See other Editorial Articles
Title: The Fall of the South: A Sesquicentennial Wake By Bill Buppert
Source:
ZeroGov
URL Source: http://zerogov.com/?p=3964
Published: Apr 10, 2015
Author: Bill Buppert
Post Date: 2015-04-10 12:45:59 by X-15
Keywords: None
Views: 2566
Comments: 204
“So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained.” -Statement to John Leyburn (1 May 1870), as quoted in R. E. Lee: A Biography (1934) by Douglas Southall Freeman. On this day, 9 April in 1865, the Lincolnian project to enslave the entire nation under the yoke of Union supremacy, central planning and a country administered by national political fiat and the naked fist of government aggression prevailed. The South and the Confederacy for all it flaws died at Appomattox. Lee is often erroneously quoted as saying the following: “Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in my right hand. Supposed made to Governor Fletcher S. Stockdale (September 1870), as quoted in The Life and Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney, pp. 497-500.” No lesser literary luminaries and historians have said this is false than Douglas Southall Freeman, Shelby Dade Foote, Jr. and Bruce Catton. This appears to be historical myth-making by Mr. Dabney. My casual research and interest in Lee find this simply does not fit in his character; now there were certainly Confederate worthies who professed such sympathies. Lee is certainly one of the greatest captains of arms in the history of the West. A far more competent and talented warrior than the base incompetency and abject martial malpractice of George Washington; he joins the ranks of Douglas Haig (WWI) and Pompey (Rome) for an exaggerated sense of warrior skills untethered to reality. Lee was at the forefront of a Confederate high tide that was destroyed by the Gettysburg debacle and worsening political travails in the South as Davis tried to emulate the Sovietized system of the Union to salvage a victory. At least the South fought to fight a just war in defending their own soil from invasion. I am amused at Union apologists who claim that the South fired the first shot at Fort Sumter. Let me employ a tortured analogy; you buy a house and the owners refuse to vacate and bring friends with guns to ensure you can’t possession of your rightful property. Such was the case in Sumter where the Fort commanded the entry and exit to richest transportation hub in the south employing constant threats against the indigenous community it sat in the middle of. The War Between the States was a Second American Revolution, the last gasp of trying to unshackle the nation from the Constitutional straitjacket that extinguished liberty at every turn. Alexander Stephens, the Vice president of the Confederacy had other ideas. He is no hero of abolition nor a moral man in regards the disposition of humans in chains: “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.” Lincoln claimed this was his only disagreement with Stephens but the curious ability of Lincoln to free all slaves outside his legal jurisdiction and maintain it within his control regime. Historian Clarence Carson has astutely commented: “It should be noted, however, that as of the moment it was issued and to the best of Lincoln’s knowledge, the proclamation did not free a single slave. It did not free a slave in Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia, nor in any state or portions of a state within the Confederacy occupied by Union troops…In short, Lincoln freed only those slaves over which he had no control. No doubt that was by design.” As Al Benson Jr. notes: “What it amounted to was, that, as an effective propaganda tool, the proclamation freed only those slaves that the North had no jurisdiction over and it didn’t free any slaves over which the North had some jurisdiction.” Author Webb Garrison, a former dean of Emory University noted that: “…the Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure – not an edict issued in a dramatic move to better the lives of blacks. No one knew this better than the author of the proclamation. Nine months after it was issued, he told Salmon P. Chase ‘The original proclamation has no constitutional or legal justification except as a military measure’.” There was no major politician except Charles Sumner on either side interested in the least in emancipation much less abolition of black chattel slavery. Sumner would famously ask Lincoln: “Do you know who is at this moment the largest slaveholder in the United States?” Sumner informed Lincoln that he was the largest slaveholder because the President “holds all the slaves of the District of Columbia.” This ended on paper in 1862. This war was about slavery but not in the commonly held beliefs that permeate the nonsense about the conflict in the government school systems. This war was about the Union grasp at codifying a new kind of slavery just as awful as chattel or indentured servitude. The object was to chain tax cattle to a regime that could rob them at will and ultimately using every power at its disposal to drain a person’s resources and at worst cage and murder them when it saw fit. The essential result of the horrific conflict was to out everyone on the plantation under any Constitutionally protected” territory or state. Go guerrilla indeed, what would the future have wrought? Poster Comment: "The birth of Empire. Not a damned living soul has lived under the Constitution as it was intended in 1787-1791 – or at least as it was said to be intended."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-163) not displayed.
.
.
.
