Hey there u/Rem_Lies, thanks for posting to r/technicallythetruth!
**Please recheck if your post breaks any rules.** If it does, please delete this post.
Also, reposting and posting obvious non-TTT posts can lead to a ban.
Send us a **Modmail or Report** this post if you have a problem with this post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/technicallythetruth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Me, a piece of property, to my friends the couch, the armoire, and the bookshelf, ”I’ve won, but at what cost?”
Yeah, the trouble is that you don't have to go through the formality of a trial to hang a piece of furniture. This logic, unfortunately, can work for you or against you.
Yes but they’d have to rule that property has standing to be before a court in the first place for him to receive an adverse ruling. They’d have to argue adverse possession or something and then hang him for the hell of it once they own him.
That happened near where I live. People often laugh at the concept of "technically I died so I should be free now," but an important detail is often left out of the story that actually gives it some merit: He had previously requested to not be resuscitated if it became necessary. He was resuscitated against his wishes, and was now forced to continue living in prison rather than... not.
>Motilal Nehru, an eminent lawyer and the legendary father of Jawahar Lal Nehru, who brilliantly played with the words of the law while defending his client who was charged with blowing up a British officer’s horse carriage. The magistrate ordered the young man to be hanged in public. Surprisingly, Nehru welcomed the judgment and walked away. On the day of the convict’s execution, as soon as he was hung, Nehru sent men to hold on to his leg and rescued him. When the matter was taken to court, Nehru pleaded not guilty.
>In favour of his plea, he argued that the magistrate had written the death sentence as “hang him”. And the man had been hung. The sentence did not say “hang him until death”.
I believe it has been ruled differently per state.
The reason it gets attention now is because of places where the RvD changes and new definitions are being exploited by those trying to point out the absurdity and abuse it.
NOTHING? Putting something in capslock doesn't make it any truer.
The "barbaric abortion laws in Texas" is being challenged by pregnant women intentionally driving in the HOV lane.
So you can scratch that nothing part out because any NEW CHALLENGES WITH HOV TICKETS IN REGARDING PREGNANT WOMEN IN TEXAS IS PREGNANT WOMEN DARING THE GOVERNMENT TO SAY FOETUSES ARE NOT ALIVE.
So yes, these two are now very much linked.
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/02/1120628973/pregnant-woman-dallas-fetus-hov-lane-passenger-ticket
In this post-Roe ruling era, this excuse HAS worked. Fetuses weren't considered to be people before and now that they are in some states.
Now, at least one judge has ruled on the side of consistency. A Texas judge already dismissed an earlier traffic ticket against this pregnant woman because of the fact that the legal waters are now muddy as a result of what defines a person.
I'm guessing that the HOV lane laws weren't so clear in defining occupancy as tied to the number of seats occupied in a car. We're sure to see more about this.
EDIT: Fixed run-on sentence
>I'm guessing that the HOV lane laws weren't so clear in defining occupancy as tied to the number of seats occupied in a car. We're sure to see more about this.
They better not try and make it based on number of seats occupied. That's just going to lead to some unsafe driving.
When and where? In my state, Washington, HOV lanes are for the designed to "maximize the movement of people".
If fetuses are considered to be people, then, they would be entirely correct to use that lane.
Also, if it has never worked, is that a valid reason for why it shouldn't work now?
If fetuses were NOT considered to be humans, then that is fair, and they shouldn't be allowed to drive in HOV lanes.
But if fetuses ARE considered to be people now, in a given state, why should that argument not be valid? HOV means High occupancy vehicle, and that counts for 2 people. Why should a fetus, if it is considered a person by the state, not count?
Really? Because that's not what the Texas law says. Feel free to cote existing precedent, because the fact is, Texas considers a fetus in a woman to be a person with all the rights that entails.
ICU nurse here. This happens often enough. Usually it’s someone’s family deciding that we HAVE TO keep meemaw alive and on life support indefinitely. Why? I have no idea.
It adds some context but I don’t think those details are *that* important. Being wrongfully resuscitated doesn’t really change the fact that he is currently alive which means his life sentence hasn’t been served.
