Posted on 10/02/2021 2:19:06 AM PDT by knighthawk
I have read his commentary in old threads and he was indeed quite good at providing detailed information and arguing rationally.
Yes, Woodpusher is someone who seems very similar to him in ability and knowledge, but I feel they each have a different flavor in their writing styles.
I think I would have to give Woodpusher the edge. He includes details of astonishing depth.
I regard both of these men to be intellectually superior to myself and I enjoy reading what they have written.
Well this is true, but it ignores economic reality. No rational man would use slaves to grow wheat in Nebraska when he could use them to grow cotton in Mississippi. The profits are just so much greater with the same quantity of labor.
Wow. Anywhere from one generation to three of ownership for one, bondage for another.
Do you think the lives of 750,000 men might be worth a few decades of the status quo?
Why not say a 100 years since you’re pulling numbers out of a hat.
I'm not pulling numbers out of a hat. That 80 year number comes from the advent of the first commercially viable cotton harvesting machine, and as cotton harvesting was one of the primary purposes of slaves, it is clear to me that when machines were capable of doing it, it becomes irrational to use slaves to do it.
I've always said that when the social benefits of abolishing it exceed the economic value of keeping it, it would disappear.
If you had bothered to plot the graph of abolition, you would see it was a social phenomena that was increasing in strength while the economic benefit of slavery was slowly waning. When the two graphs met at equal value, that would be the point at which a preference cascade would occur and slavery would collapse.
Trying to portray me as a hypocrite for quoting the "British Press" from 1862 is not "standing."
And here's how you know I'm right: you yourself use "tu quoque" logic whenever that suits your own purposes.
*THAT* is also tu quoque! Hillarious!
Consider just one example of a Lost Cause tu quoque argument: "Northerners were slavers too!"
That would be tu quoque if it were used as a pejorative or an accusation, but when it's used to point out the obvious fact that the war effort was not directed at "slavery", *BECAUSE* northerners also had slavery and were not attacked, it is *NOT* a tu quoque.
It is pointing out that people who claim the war was about slavery are mistaken, because nobody in the north was attacked for having slavery.
I understand your point and I find it highly plausible. However, an alternate explanation occurs to me.
It could be that slavery died out because the great powers created economic reasons for it to die out by throwing up obstacles or refusing to engage in trade with slave nations. Also the social pressure which may have been applied.
I think the truth is somewhat in between these two positions. I think it was economically declining anyway, and I think outside economic and social pressure contributed to other nations giving it up.
I think in these other nations it met my criteria for a declining economic trend meeting a rising Social trend, and these two trends met at those times in history and created a preference cascade that flipped the paradigm.
And how do we know that the claims of widespread beatings and whippings are not fake?
On the other hand, 4 million escaped slaves is solid evidence.
I agree. 4 million slaves "escaped" slavery, and you have only 1 picture of a whipped slave's back?
That's pretty good evidence the claims that have been made are bullsh*t, and that the vast majority of slaves were never treated as the abolitionist kooks would have had us believe.
4 million slaves who escaped to the North say you're wrong.
Those 4 million slaves wouldn't know anything about the corrupt money from government system that was in place in 1860. All they would know is that they don't have to be slaves anymore.
As Charles Dickens said:
"For the rest, there's not a pins difference between the two parties. They will both rant and lie and fight until they come to a compromise; and the slave may be thrown into that compromise or thrown out, just as it happens.""
And he was a staunch abolitionist.
The system was ended by government order. It didn't die out.
It became politically possible because the economics of it collapsed. It had not been politically possible before. It died out.
If there were 700,000 at the end that's hardly an economic collpase. Slavery was banned by the government. It didn't 'die out'. It didn't 'collapse'.
...they would not have enjoyed the benefits and protections of the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution.
No they would have had the fugitive slave clause of the Confederate constitution.
They couldn't have stopped it.
Southerners were that inept, huh?
