Posted on 11/13/2004 11:12:00 AM PST by LouAvul
Scary. Given that my "little game" is providing authoritative documentation as substantiation, I can see how you would flee in terror. "Run away!"
"You're talking to Americans now."
You? No real American glorifies the principles and actions of the confederacy.
You are starting to make me laugh-now cut it out!
free dixie,sw
I would prefer a racist to a tolerant slave owner anytime.
I told you to cut it out!!!
That one had me rolling on the floor!
Sure, why not. It is a testiment to your powers of misrepresentation.
(1) Bollman was about treason. Habeas corpus had not been suspended in the case, and much of the habeas discussion in Bollman is dicta.
(2) All part of the Dred Scott record.
(3) I retracted my comments concerning Lemmon the next day. I was clearly mistaken about that case and the only three sentences in which I ever mentioned it. (You are beating a dead horse.)
(4) Amy Warwick and Brilliante were all part of the Prize Cases. The citation was wrong, but the point being made was concerning whether Lincoln instituted a "blockade" under international law. You are still wrong on that point. A country cannot blockade its own ports.
(5) It was indeed a footnote in the web article quoted from the Hamdi documentation.
You can quibble about minor errors. It is of no consequence to me.
was the ownership of slaves by damnyankees OK? AND doesn't that show what HYPOCRYTES that the damnyankees were/ARE?
doesn't the "ducking of my question indicate that you are an intellectual coward OR too dumb to understand the question?
free dixie,sw
Who AGREED to that clause? Why EVERY state did!!
Note also we never used the word slave, like the Confederates did!
That made the slaves feel so much better.
We hoped to eventually end slavery, a goal that the South found repulsive.
And so in 1816, Henry Clay and other leading colonizationist, met in a Washington, D.C. tavern, and agreed to form the American Colonization Society. During that same year, the ACS elected Associate Justice Bushrod Washington as its President; 13 vice presidents were elected including: Speaker of the House Henry Clay, General Andrew Jackson, and Secretary of the Treasury William Crawford. Francis Scott Key was one of the twelve men elected to manage the day-to-day affairs of the Society; and Elias Caldwell was elected Secretary.According to the ACS constitution, the goal of the colonizationist movement was to assist African-Americans who wanted to voluntarily emigrate to their ancestral home in Africa. However, once African-American leaders heard that slave holders were planning a colony for them in Africa, they met at a meeting in Philadelphia and issued a statement opposing the scheme. Despite that opposition, the ACS went ahead with its plan. To assure the success of this scheme, the ACS and some Southern slave holders formulated an agreement, which required that slave masters would turn over all manumitted African-Americans to the ACS, so that they would be deported to the colony in Africa. Any manumitted slave who refused to emigrate was to be resold into slavery.
Moreover, the Southern Constitution also mentioned the race that was to be enslaved (negro).
Whereas, the U.S. Constitution kept the nature of the enslaved race a secret. Not even the Blacks knew they were enslaved.
Had such opposition happened in the North, Lincoln might well have put them under house arrest or prison for opposing his policies, as he did judges, legislators, newspaper editors, mayors, etc.
Jefferson Davis suspending the writ of Hebeas Corpus!
Who did he think he was-Lincoln?
Hardly. Davis followed his Constitution and the will of his Congress, who authorized him to suspend habeas corpus for limited, specific periods of time. Some Southern governors disagreed with Davis doing it, as your quote noted, but Davis was consistent with the Confederate Constitution.
You provide examples of one case being overturned by another after a lapse of some time. I was talking about well-established and foundational legislation. Taney simply failed to respect the law so as to replace it with his racist agenda.
"Forced sterilization" wasn't pre-constitutional law.
It's the type of thing he likes to do in public restrooms, I understand.
only N-S seems to have both a brain & an education. PITY.
free dixie,sw
Southern politicians ranted and raved about the evils of banks and bankers until well into the 19th century. It was part of the democrat-republican bag of lies to throw at anything Hamilton proposed. There were two banks in America before the founding of the National Bank: one in Philadelphia and one, founded by Hamilton, in NY. It was this ideology which prevented recharter of the 1st National Bank causing great difficulties so great that it was quickly rechartered under Monroe. Jackson proved incapable of learning from that experience did it again and provoked a decade long economic collapse which was cured by the discovery of new gold supplies in California.