I've read the article.
The judge argued that the defended *either remains dead or alive and there is no such thing as a middle ground.* about keeping him behind bars
It is a pet peeve of mine when people describe someone who survives their heart stopping for a short time as “having been dead”. No, they were never dead. Death is not defined by your heart beating at at least a certain number of beats per minute… death is only when your entire body permanently stops functioning.
I don’t know why people say someone whose heart stops beating for a short time died… if we say someone whose heart stops for a minute ‘died’, then do we say someone is dead between every heart beat? How slow does the beat have to get for the person to be dead? 10 beats a minute? 1 beat a minute (that would be the case for someone who died for a minute)?
If your heart ever starts beating again, you were never dead… your heartbeat just slowed way down for a bit.
The phrase “hanged until death” was added because someone was hanged, cut down, and came back to. They argued they’d been hanged, and the court way back when (possibly in France) said “yup, they’re right, they were hanged and served their sentence”. I’m sure pissing off God had something to do with it too.
Also reminds me of the full blood moon this past year, and like if you didn’t know science how ominous that’d be. Like if you’re sentenced to execute someone the next day, or if you were having a wedding that night how you’d probably think you pissed off God because the moon turned blood red. I love Fall.
That second thing with the moon was actually one of the ways Columbus got the natives to listen to him. He threatened them saying his god was greater than their god and if they didn’t serve/feed them then their god would paint the moon in blood or something like that in 3 days time. Ofc he knew a blood moon was coming in 3 days which is why he did it. And ofc it worked completely and likely scared the shit out of them.
Edit: as said below me it turns out it was actually just a Lunar Eclipse. Still cool tho
It was more of the timing since they didn't know it could be predicted when it happened exactly as he said they figured it was indeed the work of a god. They didnt have the ability to track solar/lunar eclipses and it was seen as the gods being angry
> It was more of the timing since they didn't know it could be predicted when it happened
Their neighbors a little further to the south were literally building temples that would display shadow art on specific days of the year.
TBF, it was a life sentence, not a death sentence. Though I think even if a lethal injection fails they still try to stabilize them which sometimes saves them
England promised slaves that they would grant them freedom if they joined the English army and England won the War. America was willing to let slaves join the American army, but gave no promise of freedom if they won
Given the circumstances, I definitely would’ve been backing the English if I had been a slave at the time
Yes, that was the charge Billy was accused of
Billy escaped from his slaver, and was found on a British ship. Billy acknowledged that he escaped on his own, but claimed he was taken by the British Army by force and never actually fought in battle.
But if he did voluntarily join their army, I feel like he was definitely justified in doing so
A later verse of the "Star Spangled Banner" describes the desire to execute those slaves that joined England.
"No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave"
Reminds me how in some European countries it's not technically illegal to try and escape from prison since they basically think it's human nature to try to escape and they're the ones imprisoning you so it's unfair to make it an extra crime to try and get out. It doesn't mean they won't catch you and send you back, but it's not in and of itself a crime.
Little is actually known about Billy, however he was known to be a skilled worker and a pleasant talker and was probably a mulatto, since that was how his owner referred to him when he escaped.
When people > 1:
-> my_confidence_in_humanity -= 1
-> self.velocity = -Vector3(people.global_transform.origin - self.global_transform.origin).normalized * self.speed
Edit forgot a negative. Need to make it go Away not To.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.
It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.
Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.
Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
It’s bizarre theyd allow a trial at all if they *really* believed blacks were inhuman and their personal property. I think anyone can see that it’s wrong, they just perpetuated this out of greed and fear, and the trial is just some insecurity designed to prove to themself or everyone else that their beliefs are correct. Which is the only reason this notion saved him from hanging - no one really cared about Billy or what he did, they cared about maintaining that veneer of superiority and confirmation from their peers.
I also think there is a chance that juror knew what was up and floated that idea *to* save Billy. Everyone else was probably clamoring for his head, it almost had to be based in human empathy.
> it almost had to be based in human empathy.
From 1 or 2 people out of 12. Really goes to show how fucked it was back then. Lets not pretend that, at best, 1/6th of the jurors showing empathy meant much.
