American Ivy League Slavery, Science, and Collecting Body Parts... (pizzagate)

submitted ago by septimasexta

AN AMAZING INTERVIEW WITH American History Professor Craig Steven Wilder. At 12:48 in the video, he touches on the "slave sourcing" for anatomy class props and body parts. This is the foundation for the child trafficking / human organ trafficking we see today.

Shackles and Ivy: The Secret History of How Slavery Helped Build America's Elite Colleges

"A new book 10 years in the making examines at how many major U.S. universities -- Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Brown, Dartmouth Rutgers, Williams, and the University of North Carolina among others -- are drenched in the sweat, and sometimes the blood, of Africans brought to the United States as slaves. In "Ebony & Ivy: Race, Slavery and the Troubled History of America's Universities," Massachusetts Institute of Technology American History Professor Craig Steven Wilder reveals how the slave economy and higher education grew up together. "When you think about the colonial world, until the American Revolution, there is only one college in the south, William & Mary ... The other eight colleges were all northern schools and they're actually located in key sites, for the most part, of the merchant economy where the slave traders had come to power and rose as the financial and intellectual backers of new culture of the colonies," Wilder says." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs7hfwDzwYM

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

NOMOCHOMO ago

When you think about the colonial world, until the American Revolution, there is only one college in the south, William & Mary ... The other eight colleges were all northern schools and they're actually located in key sites

They were all chartered under the British Crown

that charter still holds according to

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_College_v._Woodward

The Court ruled that the College's corporate charter qualified as a contract between private parties, the King and the trustees, with which the legislature could not interfere. Even though the United States were no longer royal colonies, the contract was still valid because the Constitution said that a state could not pass laws to impair a contract. The fact that the government had commissioned the charter did not transform the school into a civil institution. Chief Justice Marshall's opinion emphasized that the term "contract" referred to transactions involving individual property rights, not to "the political relations between the government and its citizens."

TLDR: the Ivy League Schools are literal agents of the British Crown

Vindicator ago

Hmm. That is interesting.

NOMOCHOMO ago

right? I only discovered that 6 months ago.

This ruling is also relevant. Contracts are binding even if illegal obtained

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fletcher_v._Peck

Following the Treaty of Paris ending the American Revolution, Georgia claimed possession of the Yazoo lands, a 54,000 sq mi (140,000 km2) region of the Indian Reserve, west of its own territory. The land later became the states of Alabama and Mississippi.

In 1795, the Georgia legislature divided the area into four tracts. The state then sold the tracts to four separate land development companies for $500,000, about $0.014 per acre, a bargain even at 1790 prices. The Georgia legislature overwhelmingly approved this land grant, known as the Yazoo Land Act of 1795. However, it was later revealed that the Yazoo Land Act had been approved in return for bribes. The voters rejected most of the incumbents in the next election; the new legislature, reacting to the public outcry, repealed the law and voided the transactions made under it.

Robert Fletcher and especially John Peck were speculators in the Yazoo lands. Fletcher bought a tract of land from Peck while the 1795 act was still in force. Fletcher, in 1803, brought a suit against Peck, claiming that Peck had not had clear title to the land when he sold it.

There was collusion between the two. Both would have their land secured if the Supreme Court decided that Native Americans did not hold original title. Fletcher set out to win the case.[1]

The Supreme Court unanimously (with a separate concurring opinion written by William Johnson) ruled that the legislature's repeal of the law was unconstitutional. John Marshall wrote that the sale was a binding contract, which under Article I, Section 10, Clause I (the Contract Clause) of the Constitution, cannot be invalidated even if it is illegally secured.

The ruling lent further protection to property rights against popular pressures and is the earliest case of the Court asserting its right to invalidate state laws which are in conflict with or are otherwise contrary to the Constitution. A later Chief Justice, William H. Rehnquist, wrote that Fletcher v. Peck, "represented an attempt by Chief Justice Marshall to extend the protection of the contract clause to infant business".[2]