Show Me Diversity

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

The founders did not include “slaves” in the Constitution as such. Rather they referred to “free Persons” “Indians,” and “all other Persons.” I am not arguing that everyone thought of blacks (or Indians or any other non-white group) as of the same civilized status as whites. Nor am I arguing that slaves were not considered property in legal contexts. But regardless of any personal opinion, they are officially, legally, deliberately declared to be full Persons (not three-fifths) from the very beginning of the US Constitution, and every state which ratified or was admitted had to agree.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (from Article 1, Section 2)​

And I am certainly not arguing for the establishment or institution of slavery in any case. But it existed at the time, worldwide, and had for millennia, though wholesale slaughter was as much the norm in some quarters. I am not trying to justify slavery with that last comment, but some things are worse, and irreversible, abortion being one. One cannot have liberty without life.

 

[canadyjd]

The founders did not include “slaves” in the Constitution as such. Rather they referred to “free Persons” “Indians,” and “all other Persons.” I am not arguing that everyone thought of blacks (or Indians or any other non-white group) as of the same civilized status as whites. Nor am I arguing that slaves were not considered property in legal contexts. But regardless of any personal opinion, they are officially, legally, deliberately declared to be full Persons (not three-fifths) from the very beginning of the US Constitution, and every state which ratified or was admitted had to agree.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (from Article 1, Section 2)​

The article says the Dred Scott decision denied "legal" personhood. The decision was all about having legal standing to sue for freedom. Since Scott was a slave, he couldn't be seen as having legal personhood status.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

The article says the Dred Scott decision denied "legal" personhood. The decision was all about having legal standing to sue for freedom. Since Scott was a slave, he couldn't be seen as having legal personhood status.

So the article said. But it is racially charged rhetoric. What if they (the “more ethnically diverse slate of convention officers” who approved that resolution) have their facts wrong? Do you have a copy of that Missouri Supreme Court decision?

In their resolution, they appear to be conflating the Missouri Supreme Court decision with that of the US Supreme Court, but those two decisions are entirely separate. The only historical references I have found say they reversed Scott’s earlier win by rejecting precedent, insisting a visit to a free state did not undo slave status if returned to Missouri as a slave. They did not question his personhood. They only ruled that he was not legally due freedom.

…
Initially, Scott's case for freedom was routine and relatively insignificant, like hundreds of others that passed through the St. Louis Circuit Court. The cases were allowed because a Missouri statute stated that any person, black or white, held in wrongful enslavement could sue for freedom. The petition that Dred Scott signed indicated the reasons he felt he was entitled to freedom. Scott's owner, Dr. John Emerson, was a United States Army surgeon who traveled to various military posts in the free state of Illinois and the free Wisconsin Territory. Dred Scott traveled with him and, therefore, resided in areas where slavery was outlawed. Because of Missouri's long-standing "once free, always free" judicial standard in determining freedom suits, slaves who were taken to such areas were freed-even if they returned to the slave state of Missouri. Once the bonds of slavery were broken, they did not reattach.
…
The Court adjourned on December 24, 1851, and reconvened on March 15, 1852. On March 22, 1852, they rendered their 2-1 decision reversing the lower court decision. Justice William Scott wrote the opinion, with Ryland concurring. [Justice] Scott did not deny that freedom suits had been presented to the Court previously. He claimed, though, that the decisions in those cases were made on the basis of the constitutions and laws of other states and/or territories without regard to the policies in Missouri. While recognizing that interstate comity could be a positive thing, he did not feel Missouri should have to recognize laws that were in opposition to its own; there should be a limit to the acknowledgment of comity. Scott also did not deny that the Missouri Compromise slavery prohibition was valid; he simply felt it was only valid where it applied, which was not within the boundaries of the state of Missouri. He acknowledged the right of slaves to obtain their freedom when taken to free states and/or territories; he advised, though, that slavery status reattached upon return to a slave state. …

Missouri Digital Heritage: Dred Scott Case, 1846-1857​

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

The article says the Dred Scott decision denied "legal" personhood. The decision was all about having legal standing to sue for freedom. Since Scott was a slave, he couldn't be seen as having legal personhood status.

But hopefully by now you at least realize the resolution is making a direct political statement aimed squarely at the Missouri Supreme Court and Legislature.

Messengers overwhelmingly approved a resolution encouraging racial reconciliation and urging "the Missouri Legislature to formally denounce" the Missouri Supreme Court's 1852 Dred Scott decision, which denied legal personhood to Dred Scott because of his race.​

 

[canadyjd]

Well, I guess I stand corrected. The Missouri Supreme Court didn't say he wasn't a person, they simply stated he was not legally entitled to freedom.

Now I suppose people could interpret that as denying legal personhood, but only people with a radical liberal agenda would say something like that, right?

I guess that means it is wrong to condemn the decision. Is that what you are saying?

And no, I don't see it as political. I see it as an effort toward Christian unity.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Well, I guess I stand corrected. The Missouri Supreme Court didn't say he wasn't a person, they simply stated he was not legally entitled to freedom. Now I suppose people could interpret that as denying legal personhood, but only people with a radical liberal agenda would say something like that, right? I guess that means it is wrong to condemn the decision. Is that what you are saying? And no, I don't see it as political. I see it as an effort toward Christian unity.

They did not simply condemn the decision. They condemned it for something it did not do. Such a condemnation is obviously wrong. But both the decision and its condemnation are in the realm of politics and have nothing to do with how Christians relate to each other. Christians in Missouri were free to free their own slaves then, and Christians need no laws then or now to reconcile and unite.