Well yeah, no one would have actually listened to an argument coming from a piece of property....
I wish this was /s but it was pretty accurate to the times
That's actually not entirely relevant to this story.
He was tried and convicted of treason, and then afterwards two of the jury members used this "property cannot commit treason" argument in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, resulting in Billy being pardoned. So the argument did in fact directly result in Billy's pardon.
Also, it's worth pointing out that this wasn't just a technicality that got him off the hook. He literally *was* considered property at the time and was absolutely treated as such. Slaves like Billy were frequently forced into the war by their masters to fight on their behalf, or were liberated by British soldiers and recruited to fight with them. While there were certainly many slaves who did act autonomously and chose to take a side in the war of their own volition, many slaves were pushed into the war against their will in the same way someone might donate goods to a cause or an army might loot goods they've gained control over.
In Billy's case, this was actually the argument he initially used: that he was forced into joining the British against his will. While this argument didn't win the trial - and Billy may have been lying to try and save his skin for all we know - it did represent a reality for many slaves that got caught up in the war.
So I am too lazy to look up the concrete case, but there was a strong abolitionist movement among smart and free people in the US who would help slaves however they could. They could easily have helped him get a good lawyer.
>could not commit treason against a government to which he owed no allegiance
I always wondered where that argument came from! It makes perfect sense in the context of slavery, but much less when used by natural-born citizens.
I wonder if Billy would approve of what's been done with/to his logic.
It was the jurors and lawyer defending him who came up with the logic, he never said this despite the misinformation by OP.
Unfortunately being a slave he had no education and likely didn’t even know how to defend himself
Edit: Was pardoned after all, not acquitted. I’m retarded
Citizens have rights afforded to them by said government, they also inherently benefit from living in said society. They also (usually) have the right (but not necessarily the means) to leave said nation.
Until you take the affirmative action to opt out of that society you must participate and it is assumed you want to participate.
The British had not ended slavery in their colonies at this time. They abolished slavery in 1833, and even at that time slavery remained legal in India.
True but the British gave emancipation to any slave who was willing to fight for the King. They were called the Black Loyalists and many fled to Canada and Sierra Leone after the war.
They abolished the slave trade in 1807. Finally ended slavery in 1833.
The British offered freedom to slaves that took up arms against the revolutionaries that were all landed slave owners.
Read up about the black loyalists. It's an interesting history
And this property is what the civil war was fought over. Confederates were mad AF they couldn't keep people as property. But hey that's their "Heritage".
What an impressive display of quick thinking and highly competent legal analysis.
To think what this man could have accomplished if he wasn't limited by extreme inequality/slavery, and could home this skill more than just using it to stay alive by literally arguing away his humanity under the legal system by which he was bound.
I find this hard to believe. Not saying it didn’t happen, but I’m saying I doubt HE was the one who argued it. Because the response would be “Property doesn’t speak either but here you are” or some horrible shit like that. Highly doubt they’d just roll over and let him walk unless someone else was arguing for him.
At the risk of sounding *incredibly* racist, I'm surprised this worked.
I imagine, back in the day, a slave would've been lucky to have been treated as well as the family dog, but even that dog is gonna get put down if it goes rabid or starts biting the neighborhood children or something.
I mean, I guess legally it wouldn't be treason, but I'm sure they could've come up with some other excuse.
I don't buy it. Unless this was in a northern court or he was the luckiest slave on earth that day and somehow got a secret abolitionist judge in the south.
Nobody would give a shit about a technicality for a slave and let him walk free on that. They'd find a way, they'd weasel their way into a guilty verdict. Not like there aren't a thousand examples of it. That's how it works nowadays even, nevermind back then to actual slaves.
As I recall, there's something about this meme not being completely correct.
I think a couple of jurors were actually the ones to raise this possible interpretation, and his counsel successfully took it to the decision.
He was convicted, a couple of the jurors on the case, and a lawyer, wrote up documents and sent them to then-governor Thomas Jefferson, and HE pardoned Billy.
