RE: The Journals of Justus Agenstum: A Journey Thru The Judicial System #2
"All white juries almost always found abusive slave owners "not guilty" of committing crimes against slaves, as slaves were seen as secondary citizens."
I quoted the first sentence of my previous comment and this comment directly from the article above as it appeared when I read it. I just checked and that false statement IS STILL IN THE ARTICLE.
This is not a problem with my reading comprehension. This is a problem with author making a false statement about citizenship, and about making a highly dubious statement about jury nullification that is becoming even more dubious with your comment.
If there were no specific laws for prosecuting slave owners for crimes against slaves, then it is clearly false to blame all-white juries for not convicting them for crimes against slaves. If there was no law under which they could be charged, then there was no way to bring them to trial before a jury. If there was no trial by jury, then no jury could have done what the author claims they "almost always" did.
What, pray tell makes this a false statement? Jury nullification was used by all white juries to furnish a result of "not guilty" for white slave owners who abused their slaves...maybe it isn't your reading comprehension that's the problem...perhaps it is the stick you obviously have firmly embedded in the darkest regions of your crappy ideas.
There is a very good reason you have a 25 by your name and I have a 41...maybe trolling and being an anal wart just isn't working out in your best interest. If you cannot understand the point the article is making, then move on...it is not my responsibility, or the Steemit community's responsibility, to educate you on how to properly consume content.
Please, do me a favor, and DON'T FOLLOW ME...I abhor people who have nothing better to do with their lives than troll the internet looking to be belligerent idiots. The fact remains, jury nullification was used, and has been used, to prevent certain people from receiving the punishment they would have under a fair and impartial system, during the days of slavery, based solely on the color of their skin...instead of crying about not understanding, try looking up Fugitive Slave Laws.
The clearly false part of the statement was calling slaves second class citizens. They were not any class of citizens. They were PROPERTY. They were no more a citizen than a car or a donkey or a house would be.
The part you have quoted here, I initially called highly dubious and requested examples which you claim you cannot give because "there were no specific laws for prosecuting the slave owners". If there were no specific laws under which slave owners could be prosecuted for abusing slaves, then how could they be tried before the juries you claim refused to convict them? That makes no sense, and by that analysis, this part of the statement is also almost certainly false.
I think you are confusing the Fugitive Slave Laws with the Jim Crow era, which followed the Civil War. There actually are examples of all-white juries during the Jim Crow era who failed to convict white defendants on trial for lynching black citizens. And yes, they were citizens in the JIm Crow era, but not during slavery.
Rather than insulting someone who has researched and written on both of the topics when you are clearly in the wrong, I strongly suggest getting your facts straight and correcting your article.
@kirsten...as I said...do me a favor and do NOT follow me...I detest petty little trolls who have nothing better to do with their time than nitpick semantics. And as I also stated, there is a reason you have a 25 next to your name and I have a 41 next to mine...apparently more people agree with my point of view than yours, otherwise you would be gaining STEEM rather than losing face.
Maybe you would be better at something more your speed...might I suggest Pokemon GO!