It was only politically possible for there to be a government order after political opposition ceased. That happened because it became uneconomic.
If there were 700,000 at the end that's hardly an economic collpase. Slavery was banned by the government. It didn't 'die out'. It didn't 'collapse'.
700,000 compared to how many before? Which slaves do you suppose go on the run - the strongest healthiest, most productive slaves, or the young/old, sick, weak least productive slaves?
No they would have had the fugitive slave clause of the Confederate constitution.
Which would have been worth nothing the second they crossed that 1500 mile border they could not possibly secure.
Southerners were that inept, huh?
Its about 1500 miles. They had a total White population of maybe a couple million if that. Mid 19th century technology was nothing like modern technology. Look how much trouble the US has securing its much shorter border with Mexico today even with modern technology like planes, drones, smart fences, cameras, cars, infrared lenses, night vision, etc etc.
And many others saw it was not about slavery given the Corwin Amendment, given the North still had slaves, given how badly federal troops treated slaves in the South, given the massive racism in the North and given the fact that the EP only freed slaves in areas the federal government did not control.
"For the contest on the part of the North is now undisguisedly for empire. The question of slavery is thrown to the winds. There is hardly any concession in its favor that the South could ask which the North would refuse provided only that the seceding states re-enter the Union.....Away with the pretence on the North to dignify its cause with the name of freedom to the slave!" London Quarterly Review 1862
“The contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces. These opinions…are the general opinions of the English nation.” London Times, November 7, 1861
" If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? …Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived … The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union. So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils … the quarrel between North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel." – Charles Dickens, as editor of All the Year Round, a British periodical in 1862
“Any reasonable creature may know, if willing, that the North hates the Negro and until it was convenient to make a pretence that sympathy with him was the cause of the war, it hated the abolitionists and derided them up and down dale. As to secession being rebellion, it is distinctly possible by state papers that Washington considered it no such thing. Massachusetts now loudest against it, has itself asserted its right to secede again and again.” Charles Dickens.
“If the Northerners on ascertaining the resolution of the South, had peaceably allowed the seceders to depart, the result might fairly have been quoted as illustrating the advantages of Democracy; but when Republicans put empire above liberty, and resorted to political oppression and war rather than suffer any abatement of national power, it was clear that nature at Washington was precisely the same as nature at St. Petersburg. There was not, in fact, a single argument advanced in defense of the war against the South which might not have been advanced with exactly the same force for the subjugation of Hungary or Poland. Democracy broke down, not when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent States, but when it was upheld, like any other Empire, by force of arms.” Times of London September 1862
"With what pretence of fairness, it is said, can you Americans object to the secession of the Southern States when your nation was founded on secession from the British Empire?" Cornhill Magazine, England 1861
"The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states." --Charles Dickens, 1862
"The Union government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States." --London Spectator, 1862
"Fate has indeed taken a malignant pleasure in flouting the admirers of the United States. It is not merely that their hopes of its universal empire have been disappointed; the mortification has been much deeper than this. Every theory to which they paid special homage has been successively repudiated by their favorite statesmen. They were Apostles of Free Trade: America has established a tariff, compared to which our heaviest protection-tariff has been flimsy. She has become a land of passports, of conscriptions, of press censorship and post-office espionage; of bastilles and lettres de cachet [this was a letter that bore an official seal which authorized the imprisonment, without trial of any person named in the letter] There was little difference between the government of Mr. Lincoln and the government of Napoleon III. There was the form of a legislative assembly, where scarcely any dared to oppose for fear of the charge of treason." the Quarterly Review in Britain
"The Southerners are English gentlemen whereas the North is a mere dumping ground for the refuse of Europe" Lord Palmerston, Prime Minister 1860-65
In 1862, one English publication issued the following commentary regarding the Emancipation Proclamation: “…But as time went on, and the issues of the war came out more clearly, this spring of Northern sympathies began to fail. It soon became apparent that the grievance of the South went very far beyond the mere refusal to allow slaves to be held in the territories of the United States, and it became still more clear that whatever the North was fighting for, it was not for the emancipation of the Negro. It was impossible to believe that the North was crusading for abolition, in the face of the President’s reiterated denials, and of the inhuman treatment which Negroes were constantly receiving at Northern hands. If anything was wanting to confirm their skepticism, it has been supplied. Emancipation to be a military resource of his extreme necessity, shows how little he cared for it as a philanthropist. He values it not for the freedom it may confer, but for the carnage that it may cause.”
