See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AS A BASIS OF RECONSTRUCTION.
Source:
Page 61. The Reconstruction Problem
URL Source: http://n/a
Published: Sep 12, 2011
Author: JAMES G. BLAINE. NORWICH, CONN. THE HENR
Post Date: 2011-09-12 19:52:04 by PatrickHenry
Keywords: None
Views: 249
Comments: 15
POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS LEGISLATIVE, DIPLOMATIC, AND POPULAR 1856-1886 JAMES G. BLAINE. NORWICH, CONN. THE HENRY BILL PUBLISHING COMPANY 1887 Page 61. The Reconstruction Problem THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AS A BASIS OF RECONSTRUCTION. [Speech of Mr. Blaine at a Republican mass meeting in Skowhegan, Maine, Aug. 29, 1866.] FELLOW-CITIZENS,—The questions which seemed most pressing at the close of the war last year, and which for a time demanded the largest share of popular attention, related to the finances of the nation, to the adjustment of our currency, to the funding of our large public debt. These have since been overshadowed by the question of Reconstruction, or, rather, by the dispute which has ensued between the President and Congress as to the terms upon which the States lately in rebellion should be re-admitted to the right of representation in Congress, and to that full rehabilitation, as members of the Union, which for four years they struggled to be freed from. At the outset it appeared as if the difference between the President and Congress, which rapidly ran into a decisive quarrel between the two, would prove a public calamity; but latterly it has seemed that this very divergence of views, this conflict of authority, will lead to a more radical and more lasting settlement of all the issues that grew out of the war, than would have been reached if the President and Congress had hastily agreed upon the terms for re-admitting the Southern States. Conflicts in the moral world and conflicts in the political world often result in great good; and I am enough of an optimist to believe that the present struggle, based, as we must presume it to be, on an honest difference of opinion between the Executive and Legislative departments, will lead to a broader affirmation of human rights, a more equitable adjustment of the relations of the two sections, a more effective guaranty of the liberties and the rights of those who have so recently been emancipated from chattel slavery. I think a great deal of valuable time and a great deal of useless effort have been expended in Congress upon abstract questions which really are of no value whatever in the final settlement of the grave problems now at issue. The Congressional Globe of the late session is laden down with discussions as to the exact present status of the late insurrectionary States, and the disputants have argued the question with all the zeal and all the ability of those ancient theologians who waxed warm over theses the very meaning of which is now forgotten, or, if remembered, makes no impression whatever upon the creeds of the Christian world. Two great theories have been maintained respecting these States. The first, which is the foundation of President Johnson's theory of Reconstruction, is that the States were never out of the Union, that they never ceased to be members of the Union, that their rights under the Constitution remain unimpaired. The second, which may be called the Congressional basis of Reconstruction, as many present it, is that these States, if not out of the Union, have at least by their own acts of secession and rebellion lost their Statehood, if they be not, indeed, reduced to the condition of Territories; and that it rests with Congress to determine whether they shall be re-admitted to representation in Senate and House, when they shall be re-admitted, and the terms upon which they shall be re-admitted. I do not believe that the time is profitably spent which is given to debating these abstract questions, nor do I believe that, in the end, these theories affect, one way or the other, the actual legislation which has for the time become the basis of Reconstruction. The large majority of the members of Congress have taken no great part in these opposing speculative plans, but have rather agreed with the position taken by Mr. Lincoln in the last speech he ever made, in which he gave a faint foreshadowing of his own views of Reconstruction. Alluding to this very question as to whether the States were still in the Union, or had placed themselves outside of it, Mr. Lincoln declared that “it is not practically a material issue,” and that any discussion of it could have “no other effect than the mischievous one of dividing friends.” In his own quaint way Mr. Lincoln defined what to him had “always seemed the exact status of the case.” “We all agree,” said he, “that the seceded States are out of their proper, practical relation with the Union, and that the sole object of the Government is to get them back into their proper, practical relation. I believe it is easier to do this without deciding, or even considering, whether these States have ever been out of the Union. The States finding themselves once more at home, it would seem immaterial to me to inquire whether they had ever been abroad.” Leaving out of sight all theories, therefore, Congress finally came to a decision which I think the overwhelming majority of voters in the loyal States will approve. We said, in effect, to these rebel States, that having withdrawn their representatives from Congress and fought for four years to destroy the very existence of the National Government, we intend now to impose certain conditions upon them before they shall be readmitted to representation in Senate and House. We said, in effect, to the Southern people, that we do not intend to be hard or exacting upon them: we do not intend to use the power that is in our hands to humiliate or degrade them. On the contrary, we intend to deal with them in a more magnanimous and generous manner than ever rebels were dealt with since civil government was established among men. We are willing to forget all that they have done: we cast out of our memories the lives that have been lost, the property that has been destroyed, the frightful distress that has been created, in consequence of their rebellion. It is better that it be all forgotten and in the bosom of the deep ocean buried. We do not deal with them in a spirit of revenge: we inflict nothing upon them for the past, beyond what is needful