born in America that the Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery, the law schools teach the attorneys otherwise, this concurred in the article ‘California Attorney General Says Her Office’s Defense Of Prison Labor ‘Evokes Chain Gangs’
California Attorney General Kamala Harris told ThinkProgress Wednesday she is concerned her department created a perception that the state’s prisons have a goal of “indentured servitude.” Harris was responding to revelations that lawyers in her office argued in court without her knowledge that a program to parole more prisoners would drain the state’s source of cheap labor. Most recently the article America Never Abolished Slavery reiterated what I have been arguing among laymen for quite some time now.
The Greatest books I have come across addressing the subject matter is The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander and Slavery By Another Name by Douglas A. Blackmon. Both of these Books provide substantial information on this very critical subject of public concern. Many Americans today conduct themselves in a manner that slavery ended, when it fact this is not true, and it is quite clear from congressional records two specific points 1) Penal Slavery has existed in the U.S.A. before and after the Thirteenth Amendment and 2) the Amendment, has never interpreted the guarantee of freedom from involuntary servitude to specifically prohibit compulsion of labor by other means, such as psychological coercion. see, e.g., Clyatt v. United States,197 U. S. 207 Pp. 487 U. S. 941-944.
Our President Barack Obama recently stated in the article Obama, slavery, Jim Crow, and Christianity : “Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”
In 1095, at the beginning of the Crusades, Pope Urban II issued an edict-the Papal Bull Terra Nullius (meaning empty land). This Bull targeted two Groups “Saracens” and “Infidels”. Saracens applied to all Mohammedans which in 1095 majority of the Mohammedans were dark skin pigmented or today they would be perceived by U.S. law enforcement officials as “Black” by virtue of their complexion or color but in Federal policy classed as “White” upon recognition that their origins are traced to the original peoples of North Africa, Middle East and Europe. It is quite interesting to note that Complexion and Color are separate protected classes from Race, meaning they are in there own lane when it comes to laws against discrimination.
The Bull gave the Christian kings and princes of Europe the right to “discover” or claim land in non-Christian areas these other areas were dominated by Moors and other Aboriginal peoples who were not Mohammadans. This policy was extended in 1452 when Pope Nicholas V issued the bull Romanus Pontifex, declaring war against all non-Christians throughout the world and authorizing the conquest of their nations and territories. These edicts treated non-Christians as uncivilized and subhuman, and therefore without rights to any land or nation. Christian leaders claimed a God-given right to take control of all lands and used this idea to justify war, colonization, and even slavery.
Chief Justice Marshall in Johnson v. M’Intosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823) wrote a lengthy discussion of history of the European discovery of the Americas and the legal foundations of the American Colonies. In particular, Marshall focuses on the manner in which each European power acquired land from the indigenous occupants. Synthesizing the law of nations, Marshall traces the outlines of the “discovery doctrine“—namely, that a European power gains radical title (also known as sovereignty) to the land it discovers. As a corollary, the discovering power gains the exclusive right to extinguish the “right of occupancy” of the indigenous occupants, which otherwise survived the assumption of sovereignty. Marshall further opined that when they declared independence from Great Britain, the United States government inherited the British right of preemption over Native American lands. The legal result is that the only Native American conveyances of land which can create valid title are sales of land to the federal government.
In a unanimous decision, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that the Christian European nations had assumed complete control over the lands of America during the “Age of Discovery.” Upon winning independence in 1776, he noted, the U.S. inherited authority over these lands from Great Britain, “notwithstanding the occupancy of the natives, who were heathens…” According to the ruling, American Indians did not have any rights as independent nations, but only as tenants or residents of U.S. land. For Joshua Johnson, this meant that the original sale of land by the Piankeshaws was invalid because they were not the lawful owners. For Native Americans, this decision foreshadowed the Trail of Tears and a hundred years of forced removal and violence. Despite recent efforts to have the case repealed as a symbol of good will, Johnson v. McIntosh has never been overruled and remains good law.
In 1845, a democratic leader and prominent editor named John L. O’Sullivan gave the Doctrine of Discovery a uniquely American flavor when he coined the term Manifest Destiny to defend U.S. expansion and claims to new territory:
“…. the right of our manifest destiny to over spread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty… is right such as that of the tree to the space of air and the earth suitable for the full expansion of its principle and destiny of growth.”
The idea of Manifest Destiny was publicized in newspapers and debated by politicians. It furthered the sense among U.S. citizens of an inevitable or natural right to expand the nation and to spread “freedom and democracy” (though only to those deemed capable of self-government, which certainly did not include Blacks or Native Americans).