“The Southerners have shown every characteristic that can mark an independent people. They have made the costliest sacrifices that men can make to assure their freedom from foreign rule, and they have fought for it with a gallantry that has not been surpassed in all the wars of liberation the world has seen….” (“The Quarterly Review,” “The Confederate Struggle,” London, July – October, 1862, vol. 112, pp. 535 – 564)
Taney's opinion in the Dred Scott case would have taken away the right of a state to ban slavery within its borders, and I believe you praised the Dred Scott decision.
Also, your references to "policies which were not agreed to in a democratic process" is a red herring. It is precisely measures democratically agreed to by Congress that the secessionists feared.
As for "government manipulation to which not all parties have agreed" that's also a red herring. It sounds like you wanted slaveowners to have a veto on legislation, even if voters elected a Congress that reflected opposition to slavery.
Nice Post thanks
We’ve had some stars and some loud
Stand of course the irascible lol
BnBlFlg
Banker from around Nagcadoches TX
Passed away some time ago
Ohioan I’m concerned it’s been a while
I checked obit in Cincinnati
TexasGOP capitalist
Stainless banner
Well some of us are still here
I miss plenty of them
Which was never ratified, and which as you admitted would NEVER, as in NEVER, have been repealed because the slave holding states would have never voted to repeal it.
given the North still had slaves
And how many slaves in the North did the South rescue?
given how badly federal troops treated slaves in the South
What does that say about how the South treated them, that they saw the North as an improvement?
given the massive racism in the North
From Georgia: "They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races".
From Mississippi: "It advocates negro equality, socially and politically".
From Texas: "She (Texas) was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits"
Also from Texas: "They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."
Another from Texas: "that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."
and given the fact that the EP only freed slaves in areas the federal government did not control.
Of course, it was already illegal in the areas they did control. After the war of abolition, it was illegal everywhere.
Yes I know there were still slaves held illegally in the North. We have human trafficking now, and thanks to the free traitors we're back to using slave labor to get our products cheap. The only difference is that instead of importing the slave labor, we're exporting the plantations.
Quotes from the British press.
Funny how you believe the quotes made from a nation that saw us as "competition" and wanted to knock us down a few pegs, but you disregard all of the quotes to the contrary, including those made by the confederates themselves.
Quotes from Charles Dickens.
Seriously? Maybe we should ask Steven King what he thinks.
Forcing people into slavery isn't bad enough? Do I need to present millions of pictures to prove it was wrong? Yes I know they sold each other into slavery, but if you've read my comments on human trafficking you know I blame the buyers as much as the sellers.
I agree. 4 million slaves "escaped" slavery, and you have only 1 picture of a whipped slave's back?
I posted a few links to another poster on this thread, but how many pictures would you expect to see from 1863? Do you think everyone ran up with their iPhones and snapped pictures?
That's pretty good evidence the claims that have been made are bullsh*t, and that the vast majority of slaves were never treated as the abolitionist kooks would have had us believe.
You have 4 million slaves who escaped to the North with whatever they could carry, but it's not like they were mistreated or anything.
As Charles Dickens said:
It figures you would cite a fiction writer to prove your point of view.
And he was a staunch abolitionist.
Then he must have been happy with how things turned out.
The challenge is that states are not ideologically or culturally uniform blocks.
Political opposition never ceased, it just grew weaker than political support. In the case of both Cuba and Brazil slavery was ended over the opposition of the slave owners themselves.