for the safety of the future,—for it is only to the future that we now look. In the first place, we ask that they will agree to certain changes in the Constitution of the United States; and, to begin with, we want them to unite with us in broadening the citizenship of the Republic. The slaves recently emancipated by proclamation, and subsequently by Constitutional Amendment, have no civil status. They should be made citizens. We do not, by making them citizens, make them voters,—we do not, in this Constitutional Amendment, attempt to force them upon Southern white men as equals at the ballot-box; but we do intend that they shall be admitted to citizenship, that they shall have the protection of the laws, that they shall not, any more than the rebels shall, be deprived of life, of liberty, of property, without due process of law, and that “they shall not be denied the equal protection of the law.” And in making this extension of citizenship, we are not confining the breadth and scope of our efforts to the negro. It is for the white man as well. We intend to make citizenship National. Heretofore, a man has been a citizen of the United States because he was a citizen of some-one of the States: now, we propose to reverse that, and make him a citizen of any State where he chooses to reside, by defining in advance his National citizenship—and our Amendment declares that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” This Amendment will prove a great beneficence to this generation, and to all who shall succeed us in the rights of American citizenship; and we ask the people of the revolted States to consent to this condition as an antecedent step to their re-admission to Congress with Senators and Representatives. But that is not all we ask. The white people of the South have heretofore had, as we in the North have thought, an unfair advantage, in counting their property in the basis of represen¬tation against the flesh and blood of the North. They have always insisted that slaves were property,—as much as horses or mules or lands,—and they have been ready to fly into a passion and to commit violence against any one who disputed that proposition; and yet when our Federal Government was formed they insisted that three-fifths of all the persons that constituted this property should be included in the basis of representation in Congress. They have thus had an unfair advantage in every Congress that has assembled from the inauguration of George Washington to the outbreak of the Rebellion. The negroes are now free men, and instead of three-fifths entering into the basis of representation, the South will have the benefit of the whole mass, the entire five-fifths; and yet the Southern white men do not propose to allow a single one of these millions of colored men to vote. This Constitutional Amendment which we are proposing does not command that the Southern States shall permit the colored man to vote. At what time they shall advance him to suffrage, in what manner they shall advance him to suffrage, this Constitutional Amendment leaves to their own discretion. It simply says that until they do clothe the colored man with the power to vote, they shall not include him in the basis of representation. I ask you now, my fellow-citizens, if that proposition is not an absolutely fair and equitable one to the white men of the South? I have never met a supporter of Mr. Lincoln's Administration, even of those most conservative, who was not ready to declare that the system of Reconstruction thus proposed is not only just to the white population of the South, but generous?—In truth it consults the prejudices of the white population of the South even farther than is just to the colored men, all of whom were loyal to the Union, and many of whom fought for its preservation. A great many of our Northern people, a very large proportion, I know, of my own constituents in this Kennebec District, find fault with the proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, for the very reason that it does not directly confer suffrage upon the colored man. Our recent Republican State Convention adopted a resolution unanimously declaring that all men, without regard to race, creed, or color, should be declared equal in civil and political rights; and I know that while I stand here urging the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, I am asking them, in the once derided language of Mr. Webster, to “conquer their prejudices” and take the Fourteenth Amendment precisely as it is submitted for ratification. Proceeding to the next provision of the Constitutional Amendment, we say, in effect, to these Southern men that we do not intend to prosecute them or make any attempt to punish them. The war is over, and we shall not disturb the peace now reigning, by any “bloody assizes” in the South. A practical amnesty exists, and those who took part in the rebellion are free from all danger of the law. But, at the same time, we do not intend, if we can help it, that the men who had been members of Congress, who had served in State Legislatures, who had been officers under the United States or any one of the States, and took a solemn personal oath to obey and defend the Constitution and then forswore themselves and rushed into the rebellion, shall come back to the councils of the Nation until two-thirds of Congress shall declare that they may have that privilege. As for the great mass of the Southern men who went into the war, they are perfectly free to hold any office to which they may be chosen,just as free as Northern men,—so far as this Constitutional Amendment affects them. We aim the exclusion only at the class who are special, conscious offenders, and the aggregate of this class is as nothing compared with the whole number who engaged in the rebellion. Careful calculation shows that these disabilities for civil service will not affect more than fourteen thousand citizens in the entire South, out of the millions that were engaged in insurrection. We have still a fourth condition to impose upon the Southern States. The war for the preservation of the Union cost a vast sum of money. It was advanced largely by our own people, but in part was borrowed in Europe. All citizens who loaned to the Government in the hour of its distress took an honorable and patriotic risk; all foreigners who loaned us money trusted to a National honor that has never been tarnished; and the faith of the Nation is