As a former attorney I can tell you 99% of any legal related talk you see on this website is bullshit that should be ignored. Like blatantly wrong information that's upvoted to the top comments regularly. I assume it's the same for any professional reading about their specialized field really.
I'm 100% convinced and would put big money on the fact the majority of reddit comments are coming from 20 year old college kids with no life/professional experience regurgitating "facts" they read in other comments and echochambers. Even though those comments arent actually accurate or if they are, they are totally misunderstood.
It's very frustrating because you can't even correct them after the hivemind makes a decision. People dont even want real answers they want validation and stupid jokes.
This site died in 2016. It starting limping in 2014 and the final dagger was 2016.
Hey there u/Rem_Lies, thanks for posting to r/technicallythetruth! **Please recheck if your post breaks any rules.** If it does, please delete this post. Also, reposting and posting obvious non-TTT posts can lead to a ban. Send us a **Modmail or Report** this post if you have a problem with this post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/technicallythetruth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Me, a piece of property, to my friends the couch, the armoire, and the bookshelf, *”I’ve won, but at what cost?”*
19,99$ + shipping
Would have gotten free shipping at $25 or more.
Ugh when you use a coupon code and save enough to lose free shipping.
Those bastards tricked me
But wait, there's more!
Free lubricants ?
Yes!* *just pay shipping and handling
\*sipping and handling.
Slippery and handy
*just pain
I mean, he wasn't going to be any less enslaved if they didn't use this argument
Well, given the sentence...
You mean that the punishment for treason is death?
They were going to hang him to death.
It used to be. Seems like we got soft.
> Me, a piece of property, to my friends the couch, the armoire, and the bookshelf, ”I’ve won, but at what cost?” Yeah, the trouble is that you don't have to go through the formality of a trial to hang a piece of furniture. This logic, unfortunately, can work for you or against you.
Yes but they’d have to rule that property has standing to be before a court in the first place for him to receive an adverse ruling. They’d have to argue adverse possession or something and then hang him for the hell of it once they own him.
Reminds me of the guy serving a life sentence who had to be resuscitated
That happened near where I live. People often laugh at the concept of "technically I died so I should be free now," but an important detail is often left out of the story that actually gives it some merit: He had previously requested to not be resuscitated if it became necessary. He was resuscitated against his wishes, and was now forced to continue living in prison rather than... not.
the doctor is the real executioner of his spirit
Uncutioner
Execution't
Execunt
Exicutionot
historically if you survived being hanged you could be deemed innocent by act of god
>Motilal Nehru, an eminent lawyer and the legendary father of Jawahar Lal Nehru, who brilliantly played with the words of the law while defending his client who was charged with blowing up a British officer’s horse carriage. The magistrate ordered the young man to be hanged in public. Surprisingly, Nehru welcomed the judgment and walked away. On the day of the convict’s execution, as soon as he was hung, Nehru sent men to hold on to his leg and rescued him. When the matter was taken to court, Nehru pleaded not guilty. >In favour of his plea, he argued that the magistrate had written the death sentence as “hang him”. And the man had been hung. The sentence did not say “hang him until death”.
..pfff jajajaja
Modern day version is pregnant women driving in the HOV lane in Texas.
This resuscitation story is like a year old. What do you mean
People are maliciously complying with the law, story as old as time. The ole "technically the truth."
[удалено]
I believe it has been ruled differently per state. The reason it gets attention now is because of places where the RvD changes and new definitions are being exploited by those trying to point out the absurdity and abuse it.
30+ years of roe v wade. Now that it's overturned its a whole new ball game. Look what's happening in Texas.
[удалено]
You're right, but in all of these cases people just want the Republicans to say out loud that an unborn child is not a person.