Which begs the question. Having fought a bloody rebellion to gain their independence, how long would it have been before it would have been politically possible to end slavery in the Confederacy? It would have happened sooner or later, later rather than sooner. And would it have even been possible under the Confederate constitution?
700,000 compared to how many before?
Hard to say. Total number of slaves in Brazil over it's history was something like 10 million, but what max number at any one time is something I can't answer. Still 700,000 is still a considerable number. And evidence that your claim that slavery was on it's last leg is patently false.
Which would have been worth nothing the second they crossed that 1500 mile border they could not possibly secure.
Slaves running off to the north before the rebellion might have been a nagging problem but certainly didn't cause a dent in the several million slaves held at the outbreak of the rebellion. I don't see how an independent Confederacy would have changed that. Slaves still would have had to make it through hundreds of miles of the Confederacy where any black person walking around would have been challenged. Other than maybe requiring a little tightening of existing laws or a little extra surveillance it wouldn't have been a problem.
They had a total White population of maybe a couple million if that. Mid 19th century technology was nothing like modern technology.
They managed to keep millions of slaves in their place before the rebellion, unless they suddenly became incompetent boobs I don't see how they wouldn't be able to do that after independence.
Look how much trouble the US has securing its much shorter border with Mexico...
Hispanics in the U.S enjoy constitutional rights with makes it hard to stop a person on sight and demand proof of legal status. Blacks, free and slave, had no rights in the Confederacy so stopping and apprehending would not have been much of a problem for a Confederate police.
Which was never ratified because the original 7 seceding states turned it down. And I did not say the states that still allowed slavery would never vote to repeal it. I said it could never be repealed WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. Meaning they could force the Northern states to offer a generous compensated emancipation scheme as the price for their vote to repeal it.
And how many slaves in the North did the South rescue?
And how is this relevant? There were states that still allowed slavery which remained in the US.
What does that say about how the South treated them, that they saw the North as an improvement?
How does this address the fact that there was widespread mistreatment of Blacks by Federal troops?
"blah blah blah blah I'm just going to spam you with the same crap I've posted 30 times already because I don't have any good answers."
There was massive racism and ill treatment of Blacks in the North. I could post all kinds of examples of the "Black Codes" or even entire states which barred Blacks from living there. No, not slaves. All Blacks.
Of course, it was already illegal in the areas they did control. After the war of abolition, it was illegal everywhere.
This is an outright lie. The US still had slavery. Even areas of the Southern states that were occupied by federal troops still had slavery. There was no "war of abolition" as Northerners went to great pains to say. They did not start the war to free slaves.
Yes I know there were still slaves held illegally in the North.
No, slavery was legal in multiple states that remained in the union. It was legal in Washington DC during the war.
Funny how you believe the quotes made from a nation that saw us as "competition" and wanted to knock us down a few pegs, but you disregard all of the quotes to the contrary, including those made by the confederates themselves.
There were some Brits who felt the way you describe. Britain had a democratic form of government and a long history of free speech so people held all sorts of opinions just as they did in the Southern states and the Northern states. Funny how you ignore what many of the leading political figures and newspapers on both sides were saying - ie that it was about money not slavery.
Seriously? Maybe we should ask Steven King what he thinks.
Dickens was a leading political commentator, not just an author.
Yes political opposition was overcome because it had grown much weaker....because slavery effectively collapsed. Given that everywhere in the western world including Brazil, including Cuba including even Russia had ended slavery by the 1880s, there is no reason to believe it would have gone on longer in the Southern states. As we've discussed before, states that did not allow slavery were perfectly free to join the CSA. Therefore states in the CSA that wanted to ban slavery could have obviously done so as well....and spare me the BS about a right of transit = slavery. It does not and you've tried spewing that BS multiple times already.