pledged to the fair and strict repayment of both citizen and alien, on terms that are nominated in the bonds which each received. The loyal men who control Congress do not intend that this debt shall be left in such position that an adverse majority in the Senate and House may at any time withhold payment, or even threaten to do so; and therefore we bind up the rights of the public creditor in the organic law of the land, and declare that “the validity of the public debt shall never be questioned.” More than that, a large amount of this debt was incurred in the payment of pensions and bounties for soldiers, and we throw around that, also, the monuments of the Constitution, declaring that it stands out and beyond the power of a majority in both Houses to change. We are not yet through with these conditions for the Southern States. One or two more still remain. The Government of the Confederate States, so called, issued bonds and incurred a public debt, and the separate States that composed the Confederacy did the same,—all in support of the war against the Union. The people who advanced money on these bonds deserve to lose it. They deserve to lose it if they were citizens of the rebellious States: they still more deserve to lose it if, as aliens, honorably bound not to aid in destroying our National life, they invested their money in these securities whose value was based upon the hope and the expectation of overthrowing the American Union. We now bind it down by a Constitutional Amendment, that “no State of this Union,” or the United States, if that were possible to conceive, “shall ever pay any debt or obligation of any kind incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion.” One step farther, still. It was necessary for the safety of the Union to destroy the institution of slavery, as a war measure, justified by the law of Nations,—an act made perfect by the amended organic law of the Republic. There may be some danger that, as years go by, the people of the South who were in rebellion, feeling the loss of their slaves and, perhaps, the poverty and hardship that resulted from that loss, will ask for some remuneration from the conquering Government. Aside from the injustice of the demand, the attempt to pay it might imperil the National debt, which is due by every obligation of honor, and therefore the Congress of the United States has deemed it wise to insert in the Constitution that “no claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave shall ever be paid by any State Government or by the National Government, but shall forever be held to be illegal and void.” And then we asked, although it was, perhaps, implied without the asking, that Congress shall reserve to itself, as part of this Amendment to the organic law of the Republic, the power “to enforce, by appropriate legislation,” every one of its provisions. These several provisions which I have thus somewhat elaborately detailed, constitute the proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This could only be proposed to the States, as you well know, by two-thirds of each branch of Congress. As matter of fact, it received three-fourths in the Senate and even a larger proportion in the House,—the vote in the Senate being 33 ayes to 11 noes, and in the House 120 ayes to 32 noes. It is now before the States of this Union for ratification or rejection, and the one important thing for the people of Maine to look to is the election of a Legislature which will ratify. All the loyal States, together, ratifying it will not embody it in the Constitution. The theory has been maintained by some of the more extreme men of the Republican party that three-fourths of the States required by the Constitution to ratify the Amendment, should under present circumstances properly mean three-fourths of the loyal States; but the general, and I think the wiser, conclusion of the party has been to adhere to the ratification of three-fourths of all the States of the Union as required by the letter of the Constitution. If we secure three-fourths of all the States the validity of the Amendment can never be questioned, but if we should attempt to proceed on the theory that three-fourths of the loyal States are all that are required, we might find great trouble in the future when the possible changes of political fortune should bring our opponents into power. Discarding this theory and adhering to the old ways, the situation stands thus, viz.: the Southern States uniting with the Northern States in incorporating in the Constitution the provisions I have set before you, shall be re-admitted to all their former rights of representation in Congress, and shall be re-clothed with all the power of a State in the Union. I do not mean that Congress has given a specific pledge to that effect, but I do mean that such is the general understanding,—an understanding already made explicit and practical by the admission of Tennessee immediately after her ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Legislature of that State was in session when the Amendment was finally passed by Congress, and ratified it without delay. Immediately thereafter, Congress, by an overwhelming vote, larger, I believe, in both branches than that by which the Amendment itself was adopted, re-admitted Tennessee to all her ancient rights in the Union. It is needless, of course, to say that Congress stands ready to treat in the same manner any other Southern State which is ready to follow the example of Tennessee. It is not improbable, therefore, if wise councils prevail throughout the South, that the entire Union will be restored before the expiration of the Thirty-ninth Congress, and Representatives will be admitted as soon as the new apportionment, consequent upon the new basis of representation, can be completed. At the same time, it is only fair to state that if the more extreme of the Secession States shall refuse to accept the conditions now offered, Congress will not stand still and wait the processes of delay and postponement which certain Southern leaders think may wear out the patience of the North and carry this whole question into the Presidential election two years hence. A large proportion of the House of Representatives and of the Senate desired to make more stringent conditions than are contained in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Journals of both branches of Congress will show how many radical provisions