#164. To: war (#163)
No, here in the forum of course. Not since Jesus -- what does that mean?
Roses Are Reddish Violets Are Bluish If It Wasn't For Christmas... We'd All Be Jewish... --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
Correct. No it isn't. Foreigners present here of any sort are not permitted by the Constitution to disregard America's laws as subjects of other government(s), nor does being subject to the U.S. jurisdiction thereof regarding our nation's laws and territory or those of our States amount to a conferring of citizenship status for them. They aren't supposed to be issued a criminality pass, afaik. I'm fairly certain that would not be in accordance with anything said about foreign officials in the Constitution. Think applicable espionage charges in their case, for instance -- especially in times of war. Jus soli…(Latin: right of the soil)[1] is the right of anyone born in the territory of a state to nationality or citizenship.[2] As an unconditional basis for citizenship, it is the predominant rule in the Americas, but is rare elsewhere. Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood) is a principle of nationality law by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth but by having one or both parents who are citizens of the state. Children at birth may automatically be citizens if their parents have state citizenship or national identities of ethnic, cultural or other origins. (definitions from Wikipedia) Obama was born to a US citizen mother, on US soil. That makes him a natural born citizen by jus soli and by jus sanguinis. If you know where it says differently in law, or the Constitution, please let me know. I know the difference between Jus soli and Jus sanguinis. I think it's you who doesn't quite because you proceeded to blur those citizenship definitions generally that you posted as if synonymous with natural born citizenship which, in reality, they are not. Native American Indians are a clear example of the 14th Amendment not being about Jus soli auto-birthright citizenship if simply born here, much less as a determinant of natural born citizenship -- not even by Jus sanguinis, too, of one parent or both having also been born here. Edit to add and clarify: It was long after the 14th Amendment and after WWI before Congress contrived to extend them citizenship by a decree infringing on their sovereignty, so as to increase tax revenues and somewhat decrease war debts thereby. Even so, one of the Liberty Bond issuances to finance WWI eventually defaulted. ------- "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
The USCON makes it fairly clear that Indians are not US citizens and were treated as a separate nation of peoples until 1924...the fact that the US negotiated treaties with the various indigenous nations is ample evidence of that fact... --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
Yes, I had edited that into my post with an endnote and was working to further explain the situation. Likewise, "anchor babies" are also citizens of a separate nation or more through their mother's country/countries of citizenship (indigenous or otherwise); Mexico being an example of one that we've similarly negotiated a war treaty with. ------- "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
Anchor babies are born in the US and subject to the laws hereof...How is that not congruent with the plain language of the 14th amendment? Some nations require that a foreign birth be registered before citizenship is established;... --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
Foreign residents/visitors/illegal aliens are also subject to the laws hereof. That doesn't equate to auto-citizenship status for them, nor for those born to them here as if specialer than the Native American Indians who were born within the United States.
------- "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. Sorry, but this supposed copy simply won't do. Not for a communist pseudo- president or even the jerk as 2008 candidate. And he did balk -- there was much controversy over the B.C. till this blatant fake was finally produced. You have to remember it, it was only 7-8 years ago. (Copying a doc with a plain background onto security paper? They're just flaunting their fraud like they love to do, cf. how they laid Vince Foster out in Fort Marcy Park and then claimed it was suicide!) 3. You admit you're wrong most of the time -- that's progress. And momsy, I can't promise to discuss it further with you. If you support Obozo you're delusional and don't even belong here. 1. If by original intent you mean the belief that blacks were inferior to whites, and counted for only 3/5 of a human being, then yes. Far from irrelevant, the belief that blacks were inferior and not counted as full human beings was an integral part of slavery. 2. Obama released his short form certificate before he was ever asked, that's what started the whole birther movement. Speaking as a professional, I can tell you it would be much more difficult to produce what you think is blatant fake than one that would pass your test. What is outrageous about putting a sheet of security paper in a photo copier to make an official copy of an existing document? 3. I don't recall reading that love, hate, or just plain indifference to Obama was a requirement for forum membership. Perhaps you would quote the relevant text. What I love is the truth.