Hard to say. Total number of slaves in Brazil over it's history was something like 10 million, but what max number at any one time is something I can't answer. Still 700,000 is still a considerable number. And evidence that your claim that slavery was on it's last leg is patently false.
Intellectually dishonest as usual. 700,000 is a tiny number given the massive slave population of Brazil - further evidence that slavery was rapidly dying out - which made political opposition to its ending very weak indeed.
Slaves running off to the north before the rebellion might have been a nagging problem but certainly didn't cause a dent in the several million slaves held at the outbreak of the rebellion. I don't see how an independent Confederacy would have changed that. Slaves still would have had to make it through hundreds of miles of the Confederacy where any black person walking around would have been challenged. Other than maybe requiring a little tightening of existing laws or a little extra surveillance it wouldn't have been a problem.
There was a Fugitive Slave Clause in the US Constitution. Slaves who ran off could be and often were recaptured. That would not have been the case if that were an international frontier. Oh, and there was no rebellion. I've already outlined how small the White population of those 7 states actually was. Florida didn't even have a border with the US then so that whittles it down to 6 states. They simply did not have the manpower or resources to effectively police that much border. Lincoln himself pointed it out and nobody could refute it.
They managed to keep millions of slaves in their place before the rebellion, unless they suddenly became incompetent boobs I don't see how they wouldn't be able to do that after independence.
Fugitive Slave Clause......no Fugitive Slave Clause. Let's try this again...Fugitive Slave Clause if one country. No Fugitive Slave Clause if 2 separate countries. If the difference hasn't dawned on you yet have somebody draw you a diagram and speak slowly to you.
Hispanics in the U.S enjoy constitutional rights with makes it hard to stop a person on sight and demand proof of legal status. Blacks, free and slave, had no rights in the Confederacy so stopping and apprehending would not have been much of a problem for a Confederate police.
Illegal immigrants are foreigners and almost invariably do not speak the language. Still they have poured over the border for decades and decades. The original 7 seceding states (6 with a border with the then US) did not have the manpower or resources to secure such a long border.
So what? It was never ratified, and it came too late to change anything.
And how is this relevant? There were states that still allowed slavery which remained in the US.
Slaves from the confederacy escaped to the North. How many slaves in the North escaped to the confederacy?
How does this address the fact that there was widespread mistreatment of Blacks by Federal troops?
I was clear. As imperfect as the North was, it was still better from their point of view than being slaves in the confederacy. BTW, over 100,000 escaped slaves served in the Union forces. What do you think they were fighting for?
"blah blah blah blah I'm just going to spam you with the same crap I've posted 30 times already because I don't have any good answers."
The racists comments in the declarations of secession were my answer. You want to condemn the racists who were in the North but excuse the Southerners for being products of their environment.
There was massive racism and ill treatment of Blacks in the North. I could post all kinds of examples of the "Black Codes" or even entire states which barred Blacks from living there. No, not slaves. All Blacks.
I never said the North was all righteous, either during or after the Civil War. On the contrary, I acknowledge that this was a problem the abolitionists had to deal with.
By the same token, there were abolitionists in the South, who helped the slaves escape. Why aren't you pointing to them as positive examples of the South?
This is an outright lie. The US still had slavery. Even areas of the Southern states that were occupied by federal troops still had slavery. There was no "war of abolition" as Northerners went to great pains to say. They did not start the war to free slaves.
That's because they didn't start the war, but they did free the slaves when it was over. Your tortured logic to get around that is something to behold.
No, slavery was legal in multiple states that remained in the union. It was legal in Washington DC during the war.
Was it legal after the war? No.
There were some Brits who felt the way you describe. Britain had a democratic form of government and a long history of free speech so people held all sorts of opinions just as they did in the Southern states and the Northern states. Funny how you ignore what many of the leading political figures and newspapers on both sides were saying - ie that it was about money not slavery.
I don't ignore it, I just don't agree with it, at least not fully. As I have said, not everyone in the North was for abolition and it took some major politicking to get it done. Frederick Douglas wrote on that, and I've admitted it, yet you keep coming back to that.