were defeated, and if now, in turn, the more conservative provisions that are submitted shall be defeated in the South, the authors of the radical policy will gain great prestige and influence in the councils of the Nation. There are many men who believe that we do a wrong, not only to the colored man, but to the future of the country, by declining to exact suffrage for him as one of the conditions of Reconstruction. But the more moderate policy prevailed, and the question is left to the wisdom and sound judgment of the leading race in the South, with a penalty of decreased representation, which in my judgment will in time force the South to concede suffrage to the colored man. Perhaps a concession gained in that way may prove to be stronger and more securely fortified than a direct and absolute condition imposed by Congress. But these are all speculations. The actual and practical duty before us is to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. The people of the North desire a complete restoration of the Union; commercial, financial and manufacturing interests demand it; our safety at home, our prestige abroad, demand it. The Democratic Party and the South, which are in fact identical, misrepresent the actual condition of affairs when they declare that the Republicans are bent on keeping the Southern States out of the Union. We have given the best proof of our own sincerity, by already admitting one of them, and by laying down the moderate conditions upon which we propose to admit them all. But I beg you, I beg the Republicans of Maine, who constitute the great majority of the entire people of our State, not to be driven into any surrender of the position which demands of the Southern States that they shall give us security for the future. Indemnity for the past we cannot exact from them: they cannot bring back the dead that sleep in honored graves, they cannot repay to us the thousands of millions of money that have been sacrificed in the war to retain them in the Union. But in the name of the sacred dead, and as a security for wasted treasure, we ask that these States shall be so bound by obligations of duty and of honor, that they cannot again disturb the integrity of the Union, or again subject the loyal States to costly sacrifice of blood and to the destruction of the National resources. I am often asked, during my canvass of the District, what Congress will do if the Southern States refuse to accept this Fourteenth Amendment as a condition to their restoration to the Union. Of course, I am not in any sense empowered to answer that question: I can only give you my own opinion, and assure you of my own action. My judgment is that if the Southern States reject the Fourteenth Amendment and refuse to return to the Union subject to its conditions, they will be kept out until they accept what to them will be a still harsher condition, but what to our view in Maine would be the more just condition,—of accepting impartial manhood suffrage, without regard to creed, caste or color, as the basis of their re-admission to representation in Congress. I know that the Southern States are stimulated by leading Northern Democrats and by all the force of President Johnson's Administration, to resist and reject the invitation contained in the submission of the Fourteenth Amendment. They believe that a revolution in public opinion can be effected against the Republicans, that the more prolonged the exclusion of the States the more radical the revolt will be against the power of Congress, and that if the Southern States will stand out solidly against the Fourteenth Amendment they will soon be re-enforced by a sufficient number of Northern States to give them the control of Congress and the dictation of their own terms for re-entering the Union. You can judge as well as I, fellow-citizens, as to the probability of these calculations of our opponents being fulfilled. But it is no time for us to tarry in speculation. Action, prompt and decisive, is the demand of the hour. We can do much to prevent their fulfillment. We can influence the public opinion of Maine; we can send a united Republican delegation to Congress; we can give a large popular majority to our gallant candidate for Governor [General Chamberlain], who represents the aggregate Republican opinion of the State on all the issues involved. Let us not stop to think of what other States may do, but let us employ the few remaining days of this canvass, not merely in defeating the Democratic party,—for that result is already assured, —but in defeating it by so large and so overwhelming a vote as will emphasize the opinion of Maine and thereby influence the judgment of other States. Let us in this way give warning to the Southern States that if they reject the conditions now offered them, they will not be tendered a second time in the same form, and each time they are rejected they will probably have an additional exaction placed upon them,—not from revenge upon the citizens of those States, but because of the reason for stringent exaction which their defiant rejection of fair terms and their truculent disposition would demand as essential to a safe system of Reconstruction. I think, in the present crisis, it might be well for the leaders of public opinion in the South to refresh their minds with the moral contained in the ancient fable of the Sibylline Books.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
Hi Boys & Girls, Two very important items to note regarding RECONSTRUCTION and the loss of Natural Rights, Natural Law, and the Common Law found in the 9th Amendment and the Northwest Ordnance. 1. New "State" Constitutions were drafted at the time of Reconstruction "omitting" the State Citizenship Clauses referenced in the Constitution of 1787. In its place you will find U.S. citizen(s) or other 14th Amendment status identifiers found in the New State's definition of "Resident" (Individual, Partnership, Corporation etc.). 2. These New 14th Amendment States also have Federal Jurisdiction claims within their Statutes on Statutes. In short, the states were "Nationalized", no more recognized by the 10th Amendment (See Joel Tiffany Treatise on Government, Chapter on the States.. National Citizens have "no standing" or Jurisdiction within the States of the Union.. on Equal Footing with the Original States that were Sovereign). Yours In Observing The Path Out of 14th Amendment Regulatory Slavery IS Political, P.H.
