| Return To Emanuel Johnson's Homepage |
As I sit here on Florida's Death Row
- a victim of a not - so modern -
form of Jim Crowism in the USA
- I think back over all I have learned
about this country since my 1988 arrest;
I can now say that I honestly
understand how public officials can,
and do, so easily disregard a
persons' rights.
Many of us like to proclaim, but surely
can't honestly believe, that
"the past is the past, and should be
left in the past,"... I agree to /
with this but, as in my case, the ramifications
of the past lives on,
and must be acknowledged, and addressed,
if we, the human race, are to truly
begin the process of distancing ourselves
from "the past."
A quick reference to my case, and then
I will be on to connecting the
"past" with the "present."
I am accused of crimes against whites.
There is DNA, prints, hairs,
fibres, which negates my guilt - all
of which has been ignored by the
police, prosecutors, trial judges,
and the Florida Supreme Court...my
life / conviction rests on one so called
confession, made, as has been
clearly proven, under duress...I am
nowhere close to a saint, and my
only claim is that I am not guilty
of ever having killed or attempted
to kill anyone.
Many upstanding citizens, most of whom
will have total trust / faith in
"public officials," refuse to believe
that such injustices are taking
place in this day and age.
I will use the US Supreme Courts own
words / rulings to prove my points
herein - "Howard 19 scott Vs Sanford
US" Year : 1857
(1) Negroes ruled as "sub human" and
"inferior"
(2) Negores as "property"
(3) Rights of whites to "own" negroes
as property.
(4) Negroes not people / citizens within
US Constitution.
(5) End of slavery based on inconvenience,
not morals.
(6) Policy stop of negroes by police,
then and now.
(7) Limited education for negroes,
then and now.
(8) Negroes right to vote, but not
as "citizens"
(9) Interracial marriages illegal -
lower beings.
(1) - Negroes ruled "sub-human / inferior"
by US Supreme Court...the
question before the US Supreme - At
403, Scott supra - was "can a
negro, whose ancestors were imported
into this country, and sold as
slaves, become a member of the political
community formed and brought
into existence by the constitution
of the United States, and as such
become entitled to all the Rights,
and priveledges, and immunities,
gauranteed by that instrument to the
citizen ?"
To clarify this question, the US Supreme
Court stated, at 403 Supra,
"It will be observed that this pleaapplies
to that class of persons
only whose ancestors were negroes of
the African race, and imported
into this country, and sold and held
as slaves. The only matter in
issue before the court, therefore,
is whether the descendents of such
slaves, when they shall be emancipated,
or who are born of parents who
had become free before their birth,
are citizens of a state, in the
sense in which the word "citizen" is
used in the Constitution of the
United States. And this being the only
matter in dispute on the pleading,
the court must be understood as speaking
in this opinion of that class
only, that is, ofthose persons who
are descendants of Africans who
were imported into this country and
sold as slaves," at 403 Supra.
In answer this question (1) - the US Supreme Court stated :
At 410, Scott Supra, : "But it is too
clear for dispute, that the
enslaved African race, were not intended
to be included, and formed no
part of the people who framed and adopted
this Declaration of Independence,
for if the language, as understood
in that day, would embrace them,
the conduct of the distinguished men
who frame the declaration of
independence would have been utterly
and flagrantly inconsistent with
the principals they asserted."
The US Supreme Court goes on : " This
state of public opinion had undergone
no change when the US Constitution
was adopted, as is equally evident
from its provision and language ..
The brief preamble sets forth by
whom it was formed, for what purposes,
and for whose benefit and
protection. It declares it was
formed by the 'People' of the United
States. *** It speaks in general
terms of the people of the United
States, and of the citizens of several
states, when it is providing for
the exercise of the powers granted
or the priveledges secured to the
"citizen." *** But there are
two clauses in the Constitution which
point directly and specifically to
the negro race as a seperate class
of persons, and show clearly that they
were not regarded as a portion of
the 'people' or 'citizens' of the government
then formed. *** No one of
that race had ever migrated to the
United States, all of them had been
brought here as articles of merchandise.
(2) Negroes as "property." ...The court
goes on, at 405 supra,:
"We have made this particular examination
into the legislative and
judicial action of Connecticut, because,
from the early hostility it
displayed to the slave trade on the
coast of Africa, we may expect to
find the laws of that state as lenient
and favorable to the subject race
as other states in the Union, and if
we find that at the time the
constitution was adopted, they were
not even raised to the rank of
citizens, but were still held and treated
as property, and the laws
relating to them passed with reference
altogether to the interest and
convenience of the white race, we shall
hardly find them elevated to a
higher rank anywhere else."
At 451 supra, the further states, "
Now, as we have already said in an
earlier part of this opinion, upon
a different point, the right of
property in a slave is directly and
expressly affirmed in the US
constitution. The right to traffic
in it, like an ordinary article
of merchandise and property was gauranteed
to the citizens of the United
States, in every state that might desire
it, for twenty years. And the
government in express terms is pledged
to protect in all future time, if
the slave escapes from his owner.
This is done in plain words - too
plain to be misunderstood. And
no word can be found in the US constitution
which gives congress a greater power
over slave property, or which
entitles property of that kind less
protection than property of any other
description."
(3) - Rights of whites to own negroes
as property - this was properly
addressed in (2) above.
(4) - Negroes not people / citizen within
US constitions meaning. At 421
Scott, supra.
"The conduct of the executive department
of government has been in
perfect harmony upon this subject with
this course of legislation. The
question was brought officially before
the late William Wirt, when he
was the Attorney General of the United
States, in 1821, and he decided
that the words 'citizens of the United
States," were used in the acts
of congress in the same sense as in
the US constitution; and that the
free persons of color were not 'citizens'
within the meaning of the
constitution and the laws."
(5) - End of slavery based on 'inconvenience'
not morality. At 412,
Scott, supra, the US Supreme Court
states:
"It is very true, that in that portion
of the union where the labor of the
negro race was found to be unsuited
to the climate and unprofitable
to the master, but few slaves were
held at the time of the declaration
of independance; and when the constitution
was adopted, it had entirely
worn out in one of them, and measures
had been taken for its gradual
abolition in several others.
But this change of opinion had not been
produced by any change of opinion in
relation to this race; but because
it was discovered, from experience,
that slave labor was unsuited to
the climate and productions of these
states."
note : the famed "Emancipation Proclamation"
of Abraham Lincoln made
this point clear, wherein he states
"out of military necessity" as the
grounds for his call to an end to slavery.
(6) - policy stops of negroes by police...at
416, supra,
"For if they were so received, and
entitled to the priveleges and
immunities of 'citizens,' it would
exempt them from the operation of
the special laws and from police regulations
which they are considered
to be necessary for their own safety.
It would give the persons of the
negro race to enter every other state
of the union *** to go where they
pleased at every hour *** without molestation."
(7) - Limited education for negores,
at 414 scott, supra.
"And again, in 1833, Connecticut passed
another law, which made it
penal to set up or establish any school
in that state for the instructions
of persons of the African race not
inhabitants of the state, or to
instruct or teach in any such school
or institution, or board, or harbor,
for that purpose, any such person,
without the previous consent in
writing of the civil authorities of
the town in which the school or
institution might be."
Limited / conditioned school policies
remains a big problem, in the USA,
for negroes.
(8) - Negroes right to vote, but not
as "US citizen," at 422 Scott, supra.
"So, too, a person may be entitled
to vote by the law of the state,
who is not a citizen, of the state
itself...and in some of the states of
the union foreigners are not naturalized
are allowed to vote. And the
state may give the right to free negroes
and mulattoes, but that does not
make them 'citizens' of the state,
and still less of the United States."
note : It wasn't until 1965 that the
United States adopted / passed
'The Bill of Rights,' - more commonly
known as the 'Voters Rights Bill,'
To date, this Bill had not been added
to the US Bill of Rights - in the
year 2007, US Congress redecides if
negroes can vote in the USA.
(9) - Interracial marriages illegal;
at 409 scott, supra.
"*** They show that a perpetual and
impassable barrier was intended
to be erected between the white race
and the one which they had
reduced to slavery, and governed as
subjects with absolute and despotic
power, and which they looked upon as
so far below them in the scale
of created beings, that intermarriage
between white persons and negroes
or mullatoes were regarded as unnatural
and immoral, and punished as
crimes, not only in the parties, but
the person who joined them in
marriage. And no distinction
in this respect was made between the
negro or mullato and the slave, but
the stigma of the deepest
degredation, was fixed upon the whole
race."
As I sit here on Florida's death row,
knowing that I have been, so far,
denied fairness and due - process in
/ by the judicial system, I remind
myself ofthe US Supreme Courts own
words :"the negro have no rights that the
white man is bound to respect..."
I am modern proof that many white
men still don't feel 'bound' to 'respect'
the rights of negroes - they are
given and taken at will.
Where, I wonder, is there a place for
fairness, to Blacks, in a system of
judicial process so well grounded in
/ on such a constitution as this
of the United States.
| Return To Emanuel Johnson's Homepage |