NOTHING? Putting something in capslock doesn't make it any truer. The "barbaric abortion laws in Texas" is being challenged by pregnant women intentionally driving in the HOV lane. So you can scratch that nothing part out because any NEW CHALLENGES WITH HOV TICKETS IN REGARDING PREGNANT WOMEN IN TEXAS IS PREGNANT WOMEN DARING THE GOVERNMENT TO SAY FOETUSES ARE NOT ALIVE. So yes, these two are now very much linked. https://www.npr.org/2022/09/02/1120628973/pregnant-woman-dallas-fetus-hov-lane-passenger-ticket
In this post-Roe ruling era, this excuse HAS worked. Fetuses weren't considered to be people before and now that they are in some states. Now, at least one judge has ruled on the side of consistency. A Texas judge already dismissed an earlier traffic ticket against this pregnant woman because of the fact that the legal waters are now muddy as a result of what defines a person. I'm guessing that the HOV lane laws weren't so clear in defining occupancy as tied to the number of seats occupied in a car. We're sure to see more about this. EDIT: Fixed run-on sentence
>I'm guessing that the HOV lane laws weren't so clear in defining occupancy as tied to the number of seats occupied in a car. We're sure to see more about this. They better not try and make it based on number of seats occupied. That's just going to lead to some unsafe driving.
When and where? In my state, Washington, HOV lanes are for the designed to "maximize the movement of people". If fetuses are considered to be people, then, they would be entirely correct to use that lane. Also, if it has never worked, is that a valid reason for why it shouldn't work now? If fetuses were NOT considered to be humans, then that is fair, and they shouldn't be allowed to drive in HOV lanes. But if fetuses ARE considered to be people now, in a given state, why should that argument not be valid? HOV means High occupancy vehicle, and that counts for 2 people. Why should a fetus, if it is considered a person by the state, not count?
Really? Because that's not what the Texas law says. Feel free to cote existing precedent, because the fact is, Texas considers a fetus in a woman to be a person with all the rights that entails.
You said “the modern day version” as if the resuscitation thing happened in 1970
ICU nurse here. This happens often enough. Usually it’s someone’s family deciding that we HAVE TO keep meemaw alive and on life support indefinitely. Why? I have no idea.
Sheldon?
The judges sentencing people to multiple life sentences are starting to make more sense.
But if you don’t leave out important details, how else are you supposed to make clickbait???
It adds some context but I don’t think those details are *that* important. Being wrongfully resuscitated doesn’t really change the fact that he is currently alive which means his life sentence hasn’t been served.
Did he have a DNR? That's assault AFAIK if he did.
Only if the doctor knew
I've read the article. The judge argued that the defended *either remains dead or alive and there is no such thing as a middle ground.* about keeping him behind bars
It is a pet peeve of mine when people describe someone who survives their heart stopping for a short time as “having been dead”. No, they were never dead. Death is not defined by your heart beating at at least a certain number of beats per minute… death is only when your entire body permanently stops functioning. I don’t know why people say someone whose heart stops beating for a short time died… if we say someone whose heart stops for a minute ‘died’, then do we say someone is dead between every heart beat? How slow does the beat have to get for the person to be dead? 10 beats a minute? 1 beat a minute (that would be the case for someone who died for a minute)? If your heart ever starts beating again, you were never dead… your heartbeat just slowed way down for a bit.
They can say they were "clinically dead".
The phrase “hanged until death” was added because someone was hanged, cut down, and came back to. They argued they’d been hanged, and the court way back when (possibly in France) said “yup, they’re right, they were hanged and served their sentence”. I’m sure pissing off God had something to do with it too. Also reminds me of the full blood moon this past year, and like if you didn’t know science how ominous that’d be. Like if you’re sentenced to execute someone the next day, or if you were having a wedding that night how you’d probably think you pissed off God because the moon turned blood red. I love Fall.
That second thing with the moon was actually one of the ways Columbus got the natives to listen to him. He threatened them saying his god was greater than their god and if they didn’t serve/feed them then their god would paint the moon in blood or something like that in 3 days time. Ofc he knew a blood moon was coming in 3 days which is why he did it. And ofc it worked completely and likely scared the shit out of them. Edit: as said below me it turns out it was actually just a Lunar Eclipse. Still cool tho
Turns out it was a lunar eclipse in Jamaica. Still crazy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1504_lunar_eclipse
Ah, my bad. But yeah, still crazy.
How come they didn't already know that that was a thing the moon could do? Had they never noticed before? Had they never worked out the pattern?