In effect, it’s (The Holacaust Inc.) become like a grotesque doll wielded by witch doctors, used to keep individuals from asking too many questions, from thinking for themselves and stepping out of line.
JAMES G. BLAINE. NORWICH, CONN. THE HENRY BILL PUBLISHING COMPANY 1887 Page 61. The Reconstruction Problem THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AS A BASIS OF RECONSTRUCTION. [Speech of Mr. Blaine at a Republican mass meeting in Skowhegan, Maine, Aug. 29, 1866.] ========== Two very important items to note regarding RECONSTRUCTION and the loss of Natural Rights, Natural Law, and the Common Law found in the 9th Amendment and the Northwest Ordnance. 1. New "State" Constitutions were drafted at the time of Reconstruction "omitting" the State Citizenship Clauses referenced in the Constitution of 1787. In its place you will find U.S. citizen(s) or other 14th Amendment status identifiers found in the New State's definition of "Resident" (Individual, Partnership, Corporation etc.). 2. These New 14th Amendment States also have Federal Jurisdiction claims within their Statutes on Statutes. In short, the states were "Nationalized", no more recognized by the 10th Amendment (See Joel Tiffany Treatise on Government, Chapter on the States.. National Citizens have "no standing" or Jurisdiction within the States of the Union.. on Equal Footing with the Original States that were Sovereign). Yours In Observing The Path Out of 14th Amendment Regulatory Slavery IS Political, P.H. I have never seen Mr. Blaine's speech before....I'll have to have another cup of coffee and daylight before I finish reading it, but I think you may have just saved me from finishing a reply I was working on yesterday, on another computer, on another thread. Thanks for posting it! Yours In Observing The Path Out of 14th Amendment Regulatory Slavery IS Political, I, for one, am all ears.
"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm
I, for one, am all ears. Should I start by getting this book? "...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm
Hi All Horses, I'm happy you have enjoyed this post as an insight of the Revolutionary changes made in the American system of government (foisted upon our ancestors by the Radical Republicans, see "The Journal Of The Joint Committee Of Fifteen On Reconstruction, 39th Congress, 1865-1867" by Benjamin B. Kendrick..formally Whig Party Corporatist and their Marxist/Communist enablers.. see Lincolns 48ers, Chapter Three, "Lincoln Uber Alles, Dictatorship Comes to America" by John Avery Emison). In Re "The Red Amendment" by L.B. Bork, I read this work for the first time early last spring. I was tasked by a local 2nd Amendment Group to create a curriculum on the study of the Radical Reconstruction Era and political remedy that had worked wonders for me (local 14th State Bureaucrats have a healthy fear of your truly..lol). While putting my curriculum together (no less than a dozen treatises on government, 14th Amendment treatises by Charles Wallace Collins etc. 150 + Supreme Court citations of Natural Rights, Natural Law, Slaughter-House cases etc.) I stumbled upon L.B.'s "inspired" work. The only thing I could have added to his study was case law and archived Enabling Acts, Treaty of Paris (received from the National Archives and U.S. State Dept. Treaty Office). These documents stand in "direct opposition" to the spirit and letter of the 14th and legislative intent of the Radical Republicans. The short of the matter is that the so-called Civil War was simply a pretext for a Counter Revolution (turning the theory of government established by the Founding Fathers on its ear). What we experienced was nothing short of the formal transition from a Democratic Republic (Natural Rights, Natural Rights as The Rule of Law, Common Law) to that of a Legislative Democracy or EMPIRE. History is clear that the same transition occurred with the Roman Republic to Roman Empire and the Radicals simply took "this play" out of the History Books. Empires as you are aware are created with the exclusive purpose of "exploitation" of the masses and the worlds resources. Empires also require a "huge engine" of tax paying PROLETARIANS to stoke their endless WARS (perpetrated by way of mass deception). Simply put, 14th Americans are Prols (Slaves that are given the perception that they are shaping their own destiny when VOTING .. lol). Hope you enjoy L.B.'s "The Red Amendment" as much as I did (it could save years of independent study to source his research on your own). Warm Regards, Patrick
In effect, it’s (The Holacaust Inc.) become like a grotesque doll wielded by witch doctors, used to keep individuals from asking too many questions, from thinking for themselves and stepping out of line.