Indeed it is possible for a diplomat to get a pass on criminal activity. From Wikipedia: Diplomatic immunity is a form of legal immunity that ensures diplomats are given safe passage and are considered not susceptible to lawsuit or prosecution under the host country's laws, although they can still be expelled…Diplomatic immunity as an institution developed to allow for the maintenance of government relations, including during periods of difficulties and even armed conflict. When receiving diplomats—who formally represent the sovereign—the receiving head of state grants certain privileges and immunities to ensure they may effectively carry out their duties, on the understanding that these are provided on a reciprocal basis. snip It is possible for the official's home country to waive immunity; this tends to happen only when the individual has committed a serious crime, unconnected with their diplomatic role (as opposed to, say, allegations of spying), or has witnessed such a crime. However, many countries refuse to waive immunity as a matter of course; individuals have no authority to waive their own immunity (except perhaps in cases of defection). Alternatively, the home country may prosecute the individual. If immunity is waived by a government so that a diplomat (or their family members) can be prosecuted, it must be because there is a case to answer and it is in the public interest to prosecute them. For instance, in 2002, a Colombian diplomat in London was prosecuted for manslaughter, once diplomatic immunity was waived by the Colombian government.
1. If by original intent you mean the belief that blacks were inferior to whites, and counted for only 3/5 of a human being, then yes. It has nothing to do with superior or or inferior, any more than apples are superior to oranges. It has to do with the kind of people the founders intended to run this country. Having a nonwhite one only increases the social tension and messes people's heads up. People who want to change human nature regarding race might as well try to change the law of gravity. If Obama were merely living up to his campaign promises, I'd be all for him in view of the hell of life with Bushes, Clintons et al and no doubt the founders would have too. But he lied about everything and I and millions and millions of other people knew it from the first. Only liars and criminals are allowed anywhere near the nomination. If you're not seeing that, there's not much I can do for you. Far from irrelevant, the belief that blacks were inferior and not counted as full human beings was an integral part of slavery. But the slavery of bygone centuries is totally irrelevant today when whites are being made strangers in their own countries and the entire population here is on the federal plantation and can't get off as long as Jews like Solomon and Adelson are picking out presidents for us. 2. Obama released his short form certificate before he was ever asked, that's what started the whole birther movement. Speaking as a professional, I can tell you it would be much more difficult to produce what you think is blatant fake than one that would pass your test. You've got your links on that, we've got ours. What you're describing is not the way I remember it at all, and in any case the BC is merely one kind of documents that are sealed. Is Wayne Allyn Root lying when he says he should be well aware of Obozo's time at Columbia, but there's nothing there? What is outrageous about putting a sheet of security paper in a photo copier to make an official copy of an existing document? It's not outrageous, but it's another way the BC's so flimsy. 3. I don't recall reading that love, hate, or just plain indifference to Obama was a requirement for forum membership. Perhaps you would quote the relevant text. Everybody here except you and war understand with no assistance that Obama is evil, those pulling his marionette strings and putting their words in his mouth even more so. It's called Freedom4um and liberalism is all about enslaving everybody. You persistently defend the worst president in amerikan history, ergo you don't belong here any more than Phyllis Schlafly belongs in Hillary's lesbian club. If you loved truth, you'd be helping to expose these evils, not rationalize them. There, you got me to blow another ten minutes on this -- don't expect an encore.
Thanks for those ten minutes - well said. “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
I chose France for a reason. Under French law (or what was law at some point in my life), a child can be held liable for the taxes that were owed by the parents. Since you claim that the child is subject to the jurisdiction of their foreign parent then my point stands to reason. The only way that it could not be, would be if the child had protection under US law. The 14th amendment establishes that anyone BORN or NATURALIIZED is a citizen of the US...that child was NOT naturalized...thus he was born a citizen of the US and could not be compelled by a US court to comply with French law...not so with the parents... They could only be held responsible for acts committed outside of the US within the jurisdiction of the other nation. Nor, btw, are they subject to recall by the other nation, unlike ambassadors or attaches... The US never considered impressment legal. IN fact, one of the roots of the War of 1812 was impressment. The plain language of Article II Section I SS5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President... Can you find me what qualifications did a person need to be a *citizen* of the US in 1788? In other words, excluding those born in the US...the parentage of whom, btw, is an unknown...what made anyone else a US citizen? As I've stated before, back in the early era of our nation, having an American father at the time of the child's birth was enough to qualify a child then as an American citizen -- but not necessarily equivalent to a natural born citizen unless both parents were Americans only at the time of their child's birth here. More recently in the last century, a son born abroad to an American diplomat father (and possibly the child's mother being an American, as well) lost his claim to American citizenship by choosing to