Posted on 10/30/2024 7:18:20 AM PDT by Cronos
Coffee has been the fulcrum of life here for almost three centuries, since enslaved people cut the first French coffee plantations into the mountainsides. Back then, this was not Haiti, but Saint-Domingue — the biggest supplier of coffee and sugar consumed in Parisian kitchens and Hamburg coffee houses. The colony made many French families fabulously rich. It was also, many historians say, the world’s most brutal.
Ms. Present’s ancestors put an end to that, taking part in the modern world’s first successful slave revolution in 1791 and establishing an independent nation in 1804 — decades before Britain outlawed slavery or the Civil War broke out in America.
But for generations after independence, Haitians were forced to pay the descendants of their former slave masters, including the Empress of Brazil; the son-in-law of the Russian Emperor Nicholas I; Germany’s last imperial chancellor; and Gaston de Galliffet, the French general known as the “butcher of the Commune” for crushing an insurrection in Paris in 1871.
The burdens continued well into the 20th century. The wealth Ms. Present’s ancestors coaxed from the ground brought wild profits for a French bank that helped finance the Eiffel Tower, Crédit Industriel et Commercial, and its investors. They controlled Haiti’s treasury from Paris for decades, and the bank eventually became part of one of Europe’s largest financial conglomerates.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Humorous but.... THE CLINTONS -- everything bad....
Hati, Chicago etc........ Black rule is no rule
France hasn’t owned it for centuries. Corruption is the leading cause of problems in that poor nation. What has to happen is for one set of bandits to take over and establish order. Papa Doc was an awful tyrant but there was order—now we see what is worse than a dictator—no government at all. It seems when ever they get a good leader—he is killed. Haiti must solver her own problems and reach its own form of Government. They may need to go communist—or put back a king or fascist leader to rebuild—But it must come from them! How many times have we invaded over the centuries? It never works.
the debt that France demanded during Haiti’s first 100 years is partially what held it back.
Imagine if the USA was held to ransom for $161 billion from 1776 to 1900
Haiti killed all the white people on the island after they won their independence. Women, children, and men. That killed any good will from other countries and doomed them from the start...
That would go along with a criminal culture. If that’s the case, no amount of money will fix them until they fix themselves.
Freed slaves had the option of going back to Africa, as the US had established and recognized the nation of Liberia on the African coast. Some went, and basically set up their own colony at the expense of the indigenous people.
Seemingly nobody in the late 1850’s was arguing that descendants of enslaved Africans should be recognized, pursuant either to natural law the Law of Nations, as Citizens of the U.S.A..
By its Dred Scott decision, SCOTUS seemingly definitively answered that question in the negative. History has not been kind to that decision. It was not overturned, though. Meaning, on its legal merits. Instead, the Constitution was amended, post-Civil War, to change the answer from “No” to “Yes”.
This Guy views the citizenship-declaring provision of 14th Amendment as a glorified Naturalization statute that did not alter the definition (which still needs to be declared by SCOTUS in an on-point opinion deciding, once and for all, the true criteria for determining who is, and who is not, eligible to the office of POTUS) of the Constitutional term “natural Born citizen of the United States.”
Change his mind.
________________
Fourteenth Amendment
Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
________________
ArtI.S8.C4.1.2.4 Naturalization as an Exclusive Power of Congress
Article I, Section 8, Clause 4:
[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; . . .
While the first Congress enacted federal laws governing naturalization, the Supreme Court initially appeared to recognize that states retained naturalization powers. For instance, in one early case, Collet v. Collet, the Court in 1792 declared that the states continued to have concurrent authority over naturalization, but could not exercise that authority in a manner that conflicted with federal naturalization laws.1 In United States v. Villato, the Court in 1797 ruled that a Spanish national, Francis Villato, was not a U.S. citizen even though he had taken an oath of citizenship under Pennsylvania law.2 Without deciding whether states maintained naturalization powers, the Court simply determined that the Pennsylvania law under which Villato sought to naturalize had been effectively repealed by an amendment to the state’s constitution.3 Accordingly, the Court held, Villato never became a U.S. citizen and could not be criminally charged with treason.4
Despite the Supreme Court’s early recognition of state power over naturalization, the Court ultimately determined that the naturalization power rested solely within Congress. For example, in Chirac v. Lessee of Chirac, Chief Justice John Marshall in 1817 declared [t]hat the power of naturalization is exclusively in [C]ongress does not seem to be, and certainly ought not to be, controverted.5 Therefore, in that case, a French national did not have the ability to own land (a privilege generally extended only to U.S. citizens at the time) based on the fact that he had taken an oath of citizenship under Maryland law because [C]ongress alone has the power of prescribing uniform rules of naturalization.6 Nonetheless, the Court held that a 1778 treaty between the United States and France permitted French nationals to purchase and own lands in the United States.7
Footnotes
1. 12 U.S. (2 Dall.) 294, 296 (1792) (quoting U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4).