Again you make this claim about State Constitutions without any cited reference examples for them to support your assertions. Please do so, if you think you can find even one. Also, "drafted" is not [spelling edit: synonymous] with "ratified". State Constitutions, North and South, were changed to reflect the abolition of Slavery with passage of the 13th Amendment, after the Civil War, because it certainly wasn't officially abolished everywhere in the North prior to the 13th and never was legally abolished anywhere really -- not even in D.C. -- by Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation"/Executive Order against the CSA. Prior to the Civil War and before the 14th Amendment, States North and South had resident Free Blacks but not with recognized citizenship status at the State or the national level. The 14th Amendment changed that for them and State Constitutions recognized their citizenship and Constitutional Rights. You have shown no evidence of State Constitutions that omitted State Citizenship Clauses for anyone. There were issues of loyalty to the Union that were imposed on Southern States and their Constitution updates. Ex -- edited: White Southern males are the only group of racial category historically denied by law here their Right as citizens to Vote and eligibility for public office was made conditional for most on their affirmations of Union loyalty, forbidden permanently to high-level CSA "rebels". Interestingly, when it came to the issue of giving Black males the Right to Vote, a not insignificant number of Northerners thought that including Blacks in the electoral process should be incumbent only upon the South as part of their Reconstruction punishments. More history of the 14th Amendment: This amendment was specifically rejected by Texas on Oct 27, 1866; by Georgia on Nov 6, 1866; by North Carolina on Dec 14, 1866; by South Carolina on Dec 20, 1866; by Kentucky on Jan 8, 1867; by Virginia on Jan 9, 1867; by Louisiana on Feb 6, 1867; by Delaware on Feb 8, 1867; and by Maryland on Mar 23, 1867. New Jersey's ratification was rescinded on Mar 24, 1868; Ohio rescinded its ratification on Jan 15, 1868 and ratified again on Mar 13, 2003.
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Congressman John A. Bingham of Ohio is considered the architect of the 14th Amendment, not Blaine. Blaine was from a wealthy landowner family in Pennsylvania, moved to Maine and became editor of a Republican newspaper, became a Maine legislator and a Republican Party leader, moved on to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1863 and was Speaker of the House for his last two years, [edit to add: reported by one account to have resigned from the House when Speaker,] then moved to the U.S. Senate, resigned that seat to become Secretary of the State and resigned twice from his Secretary of State appointments. He [spelling edit: unsuccessfully] ran for President, I think [edit: two or three times], and lost [edit: or resigned] the nomination once due to corruption allegations. At the time of the 14th Amendment, I don't think he was even Speaker of the House yet -- just a Rep. from Maine who opposed general Amnesty for the South. Wikipedia says that he was Nicknamed "The Continental Liar From the State of Maine," "Slippery Jim," and "The Magnetic Man,". Blaine Amendment: The term Blaine Amendment refers to either a failed federal constitutional amendment or actual constitutional provisions that exist in 38 of the 50 state constitutions in the United States both of which forbid direct government aid to educational institutions that have any religious affiliation. Both were aimed at Catholics, most notably the Irish, who had immigrated and started their own parochial schools. Text of the Federal Blaine Amendment (1875): No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations."
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I'm so mad I can't think straight. 14th Amendment. The validity of the national debt SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED. How can this amendment be anywhere near constitutional when it infringes on the FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT, not "privilege", but RIGHT to FREE SPEECH. This damned government...no ALL of the so-called governments in this country are for profit corporations...the proof is in the pudding: see them registered as companies on manta.com See christine's post The Hospital Gestapo: You May Never See Home Again ....early on I discovered she was being murdered under the guise of Chapter 11....that's the Code, not law, but Babylonian Commercial Code that covers Bankruptcy. see redemptionservice.com prison industries I am so mad right now, I can hardly type....not mad at you....mad at these evil s.o.b.'s that tyrannize this country.