 

[canadyjd]

They did not simply condemn the decision. They condemned it for something it did not do. Such a condemnation is obviously wrong. But both the decision and its condemnation are in the realm of politics and have nothing to do with how Christians relate to each other. Christians in Missouri were free to free their own slaves then, and Christians need no laws then or now to reconcile and unite.

No one is proposing a "law" be passed. You are criticizing MO Baptists for something they did not do. Such criticism is obviously based on inaccurate assumptions on your part and are therefore wrong.

They did the right thing.

Peace to you.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

No one is proposing a "law" be passed. You are criticizing MO Baptists for something they did not do. Such criticism is obviously based on inaccurate assumptions on your part and are therefore wrong. They did the right thing. Peace to you.

OK, good. Let me also say, blessings and peace to you in abundance. That I disagree with them or you doesn't change that, but it's good to say so.

Except your own comment, I did not see where anyone talked about a law to be passed, only about directing part of the resolution politically. Calls for Christian unity are fine. It is a shame they don't have it even 160 years after the decision. But neither their legislature nor their supreme court were ever in control of that--not then, not now. And I don't say you or they really think otherwise.

A lot has happened since Dred Scott. Times are different. Even more mistakes have been made. Problems have taken new forms. They need addressing. Is the solution to go back and try to untie the Gordian knot of all that has transpired? They don't even seem able to get the history right, and that's a bad sign. God gets the history (and everything else) right, but he didn't go back to the beginning and prevent Adam & Eve from eating forbidden fruit. He sent the Son to cut through the Gordian knot by covering our sin with his shed blood. I needn't say more about that, as we all know the story.

I agree their intentions are noble, and their call to Christian unity right. But the political part of their resolution is wrongheaded for a number of reasons.

 

[canadyjd]

You said in post#66 that "Christians need no law then or now to reconcile and unite". MO Baptists didn't propose a new law.

Christians have always needed men and women of conscience

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

You said in post#66 that "Christians need no law then or now to reconcile and unite". MO Baptists didn't propose a new law.

I did not mention a new law, or a law to be passed. Those are your words, not mine. They misinterpreted the law back then. The resolution calls for them to formally correct that misinterpretation, assuming they have not already done so via decision/precedent, which is how courts generally speak. But Christians don't need the law of the land or its correct interpretation to do the right thing, especially when it comes to Christian unity and reconciliation.

Christians have always needed men and women of conscience.

Or to be such people. But how do you imagine that to be a point of contention here?

 

[canadyjd]

I did not mention a new law, or a law to be passed. Those are your words, not mine. They misinterpreted the law back then. The resolution calls for them to formally correct that misinterpretation, assuming they have not already done so via decision/precedent, which is how courts generally speak. But Christians don't need the law of the land or its correct interpretation to do the right thing, especially when it comes to Christian unity and reconciliation.
Or to be such people. But how do you imagine that to be a point of contention here?

When the stated motives of Christians of conscience are questioned, then it becomes a point of contention.

They see the Dred Scott decision as denying legal personhood. I agree that to tell a slave they don't have legal standing to sue for freedom is in fact denying legal personhood.

To suggest the MO Baptists are motivated by politics instead of conscience is wrong.

I can see we are going to disagree. Thanks for the conversation. Peace to you.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

When the stated motives of Christians of conscience are questioned, then it becomes a point of contention.

They see the Dred Scott decision as denying legal personhood. I agree that to tell a slave they don't have legal standing to sue for freedom is in fact denying legal personhood.

To suggest the MO Baptists are motivated by politics instead of conscience is wrong.

I can see we are going to disagree. Thanks for the conversation. Peace to you.

But I don’t question the "resolvers' " motives or conscience. Their political points and efforts are wrongheaded.

You and they seem to have the facts wrong by conflating history. I supplied information to demonstrate that. If you have other information regarding the Missouri Supreme Court decision, then share it.

Conflating personhood with degree of legal freedom hopelessly confuses the issue. The Bible does not consider slaves as less than persons, so Christians should not confuse the two. I have not seen where the Missouri Supreme Court did, nor it seems have you.

However, I can understand the desire to incorporate the emotional rhetoric. Applied to the US Supreme Court decision and opinions I might even lean your way, but that is not the discussion here. Perhaps they ignorantly copied the racially charged rhetoric from another resolution?

You say he was not allowed to sue for freedom, but that just isn’t so. As a person claimed as a slave, Dred Scott did sue for freedom. In Missouri, he lost, won, lost, won, lost, (or something like that), but was later freed despite even the US Supreme Court decision (then died before war broke out). The case initially hinged on some technicalities regarding slave and free states, but became mired in larger sectional issues with dramatic twists at the national level where he twice lost.

...
RESOLVED, that we denounce the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision of March 22, 1852 denying
personhood to Dred Scott and all attitudes of racism that contributed to the decision then, and can create societal rifts today on the grounds that such attitudes are deeply unscriptural; and be it further

RESOLVED, that the Missouri Baptist Convention call on the Missouri Legislature to formally denounce
the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court of March 22, 1852, in that it contradicts the principle that “all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights”;...

​

 

[Jerome]

Missouri Baptist Convention's first African American officer presses for convention to be in the vanguard on race issues:

Baptist Press • Jon Nelson, 1st black Mo. Baptist VP

Nelson was elected as first vice president of the Missouri Baptist Convention in October....Nelson is believed to be the first African American to do so since the convention's founding in the 1800s.

"It is incumbent upon our convention to be the first in issues of race in America," Nelson told The Pathway, Missouri Baptists' newsjournal, while also praising Southern Baptists for taking historic steps, such as the SBC's 1995 resolution on racism.