Dickens was a leading political commentator, not just an author.
He was also all over the map on that issue. I want to research further.
Its not that it came "too late". Its that slavery was not their real concern. If it had been, then they would have happily indicated they would come back were it passed. Instead they turned it down flat. This wasn't a timing issue.
Slaves from the confederacy escaped to the North. How many slaves in the North escaped to the confederacy?
Slavery was still legal in some of the states that remained in the US yes or no?
I was clear. As imperfect as the North was, it was still better from their point of view than being slaves in the confederacy. BTW, over 100,000 escaped slaves served in the Union forces. What do you think they were fighting for?
Many blacks were treated horribly by by the federals. So much for any claims about it being "about slavery".
The racists comments in the declarations of secession were my answer. You want to condemn the racists who were in the North but excuse the Southerners for being products of their environment.
False. I've never argued there wasn't massive racism in the South. Its that it was awful in the North too. So much for the claims about it being "about slavery". Northerners hated Black people. They weren't about to go to wear for their liberation - especially when they were the ones who sold the slaves in the first place.
By the same token, there were abolitionists in the South, who helped the slaves escape. Why aren't you pointing to them as positive examples of the South?
There were abolitionists, but they were very few in number North or South before the war or even during it.
That's because they didn't start the war, but they did free the slaves when it was over. Your tortured logic to get around that is something to behold.
Ah but they did start the war. Deliberately. Yes the 13th amendment passed after the war. Nobody has denied it.
Was it legal after the war? No.
AFTER. So much for the war being "all about slavery"
I don't ignore it, I just don't agree with it, at least not fully. As I have said, not everyone in the North was for abolition and it took some major politicking to get it done. Frederick Douglas wrote on that, and I've admitted it, yet you keep coming back to that.
Because I do think that's what was motivating most on both sides. Most people were indifferent to slavery. A small minority in the Southern states owned slaves. Only a small minority in the Northern states concerned themselves with the existence of slavery.
He was also all over the map on that issue. I want to research further.
He wasn't all over the map. He was a noted abolitionist. He went around and gave speeches - yes including in the Southern states - before the war urging abolition. Britain had after all, gotten rid of slavery in 1838.
There's a long list of problems with that argument,so let's start here: In no slave-state was slavery waining & weaker, seemingly, than Delaware.
And yet Delaware steadfastly refused to adopt Lincoln's 1862 compensated abolition plan, or to abolish slavery on its own before the 13th's ratification.
And while Maryland, Missouri & West Virginia did abolish on their own, Kentucky, even with relatively fewer slaves remaining, like Delaware, refused.
In short, pure economics was not the only consideration, simple pride & stubbornness also played a role.
Another point -- a simple math exercise shows that in 1860 roughly half of the USA's ~4 million slaves worked in cotton.
Yes, they may not have been quite as profitable as cotton workers, but their slaveholders were still not eager to unanimity them.
If you want to make the case that none of this is true then run with it, but here's more if you're interested.
I attempted to make no such case, and you merely ran from the case I did make. In response to your anonymous, discredited drivel of an offered story, I offered the scholarly and peer-reviewed work of the multiple award winning historian Dr. David Silkenat. As is obvious, you were unable to do so much as offer any substantive rebuttal to the scholarly work of Dr. Silkenat.
Last time you served up an anonymous internet article. This time you serve one up from the British tabloid, The Daily Mail, offering up the same misidentified image. This article was under the byline, Khaleda Rahman.