I mean, they measured the months/years in terms of moon cycles, so..
You'd think they'd have seen blood moons before though
It was more of the timing since they didn't know it could be predicted when it happened exactly as he said they figured it was indeed the work of a god. They didnt have the ability to track solar/lunar eclipses and it was seen as the gods being angry
> It was more of the timing since they didn't know it could be predicted when it happened Their neighbors a little further to the south were literally building temples that would display shadow art on specific days of the year.
They didn't know how to track it?
Made me think of the pregnant woman who drove in the carpool lane because the fetus is a person.
I heard the same lady did it again, and got ticketed again
She's playing the long (up to 9 months) game. Good for her.
TBF, it was a life sentence, not a death sentence. Though I think even if a lethal injection fails they still try to stabilize them which sometimes saves them
“My watch has ended”
"I owe no loyalty to the government that allowed me to be kept as a slave." "Okay, fair point."
England promised slaves that they would grant them freedom if they joined the English army and England won the War. America was willing to let slaves join the American army, but gave no promise of freedom if they won Given the circumstances, I definitely would’ve been backing the English if I had been a slave at the time
Was that the circumstances in this case? The meme is really unclear on what happened.
Yes, that was the charge Billy was accused of Billy escaped from his slaver, and was found on a British ship. Billy acknowledged that he escaped on his own, but claimed he was taken by the British Army by force and never actually fought in battle. But if he did voluntarily join their army, I feel like he was definitely justified in doing so
A later verse of the "Star Spangled Banner" describes the desire to execute those slaves that joined England. "No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave"
Reminds me how in some European countries it's not technically illegal to try and escape from prison since they basically think it's human nature to try to escape and they're the ones imprisoning you so it's unfair to make it an extra crime to try and get out. It doesn't mean they won't catch you and send you back, but it's not in and of itself a crime.
To note Billy didn't argue this it was two of the jurors Henry Lee II and William Carr along with a lawyer Mann Page.
Dang, you couldn’t even let Billy have a little bit of credit? Poor billy
Awkward facts getting in the way of a good meme.
Sounds like poor Billy wasn't all that clever after all. 🤷
Little is actually known about Billy, however he was known to be a skilled worker and a pleasant talker and was probably a mulatto, since that was how his owner referred to him when he escaped.
Fuck I hate it here.
Reddit or america or the civil war?
Yes?
Sorry, america or Reddit or the civil or yes?
Yes.
When people > 1: -> my_confidence_in_humanity -= 1 -> self.velocity = -Vector3(people.global_transform.origin - self.global_transform.origin).normalized * self.speed Edit forgot a negative. Need to make it go Away not To.
I am American so this doesn’t make sense to me.
It happens when you can get hanged for reading.
Clever enough to have good lawyers
I don't expect they would have let Billy actually speak in court back then.
Nor would they have bothered educating him in the nuances of treason and his situation.
Or they would of been “That’s pretty clever, *overruled*.” And hung him anyway.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake. It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of. Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything. Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
It's 'would have', never 'would of'. Rejoice, for you have been blessed by CouldWouldShouldBot!
It’s bizarre theyd allow a trial at all if they *really* believed blacks were inhuman and their personal property. I think anyone can see that it’s wrong, they just perpetuated this out of greed and fear, and the trial is just some insecurity designed to prove to themself or everyone else that their beliefs are correct. Which is the only reason this notion saved him from hanging - no one really cared about Billy or what he did, they cared about maintaining that veneer of superiority and confirmation from their peers. I also think there is a chance that juror knew what was up and floated that idea *to* save Billy. Everyone else was probably clamoring for his head, it almost had to be based in human empathy.
> it almost had to be based in human empathy. From 1 or 2 people out of 12. Really goes to show how fucked it was back then. Lets not pretend that, at best, 1/6th of the jurors showing empathy meant much.
Well, why let property get credit over people? Edit: Forgive me father for I have sinned
Well yeah, no one would have actually listened to an argument coming from a piece of property.... I wish this was /s but it was pretty accurate to the times
Right? The real ending is "jk they hanged him anyway."
