The fact that the 13th Amendment was functionally abrograted during the Civil War, generally synchronizes with the fact that the Civil War is considered by many historians, a "crossing the Rubicon" temporal marker, the "beyond which" everything changed, and if you want to know something about the presumption of normality, you need to go back to study conditions of life before the Civil War.
Some assert that every U.S. President who was assassinated, had gone against Central Bankers' privileges. It is said that when an assassination attempt against Andrew Jackson failed, and the President personally apprehended the attempted assassin, when asked why he did it, his response was, "for sound money".
Ping!...................
ping
Even if lawyers are prohibited from serving, the lawyers in Congress and those running will simply follow the example of US military people, who ‘retire’ from the military at age 23 (or whatever), go to Ukraine as a ‘private citizen’ and fire off some missiles, and then return to the US and ‘rescind’ their retirement.
In other words, lawyers will suspend (or cancel) their license - go to Congress, and then simply get them back. If the means doesn’t exist now in their states, they’ll be created.
“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”...William Shakespeare’s Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2.
Save for future reading. Meanwhile...”No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a tender in Payment of Debts”
Salmon P. Chase, as Secretary of the Treasury in the Civil War, declared Greenback paper money to be legal tender.
He became Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, after the Civil War was over he then declared ONLY GOLD AND SILVER to be real money.
Well, that is an interesting read. But then, we live in a time when dolts and twits rule over us by either election fraud or election by people who believe that they will get more free stuff by voting for them. The Nation is doomed, the only question is will it happen sooner(by electing liberals) or later(by electing non liberals)...
This statement does not make sense. An obvious reason to pay "reparations", which, I believe were mostly actual debts, was to be able to maintain commercial relations with England and territories controlled by England. It is a simple part of peace negotiations. The negotiations went on for a long time.
All the different parts of the "peace treaty" were not enforced until after the war of 1812, which showed the British we were not just a flash in the pan, so to speak.
Who cares.
Interesting. Except the amendment cannot be stretched to include lawyers. Lincoln didn’t get his “lawyer” title from a king or nobleman. He studied under a lawyer and at some point called himself a lawyer.
By way of fact, the US did not have a central bank until the Federal Reserve System was established in 1913, long after the Civil War. Notably, even a financial system based on the gold standard requires a lender of last resort, and that need became acute after the intense development of the US economy during the Civil War.
In 1869, a US Treasury official under the newly elected Grant broke Fisk and Gould's gold squeeze by providing emergency liquidity in the form of government gold sales so that the entire US financial system did not collapse. The alternatives to such haphazard government intervention in an emergency are either a central bank or a combine of vastly rich and influential people that function as the lender of last resort in a financial crisis, as JP Morgan famously catalyzed to end the financial panic of 1907.
There was too much chance and potential for mischief and hostile press exposure against the rich in that, so they supported the creation of an official US central bank in the form of the Federal Reserve System. The rich realized that it was better to have a central bank like the Fed making such decisions and getting the heat than themselves.
In the aggregate, established big money prefers stability to unpredictability and chaos. And, by the way, so does just about everyone else.
Don’t have the time to read all that, but just cannot see where lawyers are meant. However, it would be a good thing to see lawyers not permitted in government.
Through a Groupon promotion, I was named Count of Falkenstein.
I'm not renouncing it, so there.
What color is the fringe on your flag?
Why does that seem so familiar?
I think there is a lot of good stuff in this overly long article. I found the historical research to be interesting. The diatribe against banking strikes me as an unnecessary and somewhat kookie distraction. The same probably applies to the attack on lawyers.
One can find quotes to the effect that banks rule the world, or lawyers rule the world, or fill-in-the-blank rule the world. Just because someone said so in the past does not make it true.
If this 13th Amendment was passed, we should recognize that it was passed. Stop there until consensus if formed. It’s not a matter of “I like it; it was passed,” or “I don’t like it, it was not passed.”
Bump for later
I read the document (Yes, all of it.) initially hoping there was a way to classify all lawyers as illegal aliens. However, it seems to be a document of tortured logic. Equating lawyers with nobility, and then leaping from lawyers to bankers says to me the document is missing several pages substantiated reasoning. The Constitution does not require judges to be lawyers. The certification for admittance to the bar does not differ from obtaining a CPA certificate or a license to practice medicine.
[Dodge] "On February 28, 1818, Secretary of State Adams reported the rejection of the Amendment by South Carolina. [House Doc. No. 129]. There are no further entries regarding the ratification of the 13th Amendment in the Journals of Congress; whether Virginia ratified is neither confirmed nor denied. Likewise, a search through the executive papers of Governor Preston of Virginia does not reveal any correspondence from Secretary of State Adams. (However, there is a journal entry in the Virginia House that the Governor presented the House with an official letter and documents from Washington within a time frame that conceivably includes receipt of Adams' letter.) Again, no evidence of ratification; none of denial."
There is a Journal entry of February 14, 1811 that the State of Virginia rejected the TONA amendment.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433014921120&seq=89
Journal of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Virginia
Page 83
Thursday, February 14th, 1811
On motion,The House proceeded to consider the resolution-proposing the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, recommended by Congress, which provides, that if any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honor; or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any Emperor, King, Prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them or either of them-which, on Monday, the 4th instant, was twice read and laid upon the table.
And on the question being put thereupon, the said resolution was disagreed to by the House.
- - - - - - - - -
"If three-quarters of the states ratify, the Amendment is passed. Period. The Constitution is otherwise silent on what procedure should be used to announce, confirm, or communicate the ratification of amendments."
That three-fourths of the States have ratified must be certified by the appropriate official of the Federal government. It cannot be certified by internet wizards.
Currently the certifying authority is the archivist of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). In 1811, the certifying authority was the Secretary of State, James Madison.