Posted on 03/17/2004 8:23:46 AM PST by Global_Warming
What did that have to do with blacks voting? I'd declare a squack alert except that I'm not sure what your current definition of 'tu quoque' is.
Nonsense. Confederates were barred from serving in political office - unless the federal congress removed the disability. Barring any evidence that multitudes of former politicians were recipients of such acts, it couldn't have been ex-confederates drafting such legislation. Additionally, the governments were military, and elections/constitutions were approved by the President and Congress (devoid of southern representatives).
It wasn't a Southern thing.
Again, you are deliberately avoiding fact and misstating the circumstances. The Black Codes were in place in every southern state by the fall of 1865, long before the 14th Amendment was ratified or Reconstruction was imposed. Jim Crow laws were enacted almost as soon as reconstruction ended. Section 3 of that Amendment only prevented those who had held federal or state office prior to the rebellion and who had sworn to uphold the Constitution as a part of that office from holding office again without approval of Congress. Approval that was apparently freely granted. So your claim that 'it was them Yankees what done it' is ridiculous.
It wasn't a Southern thing.
It most certainly was. Before the rebellion...during the rebellion...and after the rebellion as well.
Just as the Northern states were rife with their own Black Codes, long before 1865.
Jim Crow laws were enacted almost as soon as reconstruction ended.
Which ended when, and what politicians were in office? In the intervening period while ex-confederates could serve, what multitude of Jim Crow laws were passed?
Section 3 of that Amendment only prevented those who had held federal or state office prior to the rebellion and who had sworn to uphold the Constitution as a part of that office from holding office again without approval of Congress.
The Constitution prohibited ex post facto laws, and also prohibited "Bills of Attainder" - no trials were held to convict anyone of the punishment imposed. The Supreme Court agreed in Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. (71 US) 277 (1867) and in Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wall. (71 US) 333 (1867). If it was illegal/unconstitutional in 1867, it certainly was after that.
Approval that was apparently freely granted. So your claim that 'it was them Yankees what done it' is ridiculous.
Nonsense. Point to the legislation removing the prohibition from masses of Confederate legislators. Post the proof of your assertion.
It most certainly was. Before the rebellion...during the rebellion...and after the rebellion as well.
Before - both North & South had Black Laws. During ditto. After - the south was ruled by Union military, carpetbaggers and scalawags - ex-Confederates were disbarred from office.
It was now a Yankee thing.
Not denied, but if you were a Yankee then GOP would be calling a tu quoque alert on your ass. But since you're a reb then you fall under the alternate definition of the term. Regardless, Northern pre-war Black Codes were also matched in severity by pre-war southern Black Codes which prevented free blacks in virtually all southern states from living near, competing with, travelling among, or even associating with southern whites and were meant to keep blacks in what the overwhelming majority of southerners saw as their proper place, in bondage. Most southern states had laws on their books forbidding free black emigration into the state, or from freeing the existing slave population. So the Black Codes that you blame on them devil Yankees had a long and honorable tradition on southern society. It was, in all respects, a 'sothern thang'.
Nope. That is where one attempts to excuse another by stating that the other did it as well, which excuses the actions of the first.
I do not deny the south's complicity, but pointed out the northern historical record is rife with "Black Laws" - it was not just a southern thing. It wasn't even an American thing - some African villages were comprised of up to 75% slaves.
...pre-war southern Black Codes which prevented free blacks in virtually all southern states from living near, competing with, travelling among, or even associating with southern whites and were meant to keep blacks in what the overwhelming majority of southerners saw as their proper place, in bondage.
Huh???? "free blacks" ... "their proper place, in bondage"??
Most southern states had laws on their books forbidding free black emigration into the state, or from freeing the existing slave population.
Yall didnt want them, nor did you want them in the territorries. Where were they to go?
A question which troubled southern states no end. The Mississippi legislature seriously debated an act requiring all free blacks in the state be forcibly deported to Africa. This was after they enacted a law similar to the one in Virginia which required that all slaves freed in Mississippi had to leave or else be sold back into slavery. So apparently they were not concerned where the free blacks went, so long as they went.
A better question would be exactly what blacks voting had to do with my original comment about blacks being barred from even living in several northern states. Wlat introduced the issue of black voters (a claim which, BTW, he has not cited nor substantiated as of yet) as an apparent non-response to my prior statement about the horrendously discriminatory black codes employed by yankeeland for decades before the civil war. Thus it is incumbent upon him to either challenge or explain for my original argument. Simply noting his failure to do so and restating my original argument before him is subsequently my right in this debate as well.
So in other words, you have no answer for the fact that blacks were legally barred from taking up residence in at least 5 yankee states prior to 1860?
Quoth the Non-Sequitur: "Squack! Tu Quoque! Tu Quoque!"
No free Negro, or mulatto, not residing in this state at the time of adoption of this constitution, shall ever come, reside, or be within this state, or hold any real estate, or make any contract, or maintain any suit therein; and the legislative assembly shall provide by penal laws for the removal by public officers of all such free negroes who shall bring them into the state, or employ or harbor them therein.
In June of 1844 Oregonian blacks were subject to lashes (20-39) every 6 months until they left.
In 1819 a Virginia man - Edward Coles - emmigrated to Illinois, freed his slaves and was elected governor in 1822. He was sued for failure to pay the $200 per head bond for each of the blacks. In 1848 Illinois altered its Constitution to, "prohibit free persons of color from immigrating to and settling in this state; and to effectually prevent the owners of slaves from bringing them into this state for the purpose of setting them free."