"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm
What do you want me to do.. write a book? Contrasting "Citizenship Clauses" isn't very difficult to do: Illinois Constitution of 1818 ART. II. 27. In all elections, all white male inhabitants above the age of 21 years, having resided in the state six months next preceding the election, shall enjoy the right of an elector; but no person shall be entitled to vote except in the county or district in which he shall actually reside at the time of the election. ( http://tippecanoe.tripod.com/c1818.html) Contrasted to "statutory citizenship" as per the 14th and note the distinction in definitions found in territorial jurisdiction claims below as well: (625 ILCS 5/1-173) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 1-173) Sec. 1-173. Resident. (a) Every natural person who resides in this state shall be deemed a resident of this State. (b) In the case of a firm, copartnership or association, if the principal place of business of such firm, copartnership or association is located in the State of Illinois, then such firm, copartnership or association shall be deemed a resident of the State of Illinois. (c) In the case of a corporation, if the corporation was incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois or if the principal place of business of such corporation is in the State of Illinois, then such corporation shall be deemed a resident of the State of Illinois. (Source: P.A. 76-1586.) ____ "The boundaries and jurisdiction of the state shall be as follows, to-wit": Here follows the legal boundaries of the State of Illinois: People v. Lewis, 227 Mich. 343, 198 N.W. 957; State v. Farbe, 46 S. E. 369. “Beginning at the mouth of the Wabash river, thence up the same, and with the line of Indiana to the northwest corner of said state; then east with the line of the same state, to the middle of Lake Michigan; thence north, along the middle of said lake, to north latitude 42 degrees and 30 minutes; thence west to the middle of the Mississippi river, and thence down, along the middle of that river, to its confluence with the Ohio river; and thence up the latter river, along its northwestern shore, to the beginning.” (the above description is IN AGREEMENT with Illinois Enabling Acts of 1818) VS GENERAL PROVISIONS (5 ILCS 70/) Statute on Statutes. (5 ILCS 70/0.01) (from Ch. 1, par. 1000) Sec. 0.01. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Statute on Statutes. (Source: P.A. 86-4; 86-451.) (5 ILCS 70/1.14) (from Ch. 1, par. 1015) Sec. 1.14. "State," when applied to different parts of the United States, may be construed to include the District of Columbia and the several territories, and the words "United States" may be construed to include the said district and territories. (Source: Laws 1945, p. 1717.) _______ “The Legislator of Illinois first introduced a Federal Territorial jurisdiction definition found in the Statutes on Statutes in 1845. Prior to this time, no such Federal Territorial definition existed.” – Mr. Kim Efford (ILLINOIS Law Archivist ((2010))
In effect, it’s (The Holacaust Inc.) become like a grotesque doll wielded by witch doctors, used to keep individuals from asking too many questions, from thinking for themselves and stepping out of line.
What happened? “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson — and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of W. W. The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United States — only on a far bigger and broader basis.” - Letter to Col. Edward Mandell House (21 November 1933); as quoted in F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1928-1945, edited by Elliott Roosevelt (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950), pg. 373.
In effect, it’s (The Holacaust Inc.) become like a grotesque doll wielded by witch doctors, used to keep individuals from asking too many questions, from thinking for themselves and stepping out of line.
“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson — and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of W. W. The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United States — only on a far bigger and broader basis.” http://greatreddragon.com/toc.htm / http://greatreddragon.com/book.htm / http://greatreddragon.com/preface.htm / http://greatreddragon.com/chap1.htm http://greatreddragon.com/chap5.htm http://greatreddragon.com/chap6.htm http://greatreddragon.com/chap7.htm Dedication TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE: Trusting that its publication will promote This Work L. B. Woolfolk [1889] greatreddragon.com/dedicate.htm [I disagree with TWO major points. I believe we have been in the "millennium" for 2,000 years....and I believe we are all ONE race....throught Christ.] "...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm
Bank "Loans" The Rest Of The Story discharge-debt.com/id135.htm
"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm
this "government" of the people, by the people and for the people is bovine excrement....it is control of the people, by the corporations for the corporations, starting with "governments" which are nothing less than corporations, headed by the international bankers. The United States Isn't a Country, It's a Corporation www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm Bankers' Manifesto & Sustainable Development http://www.afn.org/~govern/safe.html
"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm
How can this amendment be anywhere near constitutional when it infringes on the FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT, not "privilege", but RIGHT to FREE SPEECH. You're absolutely right about that 1st Amendment issue, ATKHWDI, of course. There are other issues of Constitutionality as well, such as ex post facto "color of law" and bills of attainder that I will post something about when I can get back to discussions on this topic, ASAP -- hopefully this evening.
