Ok, last one, because this citation hole is a doozy. J. Martin (2000) wrote about the effects of an 1832 law on the ability of children born through plaçage arrangements receive inheritances. She cited Rogers (1942), but he cited Johnston (1937) who cited a court case from 1832. The kicker is that all but the last of them included both a quote from the case with no clear attribution and paragraphs that were hardly modified copies of each other. Here they are:
[#]history #Louisiana #NewOrleans
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from joshisanonymous@h4.io
From J. Martin (2000):
"Unfortunately, however, in 1832 American lawmakers declared the old French laws no longer binding. New restrictions were passed to protect white heirs from what was termed 'too great fondness of the natural parents of m****to children.'"
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from joshisanonymous@h4.io
From Rogers (1942):
"In 1832, the Louisiana courts declared that the old French laws and decisions were no longer binding. It was found necessary, says James H. Johnston, to pass many restrictive acts to protect, as was said white 'heirs from too great fondness of the natural parents' of m****to children."
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from joshisanonymous@h4.io
From Johnston (1937):
"A decision of the Louisiana courts in 1832 declared that the decisions of the courts of France were no longer binding as they affect the m****to offspring of white men and that it has been found necessary to pass many restrictive acts to protect white 'heirs from the too great fondness of the natural parents of such children.'”
The court case that was then cited was Jung vs Doriscourts et al. (1832)
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from joshisanonymous@h4.io
text/geminiThis content has been proxied by September (ba2dc).