Whether called the Doctrine of Discovery or Manifest Destiny, the principles that stimulated U.S. thirst for land have been disastrous for Native Americans, African Americans, Mexicans, and many others both in North America and abroad who lost life, liberty and property as the result of U.S. expansionism. The history of Christian law helps us to understand how our leaders-many considered heroes and role models today-undertook monstrous acts in the name of liberty. This insight into the prevailing ideas of the day, however, does not excuse their behavior. Some may have truly been misled by the ideals of Christian discovery, but others acted knowingly out of self-interest, greed and bigotry. Even as far back as Columbus, however, there were religious and political leaders, as well as ordinary citizens, who knew better and worked against racism, colonization and slavery.
In United States v. Kozminski 487 U.S. 931 (1988) the Supreme Court ruled: the fact that the Thirteenth Amendment excludes from its prohibition involuntary servitude imposed “as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted” indicates that the Amendment’s drafters thought that involuntary servitude generally includes situations in which the victim is compelled to work by law. Moreover, the facts that the phrase “involuntary servitude” was intended “to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery,” Butler v. Perry,240 U. S. 328, 240 U. S. 332, and that the Amendment extends beyond state action, cf. U.S.Const., Amdt. 14, § 1, imply an intent to prohibit compulsion through physical coercion. These assessments are confirmed by this Court’s decisions construing the Amendment, see, e.g., Clyatt v. United States,197 U. S. 207, which have never interpreted the guarantee of freedom from involuntary servitude to specifically prohibit compulsion of labor by other means, such as psychological coercion. Pp. 487 U. S. 941-944. O’CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and WHITE, SCALIA, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 487 U. S. 953. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which BLACKMUN, J., joined, post, p. 487 U. S. 965.
Attorney General Eric Holder Delivered Remarks on Criminal Justice Reform at Georgetown University Law Center United States ~ Tuesday, February 11, 2014. He stated: After Reconstruction, many Southern states enacted disenfranchisement schemes to specifically target African Americans and diminish the electoral strength of newly-freed populations. The resulting system of unequal enforcement – and discriminatory application of the law – led to a situation, in 1890, where ninety percent of the Southern prison population was black. And those swept up in this system too often had their rights rescinded, their dignity diminished, and the full measure of their citizenship revoked for the rest of their lives. They could not vote. In the years since, thanks to the hard work, and the many sacrifices, of millions throughout our history, we’ve outlawed legal discrimination, ended “separate but equal,” and confronted the evils of slavery and segregation. Particularly during the last half-century, we’ve brought about historic advances in the cause of civil rights. And we’ve secured critical protections like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Yet – despite this remarkable, once-unimaginable progress – the vestiges, and the direct effects, of outdated practices remain all too real. In many states, felony disenfranchisement laws are still on the books. And the current scope of these policies is not only too significant to ignore – it is also too unjust to tolerate. Across this country today, an estimated 5.8 million Americans – 5.8 million of our fellow citizens – are prohibited from voting because of current or previous felony convictions. That’s more than the individual populations of 31 U.S. states. And although well over a century has passed since post-Reconstruction states used these measures to strip African Americans of their most fundamental rights, the impact of felony disenfranchisement on modern communities of color remains both disproportionate and unacceptable. Throughout America, 2.2 million black citizens – or nearly one in 13 African-American adults – are banned from voting because of these laws. In three states – Florida, Kentucky, and Virginia – that ratio climbs to one in five. These individuals and many others – of all races, backgrounds, and walks of life – are routinely denied the chance to participate in the most fundamental and important act of self-governance. They are prevented from exercising an essential right. And they are locked out from achieving complete rehabilitation and reentry – even after they’ve served the time, and paid the fines, that they owe.
In the end the events we see across the nation where law enforcement officials are shooting down citizens and for the most part shooting down young males and women perceived to be minorities or descendants of slaves by virtue of their pigment or melanin which is a typical Heredity Cellular or Blood Trait and the political identities associated therewith is a all a result of the Christian Doctrine of Discovery. This legal doctrine commaned the enslavement of the indigenous peoples domiciling in Non European Christian lands. The rabbit whole takes a turn leading to the same point when we review the origins of law enforcement in the United States which goes back to the Slave Patrols and Slave Militia’s. It’s sad to say but alot of minorities taking public office have turned a blind eye to these issues and conduct themselves as if such is not the case and the average person of African descent is not taught in his public school the origin of Police Departments in this country during the DARE programs and how it starts with the Slave Patrols, today police officers are still given the title Patrol or Patrolmen. Today they still target people who are not perceived to be White. I say people because Mostafa Hefny is an Example of how dark skin people from North Africa, Middle East and Europe are classified or categorized as “White” when they become U.S. Citizens. Thus they can be as dark as African Americans and still be classified as “White” but in reality they are targeted as well, Mostafa Hefney has even discussed this fact in contrast to the position to deny his desire to be a member of the African American social politic and to receive any benefits due to the descendants of the Freedmen. Another example of is where New Jersey departed from the Federal Standard with it’s definition for African Americans and added the following “characterized by dark skin pigment”.