On the contrary, I posted the specifics of the bill debated of the Mississippi legislature that would have deported all free blacks. But if you want more, then for your reading pleasure I submit the following:
"If any slave hereafter emancipated shall remain within this commonwealth more than twelve months after his or her right to freedom shall have accrued, he or she shall forfeit all such right, and may be apprehended and sold by the overseers of the poor of any county or corporation in which he or she shall be found, for the benefit of the poor of such county or corporation." 1806 Virginia Manumission Law [Shepherd, Statutes at Large, III, 252; passed January 25, 1806; in effect May 1, 1806.] The particulars of that law was later added to the Virginia Constitution. This was in addition to the Virginia Migration Law of 1786 which made it illegal for free blacks to move into the state. In 1836 Virginia passed the Literacy Law which made it a crime to teach a black to read, and in 1838 Virginia passed the Virginia School Law which prohibited any black who left the state to go to school from ever returning. So you want to explain again how it was all the Yankees?
An 1838 court case in Alabama, Trotter v Blocker (6 Porter 269), ruled that emancipation was a gift and that slaves lacked the legal capacity to accept the gift of freedom. Therefore, manumission was illegal.
In 1844 South Carolina passed an Amusement Law which prohibited blacks and whites from engaging in sports or games together. That came on top of the Looking Law of 1841 which prohibited blacks and whites from looking out the same window.
Mississippi had a number of laws on the books designed to rid the state of free blacks. It is a matter of fact that these laws were rarely enforced, and most of the blacks deported from the states were, in fact, slaves. Some of these slaves were problem cases but many were elderly slaves who had reached the end of their economic usefulness and were a financial burden on their owners. (Franklin L. Riley, “A Contribution to the History of the Colonization Movement in Mississippi,” Publications of the Mississippi Historical Society, vol. 9, pp. 345-348.)
You wrote: "The Mississippi legislature seriously debated an act requiring all free blacks in the state be forcibly deported to Africa."
I fail to see the specifics claimed. Not that it matters, the point is, that Africans, Egyptians, Russians, Europeans, Northerners, Southerers etc ALL had slaves at one time. Abraham Lincoln wanted to reward faithful blacks with a trip to Panama to dig a canal. Whatever law you can find in a southern state will probably have existed in some northern state. The South just wasn't hypocritical/sanctimonius about it - Yankees practiced slavery masked as indentured servitude in several states, no northern state wanted freed blacks, and they also wanted the territories reserved for whites only.
Are you suggesting that there was any southern state that allowed blacks to vote? Any one that allowed interracial marriages or blacks to enlist in the militia? Never mind all the southern states that made it illegal for blacks to move in there, were there any Northern laws that sold free blacks into slavery? Any of those out there? All you are showing is that at best the Northern states were no different than southern states, and at worst the southern states were significantly more oppressive.
So it was, after all, a southern thing.
Hardly. Find this up North.
"If any slave hereafter emancipated shall remain within this commonwealth more than twelve months after his or her right to freedom shall have accrued, he or she shall forfeit all such right, and may be apprehended and sold by the overseers of the poor of any county or corporation in which he or she shall be found, for the benefit of the poor of such county or corporation.
The South just wasn't hypocritical/sanctimonius about it
No, they were very up front about keeping blacks in their place before, during, and after the war. That was the whole point to this discussion. It was a southern thang.
and ... were there any Northern laws that sold free blacks into slavery? Any of those out there?
Oregon, Illinois & Indiania had laws against migration of blacks into the state. Illinois & Oragon penalized blacks by heavy fines, and failure to pay resulted in their being sold into involuntary servitude (slavery) as punishment. "It shall not be lawful for any free negro or mulatto to migrate in this Territory."
"The Whiteside (ILL.) SENTINEL says the following official notice is posted in the post-office and other public places in the city of Carthage, Hancock County, Ill. It is a practical exemplification of the Illinois 'black-laws.' The notice reads as follows: --From The 37th Texas Cavalry (Terrell's), CSA"PUBLIC SALE -- Whereas, The following negroes and one mulatto man, on the fifth and sixth days of February, 1863, tried before the undersigned, a Justice of the Peace within and for Hancock County, Ill., on a charge of high misdemeanor, having come into this State and county,and remaining therein for ten days and more, with the intention of residing in this State, and were found guilty by a jury, and were each severally find in the sum of fifty dollars, and the judgment was rendered against said negroes and mulatto man for fifty dollars' fine each, and costs of suit, which fines and costs were annexed opposite to each name to wit: --
Age Fine Costs John, a negro man, tall and slim, about 35 $50 $33.17 Sambo, a negro man, about 31 50 32.17 Austin, a negro man, heavy set, about 30 50 30.10 Andrew, a negro man, about -- 50 30.35 Amos, a negro man, about 40 50 29.57 Nelson, a mulatto man, about 55 50 30.07 'And whereas, Said fines and costs have not been paid, notice is therefore given that the undersigned will, on Thursday, the nineteenth day of February, A.D. 1863, between the hours of one and five o'clock, p.m., of said day, at the west end of the Court House, in Carthage, Hancock County, Ill., sell each of said negro men, John, Austin, Sambo, Andrew, Amos, and said mulatto man, Nelson, at public auction, to the person or persons who will pay the said fines and costs appended against each respectively for the shortest time of service of said negroes and mulatto.
'The purchaser or purchasers will entitled to the control and services of said negroes and mulatto purchased for the period named in the sale and no longer, and will be required to furnish said negroes and mulatto with comfortable food, clothing, and lodging during said servitude. The fees for selling will be added on the completion of the sale.
C.M. Child, J.P.
Carthage, Feb. 9, 1863"
So to answer your question, "were there any Northern laws that sold free blacks into slavery?", the correct response is Yes.
Illinois couldn't even wait 12 months, they opted for 10 days. See above.
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.