This Khaleda Rahman. Apparently you have extremely low standards in your choice of "expert historians."
https://medium.com/@jayfifield/khaleda-rahman-of-the-daily-mail-is-disgraceful-c12c5e1f2be5
Khaleda Rahman of The Daily Mail is a Disgraceful Human BeingJay Fifield
Jul 3, 2018·1 min read
Daily Mail Editor: Please do the ethical thing & remove this story. It is completely false and maliciously damaging. My youngest son Nicholas was diagnosed with autism at age 7 & honestly is loved by everyone he’s ever known. The accusation was immediately and repeatedly recanted. The charge was dismissed & the record expunged. This matter involved typical teenage consensual romantic behavior between two high functioning special needs children within the context of a several months-long dating relationship, approved of by both sets of parents. The arrest and prosecution were recklessly false as everyone with actual knowledge of the case knows. Justice was to prevail early on, then an incompetent reporter & twisted editor from the Des Moines Register selfishly tried to push the non-matter to go viral. Your crack reporter Khadela fell for it. She might try something called “research” next time before blindly ruining the future of more struggling special needs minors. For truth in regard to this see my page on medium.com.
Apparently, Ms. Rahman "researches" as you do.
Iowa tennis star, 18, will be spared jail for sexually abusing a mentally-ill teen who he forced to perform sex acts
- Nicholas Fifield was 17 when he met the 18-year-old woman online
- He asked her group home's staff and parents to take her out last year
- Instead of taking her to the movies, he took her to his Des Moines home
- He was charged with felony sex abuse but entered plea to lesser charge
- It means he will avoid jail as prosecutors have said they won't oppose just probation
By Khaleda Rahman For Dailymail.com
Published: 19:18 EDT, 14 August 2016 | Updated: 02:44 EDT, 15 August 2016
An Iowa tennis star will be spared jail for sexually assaulting an autistic and mentally-ill teenager after entering a plea deal.
Nicholas Fifield, 18, has been set to go on trial this week, after being charged last December with felony third-degree abuse of a person ‘suffering from a mental defect or incapacity, which precludes giving consent,’ according to the Des Moines Register.
But he entered an Alford plea to a lesser charge of assault with intent to commit serious injury. The plea means he admits no guilt, but acknowledges there was enough evidence to convict him.
Fifield, who graduated Valley High School this year, was 17, met the 18-year-old woman, a resident at a group home, through a dating site, according to authorities.
[...]
Rahman's cited Alford Plea was thrown out by the Court. An Alford Plea originates from the case North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).
See Des Moines Register here and here
The case was dismissed with prejudice on motion by the prosecutors. Subsequently, the record was expunged.
https://medium.com/@jayfifield/tuesday-march-7-2017-b370ea4b222c
Prosecutor drops charge “in the interest of justice” …Tuesday, March 7, 2017
In the Iowa District Court for Polk County
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
State of Iowa,
Plaintiff,
v.
NICHALAS JAMES FIFIELD,
Defendant.Criminal No: FECR292368
Order of Dismissal
The Court has reviewed the State’s motion to dismiss and finds that it should be granted.
This matter is dismissed: with prejudice
State to pay court costs
Iowa Code Section 901C.1 allows a defendant to file a motion to request that a dismissed case be expunged (erased) from the clerk of court’s public records. Before the expungement, the defendant must prove all of the following:
1) all charges in the case were dismissed;
2) at least 180 days have passed since the case was dismissed (or the defendant proves, and the court finds, good cause to expunge the records sooner such as when the defendant was the victim of an identity theft);
3) the dismissal was not based on a finding that the defendant was incompetent to stand trial or was not guilty by reason of insanity; and
4) all court costs, fees, or other financial obligations ordered by the court have been paid.
If the request is not resisted by the state, the motion may be granted without hearing if the defendant’s motion includes two attachments: A) an affidavit swearing to the four matters set out above; and B) proof from the clerk of court that all costs, fees and other financial obligations have been paid.
Defendant was personally served with a copy of this order.
In addition to all other persons entitled to a copy of this order, the Clerk shall provide a copy to the following: FELCC,
On a point of history, the question is who to believe, British tabloid reporter Khaleda Rahman, or multiple award winning historian Dr. David Silkenat in a scholarly and peer reviewed article published in a history journal.
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.