The Federal Standard provides that these classifications should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature, but this is not the case in society and especially not the case when it comes to Law Enforcement and the Judiciary and this is one of the major elements as to why we are aware of the racism still controlling the decisions of government officials. For example many Non Dark Skin and Dark Skin pigmented Law Enforcement Officials would classify someone who is dark skin like Mostafa Hefny as “Black” based upon his skin complexion and in that case that official commits a type of fraud discussed in The Amistad Case, but the officials who cross reference these reports usually don’t blow the whistle, because they too are under the impression that Complexion or Color and Race are one in the same when they in fact are in the own lane, I have found Complexion and Color to by synonyms but not the same as Race and to be on an equal footing with Race i.e. in their own lane under the phrase Protected Class. Protected Class includes Nationality-National Origin, Ethnicity, Gender, Sex, Religion, Color/Complexion and Race.
Thus Law Enforcement Officials and the Judiciary simply deny people who they believe are “African American” i.e. “Black” based upon dark skin pigment or in other words that individuals degree of melanin i.e. a typical Heredity Cellular or Blood Trait and this practice is contrary to Federal policy but not practice and denies individuals who are dark skin pigmented who are not Socio Politically “African American” Equal protection under the law and subjects them to discrimination based upon a typical Heredity Cellular or Blood Trait because Law Enforcement Officials are taught to use the Heredity Cellular or Blood Trait as an method to identify if someone is “Black” or not. This formal practice is a lingering vestige of slavery. The notion that an individual must be racially “Black” and only “Black” because he is dark skin pigmented is a notion derived from practices during Colonial Slavery found in the laws of the several states still present among us and it exist heavily in Law Enforcement and the Judiciary because both of these entities always regulated Slavery while the legislatures enacted the methods by which one can be subjected to penal slavery.
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in THE STATE v. POST. THE STATE v. VAN BEUREN. May Term, 1845 a case related to the Fugitive Slave Acts: The court has no power to enact a law, nor to set aside a law, even to remedy what we may consider a great private or public wrong or to remove a great political evil; that power belongs to another department of the government. We can only declare what the law is, and whether consistent with the law of God, and the fundamental or constitutional law of society. Slavery was planted in the State, not by her sons, nor by the fruits of an illicit slave trade, nor, through the poor apology of Las Casas, to save the aborigines; but the lords and owners of the country, mostly living abroad, implanted it at the very settlement for their own private emolument. The colonists, without the power of abolishing, regulated the evil until after the revolution; when warmed by its spirit and influenced by the principles of the declaration of independence, in 1804, when there was something to lose by the operation, the legislature abolished slavery in the State; not in every respect and instantaneously, not at once thrusting out the aged and decrepit and the helpless infant, from their comfortable homes, to become the inmates of a poor house, or the subjects for the settlement laws to adjust; but it was done as most great and good things are done, gradually:
An abolitionist periodical, the Emancipator, reprinted of the original article in TheFriend with a summary of the three major points of Hornblower’s decision: that the federal fugitive slave law of 1793 wa s unconstitutional; that all people in New Jersey had a right to a jury trial; and that “the color of a person should be no longer considered as presumptive evidence of slavery” in New Jersey. The presumption that dark skin people were presumed to be Slaves was addressed in the NJ Supreme Court by Hornblower who did an opinion overturning any vestiges of the notion that in New Jersey blacks were presumed to be slaves by virtue of their complexion, however the opinion was never published. Because Hornblower’s opinion was never officially reported, it was not generally cited by abolitionist lawyers in other fugitive slave cases. In Boston the nation’s most prominent abolitionist, William Lloyd Garrison, urged Ellis Gray Loring, the city’s most prominent abolitionist attorney, to assume the ground maintained by Judge Hornblower of New Jersey— viz.—that the law of Congress regulating the arrest of fugtive slaves, is unconstitutional, because no power is given by the Constitution to Congress to legislate on the subject—that every person in the State white or black, free or slave, is entitled to a trial by jury—and that the color of a person should be no longer considered as presumptive evidence of slavery.