2. 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 370, 373 (1797).
3. Id.
4. Id.
5. Chirac v. Lessee of Chirac, 15 U.S. (2 Wheat.) 259, 269 (1817).
6. Id. at 269. According to Chief Justice John Marshall, the Maryland naturalization law was virtually repealed by the [C]onstitution of the United States, and the act of naturalization enacted by [C]ongress. Id.
7. Id. at 270–71. See also Matthew’s Lessee v. Rae, 16 F. Cas. (3 Cranch) 1112 (C.C.D.D.C. 1829) (No. 9,284) (ruling that an alien who complied with state naturalization laws after Congress had passed a naturalization law was not a U.S. citizen because the state naturalization laws [were] superseded, and annulled by the act of [C]ongress, whose jurisdiction upon that subject is, under the [C]onstitution of the United States, exclusive. . . .).
______________
That's because the Southerners "crime" was not slavery, but daring to defy the corrupt financial cartel running Washington DC.
The criminals take a dim view regarding challenges to their power.
They dress it up as "morality", but the reality was revenge and punishment for those who dared to defy them.
I see. It’s ok to kill those babies, then.
A franc was about 4.5 grams of silver.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_franc
So 150 million francs would be 675 million grams of silver, or about 1.5 million pounds of silver. Silver is about $32/ounce so a pound of silver would be worth about $512.
So the price was about $770 million based on silver.
The gold/silver ratio was about 15 to 1. The current ratio is about 85 to 1.
So the 150 million francs would be about $4 billion based on gold.
If Haiti sold coffee for foreign exchange, then Haiti could not pay more in foreign exchange than what it would receive in five years.
Absolutely correct. Anyone who is a citizen by the operation of the 14th amendment, is a naturalized citizen, not a natural citizen.
Though I think it is wishful thinking that the Supreme Court, as it is currently constituted, would do anything more than rubber stamp what "everybody knows" in the legal community. Meaning they would decide it incorrectly.
“granted no compensation to their enslavers”
American slaveholders got nothing.
European owners of American slaves were paid I believe.
“On April 16, 1862, President Lincoln signed the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act. This law prohibited slavery in the District, forcing its 900-odd slaveholders to free their slaves, with the federal government paying owners an average of about $300 (equivalent to $9,000 in 2023) for each.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensated_emancipation
Haiti had about 400,000 slaves. At $9,000 a head each on average, that would come to $3.6 billion.
Sounds correct. Nobody wanted to piss off the Europeans.
Invokes the question as to why this isn't a fifth amendment violation.
“I do not stand here to cavil with men who are not read in the horn-books of the law; but I assert that every man born within the limits of the Republic, or under its flag at sea, of parents who were not the subjects of any other sovereignty, are, in the very words of the Constitution, natural born citizens”
John Bingham, framer of Amendment XIV that made Obama, Harris, Haley and Vivek US citizens
from the Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 407 (1862)
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=058/llcg058.db&recNum=64
Enter in 407, click Turn to image, and look at the end of the first and beginning of the second column.
The chattels were not taken for public use.
The further unpaid forced private use of the chattels was barred.
Yup. I am familiar with John Bingham. I've been using a statement by him as my tagline since 2011.
The Democratic voters are in actuality voting for electors for Harris.
The electors might still remain qualified to elect a Democratic president even if such a person can’t legally be Harris.
Of course, once the electors for Harris vote, they almost certainly can’t reassign their votes.
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.