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
How can this amendment be anywhere near constitutional when it infringes on the FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT, not "privilege", but RIGHT to FREE SPEECH. You're absolutely right about that 1st Amendment issue, ATKHWDI, of course. There are other issues of Constitutionality as well, such as ex post facto "color of law" and bills of attainder that I will post something about when I can get back to discussions on this topic, ASAP -- hopefully this evening. Sorry for the overlong delay on getting back to you about that, ATKHWDI. In addition to the problem you mentioned, below is a posting at the Tenth Amendment Center which addresses other 14th Amendment issues, mentioned in my reply above, regarding ex post facto "color of law" and bills of attainder. It is not a perfect Amendment and should be judicially revisited for those reasons, as well as the very important one you cited on the 1st Amendment. One thing that it doesn't do, though, is eliminate State citizenship. In fact it reaffirms State citizenship in the very first clause: Please keep in mind when evaluating the 14th Amendment that it contains the clearly expressed recogntion of the authority and the duty of the States to refuse to enforce "any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States", regardless of laws on their books or the Federal Government's that might conflict with our Constitutional Rights. Iow, it aknowledges their right to Nullify improper dictates as opposed to replays of Seceding from the Union. Also, within Clause 4 on debt, it abolishes debt slavery expected by insurrectionists which have been and are in rebellion against our Constitutitonal Republic, like the Federal Reserve. Comment at TAC on the article which addresses other issues of concern re: the 14th Amendment: Constitution Day is this Saturday!: Article 1. Section 9.3} No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed. The 14th Amendment fails these basic tests of Constitutionality. That amendment is a bill of attainder and it was passed ex post facto. Article 1. Section 9.3 is probably the reason that the Antebellum South so confidently seceded. Seceded or not, the North was and still is bound by that limitation of power. The North had no power over slavery in 1861, and it still had no legal power over slavery in 1865. The history of the 14th amendment has been well documented, and it truly is a testimony to the power of murder by the Government. Article 3. Section 3.2} The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attained. Article 1.Section 9.3} declared that Congress may not pass Bills of Attainder or ex post facto laws. Now we see an exception or a mistake. The Constitution contradicts itself here. Attainders of treason are permitted with some very serious restrictions on them to protect the descendants of the traitors. That is us. The most dangerous problem is the 14th Amendment. The value of the slaves and Southern war bonds concern us here. That value is the forfeiture that is Constitutionally bound to be returned to the Southern people , as we shall not suffer Corruption of Blood or lose our property EXCEPT during the lifetimes of the Confederate Politicians and Soldiers. They are now all dead. Also, the theory known as the Incorporation Doctrine is defunct. The application of the 14th Amendment to the States and the people is illegal. The traitors are dead! The application of the Incorporation Doctrine is Corruption of Blood and is Unconstitutional. We, the Southerners living now, are not and have never been Traitors to the United States. We are thereby under the jurisdiction of the original Constitution . Corruption of Blood is being allowed to function as the Supreme Law of the Land rather than the Constitution of the United States. This cannot continue. [My note: see list of linked references at the site] Further, in black and white, Amendments are NOT Unconditional. They are a delegated power to the Federal Government, and are vested as a privilege. Notice the Articles of Confederation had no such delegation. It has been abused time and again by the Federal Government . [Edited to reword 1st sentence of this reply] ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Contrasting "Citizenship Clauses" isn't very difficult to do: No, I definitely do not want you to do that and I don't know what you think that confetti proves. Corporations are not citizens of a State but are considered to be a resident. I am a citizen of my State and live here as a pemanent resident, rather than moving to reside in some other State for a time where I would be considered a temproary resident there but not a citizen of that State. I have no idea what the Illinois State rivers and boundaries that you cited is intended to prove per my post to you at #5, or what your problem is exactly with the inclusion of the District of Columbia and territories of the U.S. in reference to the United States, which our nation of America is called. What you cited does not confer Statehood on D.C. or U.S. territories but refers to jurisdiction over them inclusively. Edited to reword 3rd sentence. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#2. To: PatrickHenry (#1)
POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS LEGISLATIVE, DIPLOMATIC, AND POPULAR 1856-1886
#3. To: PatrickHenry (#2)
Observing The Path Out of 14th Amendment Regulatory Slavery IS Political,
#4. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#2)
(Edited)
#5. To: PatrickHenry (#1)
(Edited)
1. New "State" Constitutions were drafted at the time of Reconstruction "omitting" the State Citizenship Clauses referenced in the Constitution of 1787. In its place you will find U.S. citizen(s) or other 14th Amendment status identifiers found in the New State's definition of "Resident" (Individual, Partnership, Corporation etc.).
#6. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#2)
(Edited)
I have never seen Mr. Blaine's speech before....
#7. To: GreyLmist (#6)
#8. To: GreyLmist (#5)
Again you make this claim about State Constitutions without any cited reference examples for them to support your assertions. Please do so, if you think you can find even one. Also, "drafted" is not [spelling edit: synonymous] with "ratified".
#9. To: All (#8)
#10. To: PatrickHenry (#9)
(Edited)
What happened?
the Glory of God and the highest well-being of Man;
In exposing, and leading to the overthrow
of the mightiest Evil
that has ever risen on the Earth; and
In revealing JEHOVAH on the side of humanity now,
as of old, leading our race in the prophetic
PILLAR OF LIGHT out of the
bondage of the present Era into
the glorious Millennial
Canaan promised
to man.
As an Offering on the Altar of Consecration--and a
Tribute of Philantrophy from a heart yearning
with unspeakable longing and hope
for the Well-being of Mankind,
is respectfully inscribed by
#11. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#10)
#12. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#11)
#13. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt, PatrickHenry (#7)
14th Amendment. The validity of the national debt SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED.
#14. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt, PatrickHenry, All (#13)
(Edited)
14th Amendment. The validity of the national debt SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED.
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.
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.
#15. To: PatrickHenry (#8)
(Edited)
What do you want me to do.. write a book?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest