Courts exist to adjudicate live issues. They aren’t debating societies. For that we have legislatures. So, for example, if someone is accused of murder, but dies before the trial can occur, the trial doesn’t continue. The trial is to determine the fate of the accused, and if the accused is dead the trial is over. So, in a dispute between people who are long dead, the courts have no place.
Update: Judge Declares Man’s Slave Ancestor’s Free
I don’t see anything wrong with having the government set the record straight.
I agree. Others are saying that the issue is moot, but I don’t think so. I contend that the stigma of knowing that your ancestors were chattel is one that continues to harm living people. As such, when there is a legal argument that an ancestor was illegally held, then a court should hear that.
I’m not sure I see the logic here.
Why? Is slavery the fault of the enslaved? Should some stigma attach to the four million people who were legally held as slaves, and to their descendants? The Hale ancestors were kidnapped and held as slaves illegally. Four million other people were held as slaves legally. Does this make the Hale ancestors any better or worse?
I just don’t see the point. Okay, the kids were freed, then abducted back into slavery. There was a court case that was looking at the issue, but then not resolved.
Were they supposed to be freed and not slaves? Yes. Were they slaves again? By fact, yes, even if they shouldn’t have been.
I suppose it’s just something I cannot understand. I don’t see how it’s “an incredible piece of history for Wayne County”.