Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck
Wrong twice. But say, for the sake of argument, that they only got the 13 states that supposedly made up the confederacy. The states that rebelled to protect slavery in the first place. It would have taken 39 states to ratify it. Again, do the math.
But you can get the Northeast to legalize homosexual marriages, and force them on the rest of the republic.
I'll ping lentulusgracchus and let him give you a lecture on your statist ways and take you to task about states and marriage. And in the meantime I'll point out that you're wrong. The fact that New Hampshire or Massachusetts legalize homosexual marriage has no impact on us out in Kansas who amended our state Constitution to ban it. What New England chooses to do is of no interest to us.
The utter BS is your blanket statement that all slave marriages were performed by the local JP. In fact, I'd be surprised that many, if any, were.
There are several cases recognizing their legal status...
I've often been amazed by your...unusual interpretations of court cases in the past so if you would, could you please list some of these cases? I'd like to see for myself.
...and several wills and trusts ajudicated after the war upheld the validity of the marriages.
A will or trust do not give slave marriages legal status if the local state government does not.
but for the REST of humanity, it is CORRECT & FACTUAL.
the truth is that you DISMISS anything/EVERYTHING, no matter from what its source, that disagrees with your PREJUDICES.
another piece of TRUTH is that the members of "the coven" are considered to be a "collection of dunces" btw most FReepers. (also, may i remind you that about TWO DOZEN of the DAMNyankee NITWITS/LIARS/BIGOTS are G-O-N-E, GONE & PERMANENTLY BANNED from FR "for cause"???)
laughing AT you & the rest of the losers of "the coven", as most intelligent people do.
note to ALL: LAUGHTER/RIDICULE is an EFFECTIVE weapon against BIGOTS.
free dixie,sw
Where’s the book?
it seems to be part of the "regional character" of the NE's population to want to be "trendy", i.e., WIERD/stupid/ARROGANT/SELF-impressed.
free dixie,sw
care to ask another repetitive/STUPID question that makes you LOOK silly/FOOLISH???
free dixie,sw
And I would presume that you lied about ever requesting it in the first place. That would be in keeping with your past history.
care to ask another repetitive/STUPID question that makes you LOOK silly/FOOLISH???
No. Where's the book?
free dixie,sw
I'm aware that not a single soul believes anything that you say since you have proven over and again that you couldn't tell the truth on anything if your life depended on it.
Now, go play with your little Southron friends and don't bother me again until that book turns up.
never fear it will "come in", be posted & you will be HUMILIATED by what it says.
free dixie,sw
I have no fear at all, even if it did come, which it won't, because you lied about ordering it. And I've read it so I know that your claim about 100,000 to 150,000 free blacks in confederate ranks is pure, unadulterated SW BS.
central_va: "Fairy tale."
Oh? You have evidence to "prove" it's just a "fairy tail"?
And what do you fantasize were the "real goals"?
If you're in Texas, the Dallas Public Library has a copy. In fact, according to worldcat.org, 117 US libraries have copies.
LOL! Smith Bankhead was a newspaper editor and lawyer in Memphis. He was never a real Brigadier General and only held that rank as a brevet for three months in 1863 before being relieved of that command. He spent most of the war as the chief of artillery in the north subdistrict of Texas, far from the action. A month and a half before the confederate surrender Bankhead decided he'd had enough and went home to Memphis, getting a pass through the US lines and a guarantee of save passage.
Back in Memphis he became part of the Reconstruction government and was widely reviled by confederate dead-enders for his activities. He was beaten to death on the street in March, 1867, most likely by some of those dead-enders who fancied themselves guerillas continuing the fight. It's the oldest unsolved murder on the books in Memphis.
ping
The "Southern" states that reatified were either pro-Union rump legislatures such as the Virginia Legislature (located in Alexandria) or provisional governments appointed by the President.
As you can see, four of the Confederate states ratified even before the war ended and there were no 'former confederates' involved in those governments.
The dates of ratification were: Illinois, February 1, 1865; Rhode Island, February 2, 1865; Michigan, February 2, 1865; Maryland, February 3, 1865; New York, February 3, 1865; Pennsylvania, February 3, 1865; West Virginia, February 3, 1865; Missouri, February 6, 1865; Maine, February 7, 1865; Kansas, February 7, 1865; Massachusetts, February 7, 1865; Virginia, February 9, 1865; Ohio, February 10, 1865; Indiana, February 13, 1865; Nevada, February 16, 1865; Louisiana, February 17, 1865; Minnesota, February 23, 1865; Wisconsin, February 24, 1865; Vermont, March 9, 1865; Tennessee, April 7, 1865; Arkansas, April 14, 1865; Connecticut, May 4, 1865; New Hampshire, July 1, 1865; South Carolina, November 13, 1865; Alabama, December 2, 1865; North Carolina, December 4, 1865; Georgia, December 6, 1865.
With former Confederate states part of the ratification process, Virginia and Louisiana approved the Thirteenth Amendment in February followed by Tennessee and Arkansas in April. The governments of Louisiana, Tennessee, and Arkansas were those established under President Lincoln’s Reconstruction policy. In Virginia, the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified by a “rump” legislature, which had begun meeting in Alexandria shortly after the Civil War began, claiming to be the legitimate and loyal representative of the state in the Union. It had earlier approved the creation of the state’s western counties into the new state of West Virginia. The U.S. State Department accepted the ratification from those four and, later, other Southern states.
In the months following the end of the Civil War and President Lincoln’s assassination in mid-April 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified by Connecticut on May 4 and New Hampshire on July 1. The focus then shifted southward as momentum for ratification slowed. Upon the death of Lincoln, Vice President Andrew Johnson, a War Democrat from Tennessee, was sworn in as president. While Congress was in recess during the summer of 1865, President Johnson began implementing his own Reconstruction program.
Under his guidelines, the new state constitutions abolished slavery, repealed their secession ordinances, and repudiated Confederate war debts. The president also urged, but did not require, the former Confederate states to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment as a condition for regaining representation in Congress.
Source: http://13thamendment.harpweek.com/HubPages/CommentaryPage.asp?Commentary=05Results
And for you non-sequitur, you will argue the marriage records for all to see, but not admit the truth.
Why publish the census page while not admitting that separate pages and records were kept for slaves? That is only deceptive to those that are not following very closely.
And you know very well that slave numbers as a whole as well as a percentage of the population are in the data. You also know that head of household numbers were available, which provided the marriage data.
You are just trying to affix the concept of “slaves were property, not human” to your fellow posters, and that is crude.
Why should I admit that what you are saying is the truth when we have nothing but your claims to back it up? No Southern state recognized slave marriages as valid. I posted the 1850 census form which clearly states that they were surveying free people only. Nowhere on that form is there a question about slaves being married. Slave numbers were surveyed, but not their population or their personal data.
And you know very well that slave numbers as a whole as well as a percentage of the population are in the data. You also know that head of household numbers were available, which provided the marriage data.
And I also know, based on the 1850 census information available, that slaves were not counted as heads of household. Legally they had no household to be a head of.
You are just trying to affix the concept of “slaves were property, not human” to your fellow posters, and that is crude.
You're trying to deny your heritage which considered them as such.
laughing AT you, as many here soon will.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.