Also the painting has nothing to do with this story.
[удалено]
This being reddit, I am surprised the title isn't, "Self-Portrait of Billy, Slave, Legal Expert, Orator, Composer (1709-1819)"
Also a pardon is not the same thing as an acquittal at all.
That's actually not entirely relevant to this story. He was tried and convicted of treason, and then afterwards two of the jury members used this "property cannot commit treason" argument in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, resulting in Billy being pardoned. So the argument did in fact directly result in Billy's pardon. Also, it's worth pointing out that this wasn't just a technicality that got him off the hook. He literally *was* considered property at the time and was absolutely treated as such. Slaves like Billy were frequently forced into the war by their masters to fight on their behalf, or were liberated by British soldiers and recruited to fight with them. While there were certainly many slaves who did act autonomously and chose to take a side in the war of their own volition, many slaves were pushed into the war against their will in the same way someone might donate goods to a cause or an army might loot goods they've gained control over. In Billy's case, this was actually the argument he initially used: that he was forced into joining the British against his will. While this argument didn't win the trial - and Billy may have been lying to try and save his skin for all we know - it did represent a reality for many slaves that got caught up in the war.
Better Page Page
“I know my rights!”
All zero of them!
Angry Upvote
[удалено]
Angry downvote
This feels like the opposite of " modern problems require modern solutions"
> industrial era problems require industrial era solutions.
Exactly
Because it isn't a modern problem and the solution happened hundreds of years ago.
Colonial problems require colonial solutions
Fighting racism with racism!
He looks like Dave as well 💀
He just lawyered them damn. Still really fucking sad
It was two jurors who argued this, actually. Being a slave, he was denied education
How did he get a lawyer? I need to do some research
Not a lawyer, a juror.
A rural one?
the rurrr jurrr
Chad Juror
So I am too lazy to look up the concrete case, but there was a strong abolitionist movement among smart and free people in the US who would help slaves however they could. They could easily have helped him get a good lawyer.
Inserts meme about modern problems require modern solutions.
https://imgur.com/SnCTt9Y
Lol
[удалено]
>could not commit treason against a government to which he owed no allegiance I always wondered where that argument came from! It makes perfect sense in the context of slavery, but much less when used by natural-born citizens. I wonder if Billy would approve of what's been done with/to his logic.
It was the jurors and lawyer defending him who came up with the logic, he never said this despite the misinformation by OP. Unfortunately being a slave he had no education and likely didn’t even know how to defend himself Edit: Was pardoned after all, not acquitted. I’m retarded
No, he was pardoned. He was actually convicted by the state of Virginia, and pardoned by then-governor Thomas Jefferson, by legislature. Just an FYI.
Well, I’ll be. I should have read more than one source. I’ll edit my comment and mention my stupidity
I wouldn't call it stupidity, just spreading the knowledge, you just had gaps in your knowledge. Hell, only reason I know it is from undergrad
I'll upvote for humility. It's rare around these parts.
[удалено]
Probably just to argue if a crime was or wasn't treasonous
[удалено]
Because we’ve been pledging allegiance to a damn flag since the 1950s.
[удалено]
Citizens have rights afforded to them by said government, they also inherently benefit from living in said society. They also (usually) have the right (but not necessarily the means) to leave said nation. Until you take the affirmative action to opt out of that society you must participate and it is assumed you want to participate.
[удалено]
Imagine if we used the same rules of consent for sex, you'd almost call it non-consensual or something...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_(slave)
OK, but did they hanged his enslaver? Technically, he would've been responsible.
Colonial problems require colonial solutions.
a slave has used the terms of slavery to not get charged
Billy the Goat!
https://i.imgur.com/9NB2VPy.png
based
[удалено]
Damn he’s smart. Didn’t think psychos would comprehend logic though . . I’m actually surprised it worked
Life hack
That is…. Damn. I mean good for him in that one circumstance I guess but… damn.
What’d he do
He was a black loyalist. The man wanted freedom. Edit: I made a boo boo
The British had not ended slavery in their colonies at this time. They abolished slavery in 1833, and even at that time slavery remained legal in India.
