I don't think you should, Marz! 🥺

I legitimately considered Peregrine but my husband talked me out of it

(fwiw, I'm pretty sure the center Mary is there year-round! But then why put the Christmas decorations there??)

I think there's a lot of opportunity for dual lands where green would fit for sure, but not much opportunity for mono green

(and yeah, it's not a big pension, I know that!)

James Callender certainly wouldn't have considered it a story worth reporting on in the 18th c. version of gossip rags if Jefferson's contemporaries truly thought this was acceptable behavior!

And to some degree, point of view isn't what determines the morality anyway! In the most charitable scenario to Jefferson (which he 100% does not deserve) where he and Sally had a deep, "consensual" relationship, it would still be wrong regardless!

This case was specifically limited to *England* and didn't even apply to all of Great Britain, let alone to the colonies. (3/3

"the exercise of [slavery] therefore must always be regulated by the laws of the place where exercised." The colonies had laws regulating the practice of slavery; England did not. The decision only applied to England and doesn't once say it overrides laws in the colonies. (2/3)

I did reread it, it's very short. It doesn't say that. Here's what it DOES say: "So high an act of dominion must derive its authority, if any such it has, from the law of the kingdom where executed." [...] (1/3)

Do you think the Revolution and the Constitutional Convention were the same thing? He was clearly there for the Revolution and especially for the lead-up. 1776 is not 1787.

Then show your work, dammit! All of the arguments here amount to vibes, no one has once actually given any letters or speeches or evidence to actually bolster anything! Slavery is one of the greatest evils our country has had (and still has!) but that doesn't make it our only motivation either

Uh, no, that's not what the conclusion of the Somerset case stated. Their case was based in part on England not having laws expressly permitting slavery, which they argued should make it illegal. The decision didn't overrule any places that had actual laws in place about it.

Not knowing a goddamn thing about the revolution. Assuming Adams was simultaneously unimportant AND part of a convention he wasn't there for would be excusable if you ever provided anything else to suggest you did know anything but you haven't because you can't. 2/2

You're stupid. I've tried to deny and hope that maybe you were just uneducated but earnest but you're simply stupid. You have proven time and time again that you don't know what you're talking about by A) not backing yourself up even ONCE, B) continuing to ad hominem bc you can't back it up and C)

Now I will grant that slavery was the spectre that haunted (and sometimes outright possessed) the constitutional convention. But that was 1787, that was over a decade after the colonies revolted.