A Gloucester County judge agreed. His ruling in State v. Soto, 324 N.J. Super.66 (L.Div. 1996) found a pattern and practice of racial profiling carried out by the New Jersey State Police. The six-month hearing included for the first time testimony of former state troopers about how they had been trained in racial profiling, and had observed racial profiling being carried out by their colleagues. The public defenders also analyzed and offered an analysis of state police training from an expert witness illustrating that New Jersey State Police training actively encouraged racial profiling. During Soto, the U.S. Department of Justice began their own investigation into racial profiling by New Jersey State Troopers. “It was very heroic. At the time, there was very little public awareness of this issue. Methodically and skillfully they pursued this matter against all odds and without any expectation of recognition if an effort to do right thing,” said Jorge Godoy, State Public Defender in Cumberland County, New Jersey. The record before us would justify a reasonable fact finder to conclude that Gallagher and Walsdron demonst rated to Oliva how to stop, search, and, in some cases, arrest motorists without probable cause by reason of their race….. On January 4, 2001, one day prior to the meeting at the gym, Oliva requested permission from the State Police to speak to the media “[b]ecause of the refusal of the State Police to deal with the harassment [he] was receiving and upon recommendation of counsel .” App. at 574-75. On January 23, 2001, the Philadelphia Inquirer, a newspaper widely circulated in southern New Jersey where the stations we have mentioned are located, published article entitled “N.J. trooper: Even now, fighting profiling costs him.” App. at 736-38. The article covered the topics Oliva had discussed with Meddis and Blaker in the December 2000 meeting, and also described Oliva’s encounter with Schairer and Zulawski on January 5, 2001. Moreover, it described in detail Oliva’s complaints about being instructed to engage in racial profiling of motorists while at the Bellmawr and Buena Vista Stations. Additionally, the article discussed allegations that other troopers made regarding the activities of the Lords of Discipline. Estate of Oliva Cta Mchugh v. NJ. The Estate Of John L. OLIVA, Jr., by his Administratrix CTA, Kelli Ann McHugh, Appellant v. State of NJ, Department of Law And Public Safety, Division of State Police; No. 09-2082. Argued March 9, 2010. — May 04, 2010.
Racial profiling, is thought by modern lawyers to have been first established as a bona fide legal issue by three public defenders who spotted a trend in their caseloads….throughout the 1980’s, the New Jersey State Public Defender’s Office saw a frustrating trend: a large number of African-Americans and Hispanics were being arrested……the New Jersey Attorney General Peter Vernio’s office began its own investigation into racial profiling. Verniero became convinced that the public defenders’ statistics had been accurate and that profiling, in fact, existed.
David B. Wolcott and Tom Head provided in “Crime and Punishment in America“that The first professional police force in North America was established by the Dutch in New Amsterdam, the future New York City, in 1658. Essentially night watchmen, this city patrol known as the ratelwatcht for the loud rattles patrolmen carried, which essential served the same function as police whistles was small (made up of only 10 patrolmen), poorly trained, and not terribly well organized, but it functioned reasonably well according to the low expectations of the tine. During the colonial era and the early years of the United States, night watchmen were paid to patrol cities to serve essentially the same functions that private security guards serve today. During the early years of the 18th century, southern states began to also hire professional slave patrollers whose duty was to capture fugitive slaves and send them back to their masers. New Orleans had its own professional slave patrol in 1809, and by 1822 the city of Charleston, South Carolina, had more than 100 officers dedicated to tracking the movements of African Americans and recovering fugitive slaves. The use of night watchmen also became more widespread in the North during the early decades of the 19th century, but the programs were generally smaller and less ambitious than the slave patrols of the South. It was not until the 1830s that larger northern cities began to see a need for a bigger, more disciplined police force.
Historian Sally Hadden (2001) observes that early slave patrols were semi organized groups of volunteers who worked at the behest of an individual plantation owner or a local group of slave masters; these early volunteer patrols were erratic and proved ineffective, thus prompting legislatures of Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina to replace voluntarily patrols with colony sanctioned authority figures who would monitor slave movement and behavior. This created an institution of government (hundreds of slave patrols that operated throughout the South) that was specifically designed to regulate the activities of a class of “citizens” based on the explicit criteria of race. Individuals appointed to slave patrols were officially referred to as constables, searchers, overseers, or patrols, but were less affectionately labeled by those they sought to enslave as paddy-rollers. Beyond under-girding the entire structure of slave, slave patrol membership brought authority, status, camaraderie, and social interactions with other whites. Consequently, it helped institutionalize the prevailing culture of racism (Hadden 2001). Social, political and economic forces had coalesced in the colonies, especially the southern colonies, to create the three headed monster: slavery, the apparatus to maintain it, and a culture that tolerated it. This would have grave ramifications for the future development of southern law enforcement, law enforcement more generally, and the nation as a whole. For example, Hadden (2001) believes that as political conditions in the South changed following the Civil War, many slave patrollers moved to employment in city police departments throughout the South bringing the culture and practice of racism with them. Some historians even maintain that the slave patrols of the South were America’s first modern stye police forces (Williams and Murphy 1990). Racism and discrimination were not confined to southern police; it was, and still is, a national problem. Law Enforcement in the United States By James Andrew Conser, Rebecca Paynich, Terry E. Gingerich, Terry Gingerich
TO BE CONTINUED…….