There was nothing that I see that the Slave economy could do to transform the region into one conducive to capitalistic development. It was in fundamental contradiction with the forces and institutions necessary to that development. Ideology would not allow it.
Modern life is the result of the application of new ideas in science, agriculture, mass education and politics. While the trend in American history is towards more freedom this was stymied in an economic system opposed to that freedom and aristocratic to boot. Inability to change and accomodate those ideas was the major reason that the Insurrection was not successful.
A good example of this lack is the ironclads which fought at Hampton Roads. Merrimac was a mess thrown together without much thought while the Monitor was a complete new type of ship with technical innovations throughout showing a willingness and capacity to innovate at a much higher level. It looked like something from the future.
And, no, the city is not the only example of modern life it is only where its introduction occurred first and most throughly. McCormick's reaper brought it throughout the nation. But you would not argue that Tradition was much more important in the South than in the North and still is.
Banking is a crucial factor in the development of capitalism and becomes more so as the process develops. It is the most active component which handles most of the capital of capitalism. Policial economists whom spoke for the South could never escape the hatred the region had for it because of its great power over the region. They could not be free of it without developing alternatives and that they could never do because of their ideology that banking was thievery. The banking business cannot succeed unless it is growing capitalist businesses there is no real split between them. But the Jeffersonian-Jacksonian ideology painted it as a kind of Tony Soprano bust out operation.
Exports from the South grew until the War but much of the income from that did not stay with the planters it went to pay interest, buy new land, buy new slaves. Nor did the dependence on the Northern banks lessen. One would think with with wise financial management the connection could be broken after a period of boom years and high profits. But it didn't happen. And since the financial transactions of planters occurred in the Northern cities much of the capital never even got TO the South.
Many of the larger plantations were mortgaged to the hilt and, like Jefferson's earlier, were merely nominally theirs. It is my opinion that much of the Planter frustration was tied to the realization that they were on a threadmill without escape and much, if not most, of their effort went to profit NY and Boston. Nor were the bankers oblivious to their interest, NYC was pro-South throughout the war governed by RAT mayors the entire time.
Rather than look at the number of banks in the South one must examine their capitalization which was disproportionately low per capita compared with the Northern banks. This remains true to this day not just wrt the South but the nation as a whole and was one of the major reasons the federal reserve system was established. Westerners agitated against the Money Center banks after the war forming political parties dedicated to their ideas and decades later the Fed was formed.
[ftD] Not after the 14th amendment it didn't.
AFTER SLAVERY ENDED IN THE SOUTH, IT CONTINUED IN THE NORTH UNTIL THE UNION SLAVERS WERE FORCED, BY LAW, TO END SLAVERY.
Of course, most Constitutional scholars think slavery was ended by the THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT. Brigadeers, led by Commander Wlat, appear to be first out of the gate with new theories. They are especially knowledgeable about slaves.
Amendment XIII.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Amendment XIV.
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.
The fourteenth amendment to the constitution has arguably the most sweeping and important. It is the due process of law amendment that has caused so many to our legal system. But, few know the story of the fourteenth and how the egg of "due process" was hatched.
At the Civil War's end Lincoln granted amnesty to nearly all and "with malice towards none", all the southern states were soon functioning again in a legal and proper manner. Because the war was over his emancipation proclamation was effectively ended and so the need of the thirteenth amendment to abolish slavery. There were 36 states in the union and the necessary 3/4 to pass the constitutional amendment was accomplished easily when 10 of the southern states voted for ratification.
Then came the 39th congress in December of 1865. Article 1 of the constitution states that a majority of the either house can deny the seat to any member of its respective house of congress. The Senators and Representatives of the 25 northern states voted to deny seats to the newly elected congressmen from 11 southern states. This meant that the seated congress had 182 of a possible 240 representatives, and only 50 of the rightful 72 senators. There were 36 recognized states in the union. (Keep in mind that in the 38th congress the southern representatives were allowed to vote and have their state votes count in passage of the 13th amendment).