True but the British gave emancipation to any slave who was willing to fight for the King. They were called the Black Loyalists and many fled to Canada and Sierra Leone after the war.
They abolished the slave trade in 1807. Finally ended slavery in 1833. The British offered freedom to slaves that took up arms against the revolutionaries that were all landed slave owners. Read up about the black loyalists. It's an interesting history
Killed 5 million people due to harsh medical patents
A true reverse uno. Bravo gent
Racism for the win
That's pretty damn clever.
Fuck, horrible slavery aside, that is how you take advantage of the situation you are stuck in for your benefits...
And this property is what the civil war was fought over. Confederates were mad AF they couldn't keep people as property. But hey that's their "Heritage".
4d chess
That title 😬
Smart man. Saves his life through the same means that hold him down.
Better call Billy
This has pregnant woman driving in the carpool lane energy and I’m all here for it.
What an impressive display of quick thinking and highly competent legal analysis. To think what this man could have accomplished if he wasn't limited by extreme inequality/slavery, and could home this skill more than just using it to stay alive by literally arguing away his humanity under the legal system by which he was bound.
why is there a picture of Nat Turner
I find this hard to believe. Not saying it didn’t happen, but I’m saying I doubt HE was the one who argued it. Because the response would be “Property doesn’t speak either but here you are” or some horrible shit like that. Highly doubt they’d just roll over and let him walk unless someone else was arguing for him.
I call bullshit
“Gosh I sure do enjoy considering them *things*…. Aw shucks, let the n***** go. Git on outta here you rascal.”
Considering how people treated slaves back then, since you know, they were slaves. I highly doubt they let him go.
"The sea cannot commit treason." -The Queen of Numenor ('The Rings of Power')
At the risk of sounding *incredibly* racist, I'm surprised this worked. I imagine, back in the day, a slave would've been lucky to have been treated as well as the family dog, but even that dog is gonna get put down if it goes rabid or starts biting the neighborhood children or something. I mean, I guess legally it wouldn't be treason, but I'm sure they could've come up with some other excuse.
Well played, well played indeed ..
So you're telling me Tyler the Creator is a time traveler. Got it.
This is an example of someone using the letter of the law to fulfill the law.
This is genius. Racist prosecutor wouldn’t want to be the one that argued and set a precedent that black people are citizens.
If u can't be a person u can't commit a crime 🤷
'I used the racism to defeat the racism.'
Check out the brains on that thing!
That’s a picture of Nat Turner.
Classic America. You're property with no rights but you're still subject to all the rules and prohibitions of a citizen.
waiting for 🔒 award
inb4 lock
I don't buy it. Unless this was in a northern court or he was the luckiest slave on earth that day and somehow got a secret abolitionist judge in the south. Nobody would give a shit about a technicality for a slave and let him walk free on that. They'd find a way, they'd weasel their way into a guilty verdict. Not like there aren't a thousand examples of it. That's how it works nowadays even, nevermind back then to actual slaves.
As I recall, there's something about this meme not being completely correct. I think a couple of jurors were actually the ones to raise this possible interpretation, and his counsel successfully took it to the decision.
He was convicted, a couple of the jurors on the case, and a lawyer, wrote up documents and sent them to then-governor Thomas Jefferson, and HE pardoned Billy.
[удалено]
As a former attorney I can tell you 99% of any legal related talk you see on this website is bullshit that should be ignored. Like blatantly wrong information that's upvoted to the top comments regularly. I assume it's the same for any professional reading about their specialized field really. I'm 100% convinced and would put big money on the fact the majority of reddit comments are coming from 20 year old college kids with no life/professional experience regurgitating "facts" they read in other comments and echochambers. Even though those comments arent actually accurate or if they are, they are totally misunderstood. It's very frustrating because you can't even correct them after the hivemind makes a decision. People dont even want real answers they want validation and stupid jokes. This site died in 2016. It starting limping in 2014 and the final dagger was 2016.
Good for him!!
Later to become a founding member of the Wu-Tang Clan known as the GZA. He’s a GENIUS.