United States slavery was never racial

Alright, conclusion time. I agree, interesting debate. If it seems like I be getting heated, it's because of the Natural Law paper I'm writing for grad school right now. First point: Wrong. She was a German immigrant, and claimed to be. That is no longer a citizen of Germany, they moved to the US. Her status of citizen never seemed to be the argument for if she should be a slave or not. Point the Second: Sally's case goes all the way up to the State Supreme Court. Here is a quote from the ruling (Pulled from Wikipedia Sally Miller page): "That on the law of slavery in the case of a person visibly appearing to be a white man, or an Indian, the presumption is he is free, and it is necessary for his adversity to show that he is a slave." The Supreme Court, who are the ones who made the final ruling, used race as the determinant for slavery here. Recall, due to your use of an absolutist claim, I need only provide one example in opposition to debunk. Further on 2: The mother? Dead by the time this happened. Salome's mother was dead on the journey to America. Sally's mother was a black slave. Now, I think what you are actually talking about was Sally's attempts to free her own kids. You see, she was set free by the Supreme Court's decision, which came before all of that evidence showing Sally wasn't Shalome. She tried to get that for her kids. Failed. Fun fact by the way: After that particular decision, Louisiana was not amused, abolished that Supreme Court, and then remade it, without any of the Judges who made that ruling on the bench. Point the Third. This section was meant to show that Sally was not Shalome, but in further examination, I suppose it doesn't support the claim. I concede that section. Point the fourth: Actually, the thing is, the case only took off because she didn't look black, inculcating doubt. Again, the quote: " "That on the law of slavery in the case of a person visibly appearing to be a white man, or an Indian, the presumption is he is free, and it is necessary for his adversity to show that he is a slave."" Even conceding the nationality part, notice that this ruling makes no mention of such. It says, that since she looks white, you need to prove she's mulatto. The question here wasn't if she was German or anything. It was if she was a mulatto or not. If race is skin color, which I personally find to be too limited, The final point: I suppose this part could be confusing. This has nothing to do with the case itself, it is mechanics of logic. Okay, say you claim that the sky is ALWAYS blue. Not just every now and then, ALWAYS. How do I prove that wrong? By giving an example where it isn't blue, say, sunset, when it is red. In logical arguments that use an absolute claim, such as X is never Y, or Z is always B, these claims are proven false if a single counterexample is true. If X can be Y if I smack it with a hammer, then the statement X is never Y is obviously false, yar? If Z is always B, unless I snort Z, in which case Z becomes C, then Z is always B is a false statement. With me? So let's apply your argument. Slavery in the United States was never about race. Okay. Lets make that S (Slavery in the United States) is never, and could never contain R (Race). That is your argument in Symbolic Logic (Somewhat, I'm not using the equation symbols, because they're unnecessary). Alrighty then. In order for that to be true, S can NEVER contain R. EVER. If I provide ANY examples in which S=R, then your claim is false. That means, if someone bought a slave in part because it was black, your claim is false. That would be a situation in which race was involved in the slave thing. Doesn't matter how many times race wasn't involved, if it is involved once, your argument fails. That is simply how absolute claims work. If it was "Slavery in the US wasn't always about race", it'd be the reverse. You see, the argument there is that the absolute "Slavery is always about race" is wrong. The reason the claim is so difficult to defend is that if one racist person decides to enslave a person in part because they are black, then Slavery was about race in a case. It would've had to happen in the US, true, but if it did, at any point, my claim is true. That's part of the reason why I got slightly irritate. You see, to defend an absolute claim, you can't point to one example. The sky guy in the earlier example can't point at the sky one time it is blue, and say that's how it always is and automatically be right. My argument here is that, since this particular case did actually involve race at at least one point, the judge's statement about how if someone looks white or indian, proof has to be given they aren't for them to be slaves, there is an example of when race got involved. Even if that quote is somehow magically not about race (which it is), you still have to show that race never came into the equation elsewhere. Again, EVER. An example, which is something I should've started off with (I got caught up with Sally Miller): "Act I. It is enacted that all servants [...] which shall be imported into this country either by sea or by land, whether Negroes, Moors, mulattoes or Indians who and whose parentage and native countries are not Christian at the time of their first purchase by some Christian [...] and all Indians, which shall be sold by our neighboring Indians, or any other trafficking with us for slaves, are hereby adjudged, deemed and taken to be slaves to all intents and purposes any law, usage, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding." Let's examine this legal code from Virginia, defining slaves (source: https://en.wikipedia.org...). "If you are Negro, a Moor, mulattoes, or Indian...." Alright, so those are the first requirement for being a slave, you MUST fall under one of those categories, for Virginia to call you a slave. Are you white? Can't be a slave there. Asian? Nope. The point is, there is a racial distinction here. That means, at one point, in Virginia, which is in the US, they used race to qualify/disqualify you for slavery. And again, I need only provide one example to prove the absolutist claim "US Slavery was Never Racial" wrong. It was pretty racial right here. I look forward to future debates.