In the beginning of the 39th congress came resolution #48 which sponsored the fourteenth amendment. The amendment was especially important to northern liberals as it's privileges and immunities clause would sweep power from states and hand it to the federal government. The sponsors of the amendment needed a two-thirds majority of each house to submit the amendment to the states for ratification, and remember, the house is short 58 representatives from the southern states and senate 22 senators as well! The constitution states amendments need the vote of "two-thirds of both houses". Does this mean of the seated members or the available seats? Well, it depends on who is counting the votes. At the time there were 33 senators in favor of the resolution #48 which was, 23 short of 2/3rds of the full compliment and 1 short of being 2/3rds of the 50 seated members. Either way you count it, passage is doomed.
NO PROBLEM. Senator John Stockton of New Jersey was elected by a plurality and not a majority vote and was seated to the senate, he was against the fourteenth . A plurality was all that was needed by New Jersey law, and other states as well, however, Stockton's seat was taken from him (after being seated) by the senate majority because he had not received a majority vote and the 33 affirmative voting senators comprised a two-thirds majority of the remaining 49 seated senators. In the house there were 120 of the 182-seated members in favor of the amendment, 2 short of the necessary two-thirds.
NO PROBLEM. Because 30 members abstained, their numbers were not recognized at all, meaning only 152 votes were recognized and 120 is well over two-thirds of the number that voted yes or no. I remind you that the full house compliment was 240 members and that 120 is 1/2 of 240 not 2/3.
Hang on, we are only half way there but it gets better.
Now the amendment must be passed by three-fourths of the states and Nebraska has been admitted meaning 28 states must ratify the 14th amendment. By March, 1867 10 states said no and 17 said yes. California then took no action on the amendment, which was the same as a no vote, meaning there could be at most 26 yes votes when all the states were counted. Then, Oregon which had voted yes with the help of two legislative members later held not to be duly elected changed its vote to no when those two state representatives were replaced by two legitimate representatives, sure doom?
NO PROBLEM. The US Congress recognized the first Oregon vote and discarded the second even though two members of the Oregon state government were not legally able to vote and replaced by the state of Oregon, remember Senator Stockton of New Jersey? The US Congress unseated him (a no vote) because it questioned his validity as a Senator, but recognized the yes votes of State representative held to be illegitimate.
Now the 39th congress passes the Reconstruction Act that placed military occupation on 10 of the 11 southern states and denied the congressional seats to those states until they passed the 14th amendment. Many northern states began to have second thoughts about the manner and validity of these federal moves, after all, what can be done to one state can later be done to yours. California now took a stand and voted no on the 14th. Maryland, Ohio and New Jersey who first voted yes, changed to no. 16 of the 37 states now said no and 3/4ths or 28 were needed to win approval and there was at most only a possible 21 yes votes when all the remaining states voted.
NO PROBLEM. 6 of the southern states that originally voted against the amendment had their legislative bodies forcibly removed by the military occupation resulting from the Reconstruction Act and changed into yes votes. Recall that the 13th amendment was passed by the 38th congress with the original and proper representatives from the southern states. Those congressmen were recognized when voting yes to 13 but thrown out when voting no on 14. Now, what to do about those states that voted yes and then changed to no?
NO PROBLEM. The congressional leaders simply recognized the original yes votes and ignored the no votes, claiming the yeses were already resolved. In other words, the states that voted no and then forced to vote yes had their new votes recognized, those who voted yes then no did not. When all states had voted, congress and Secretary of State William H Seward recognized 28 affirmative votes for ratification.
This is how the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified and made a part of our constitution on July 9, 1868. The Fourteenth is known as our "due process" and "equal protection of the law" amendment.
Calm down. I didn't steal anything or invade anywhere.
Ultimately, they all ratified. North Carolina held out for a Bill of Rights to be proposed. Rhode Island was fast becoming a failed state, in a virtual condition of anarchy.
Both were slave owners who never freed their slaves. They died as slave owners.
So much for that crap that they hated slavery. They didn't hate having a few hundred of their own slaves.
I am not aware of any statement of Friedman's that we should return to the gold standard. No nation could ever stay on it anyway for very long. Nor can anyone change the fact that doing so would cripple the economy since the gold supply changes too slowly to accomodate economic growth. A less that 2% growth rate is the long term average over the last 500 yrs (including the gold Spain took from the new world) and that is too low to allow sufficient growth. A gold standard will never be seen again or even a pretense at it. And that is a good thing.
It is totally disconnected from the money supplies now and is nothing more than a pretty metal to make baubles for my lady from. Thus, there is no impact upon the growth rate of the current economy.
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.