Here's a snippet from the famous Dred Scott decision of 1857.
The language of the Declaration of Independence is equally conclusive:
It begins by declaring that, 'when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.'
It then proceeds to say: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.'
The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood. 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; for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted; and instead of the sympathy of mankind, to which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation.
Yet the men who framed this declaration were great men-high in literary acquirements-high in their sense of honor, and incapable of asserting principles inconsistent with those on which they were acting. They perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used, and how it would be understood by others; and they knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the negro race, which, by common consent, had been excluded from civilized Governments and the family of nations, and doomed to slavery. They spoke and acted according to the then established doctrines and principles, and in the ordinary language of the day, and no one misunderstood them. The unhappy black race were separated from the white by indelible marks, and laws long before established, and were never thought of or spoken of except as property, and when the claims of the owner or the profit of the trader were supposed to need protection. [Dred Scott v. Sandford, United States Supreme Court, 1857].
After reading that, how can the light still shine in a black person's eyes regarding voting?
Besides cell phones, flat screen televisions and social media, what has changed as it relates to voting equating to black empowerment, much less liberation?
How has voting taken the edge off black suffering and misery?
You know what’s more interesting is what happened on March 6, 1857 which many historians fail to highlight but we'll speak about it here. See, they like to focus on the lower court where the initial decision came from. They try to keep the mind focused on the Missouri Supreme Court. But it was later the U.S. Supreme Court (where Kavanaugh now is) ruled that Constitutional protections were not entitled to Scott because, like the Missouri Supreme court ruled, he was not a legal citizen of the United States because in the eyes of the Constitution he was property.
Put another way, the United States Supreme Court agreed with its satellite court that black people ain't (the s word here).
If one bypasses the fluff and alarmist sentiments about the dangers of not voting, I’m not seeing one valid argument –not one—to maintain voting is tenable for the black polity.
From my life experiences, the political process (voting included) continues to reflect the wishes of the 1857 decision. Isn’t admitting this fact the prelude to real change rather than continual self-deluding?