stay overseas after adulthood. I think the country of his birth was France but would have to research that and would rather not right now. I think the tax law of France that you mentioned is unfair but mainly France's jurisdictional business internationally and not any remote-business of mine that I'm presently aware of. As I've tried to explain before, all foreigners who have babies born here might not want their child's nationality by birth to be compromised by auto-attachment of American citizenship. Perhaps that might be considered at some point by plentiful numbers of them as comparable to the War of 1812 impressment issue of our citizens being subjected to tyrannical control by Britain, a recent enemy of American memories in those years. Others shouldn't have to ponder going to war to stop America from claiming jurisdictional control over their child's citizenship identity or spend money to legally overturn the proclamation. Many foreigners don't even like America. Some probably don't even like being here on a business matter, sullied as it's become by misdirections. The natural born citizenship clause, a section of which you highlighted, makes a distinction between that higher citizenship standard and a more basic State Citizenship, which was the case for those of our Founding Fathers' timeframe who were Citizens of their State at the time of the Articles of Confederation being replaced by the Constitution -- none of whom, I'm confidant in saying, are still being classified as applicable candidate-exceptions to the natural born citizenship rule for Presidential or Vice Presidential office in this century. Whether in plain language by your readings or not, the 14th Amendment neither states nor implies any nullification of the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requirement of natural born citizenship -- more complex than the assertions like yours as meaning anyone at all born here or born anywhere to an American parent, which could jeopardize our national security contrary to our Founders' intent of preventing foreign influence and obligation entanglements of the Presidency and Vice Presidency as best they could for us in America's best interest. Should be obvious, imo. ------- "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
The "everybody understands" club doesn't sound like it represents freedom of thought to me. It sounds more like "we all walk in lock step here", which looks like a form of oppression. I don't think believing the evidence that Obama is a natural born citizen is "persistently" defending him. If you are correct that everyone here agrees with you, then you are also correct when you say I don't belong here. Phyllis Schlafly? Good grief!
Far from irrelevant, the belief that blacks were inferior and not counted as full human beings was an integral part of slavery. This isn't a Slavery issue and they weren't American citizens or being counted for taxation of them. Liberals shouldn't be paid to teach History classes in this country because they don't do that. They are primarily indoctrinators of dummified PC illusions. The phrase is "three fifths of all other Persons", which isn't an exact definition of Black Slaves only. Could just as readily be applied to Oriental Slaves of Oriental residents and Arabic Slaves of Arabian residents or something. Alaska hadn't been acquired yet but even the Eskimos had Slaves and that Slavery was abolished after Lincoln's War. To which advantage was it, mostly, for Black Slaves (some being Slaves of the North but fewer than those in the South) to not be counted fully? Answer: Not to the South's advantage. Counting them fully, even though they weren't considered to be citizens of America, would have given the South more Congressional representation and power -- possibly enough to stop the North from continuing to funnel taxes unfairly into its benefitings at the expense of Southerners, the vast majority of which weren't Slave owners but many freed Blacks in the South were. What you call the birther movement (in deriding shorthand of the Left about Advocates of the Constitution's Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requirement of natural born citizenship for the Presidency) was reportedly started by Democrats regarding the likelihood of McCain's citizenship status being non-qualifying, before Obama's was questioned also. ------- "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
You don't like Phyllis, there's REALLY something the matter with you. In addition to being admittedly not right about much!
They aren't supposed to be issued a criminality pass, afaik. I'm fairly certain that would not be in accordance with anything said about foreign officials in the Constitution. Think applicable espionage charges in their case, for instance -- especially in times of war. You: Indeed it is possible for a diplomat to get a pass on criminal activity. From Wikipedia: Diplomatic immunity is a form of legal immunity that ensures diplomats are given safe passage and are considered not susceptible to lawsuit or prosecution under the host country's laws, although they can still be expelled…Diplomatic immunity as an institution developed to allow for the maintenance of government relations, including during periods of difficulties and even armed conflict. When receiving diplomats—who formally represent the sovereign—the receiving head of state grants certain privileges and immunities to ensure they may effectively carry out their duties, on the understanding that these are provided on a reciprocal basis. One of America's biggest problems is what politicians wrongfully presume is possible for them to get away with doing "conventionally" and "bindingly" by agreement/contract/treaty and such that isn't a Constitutionally authorized power enumerated for them to so act as officals of our government or even "implied" anywhere in the Constitution by any stretch of the imagination -- the "institutionalization" of "diplomatic immunity" for agents of foreign governments to be lawbreakers here being just one of multitudionous violative examples of their Unconstitutionality; and so: invalidity to govern as America's "authorities". It is possible for the official's home country to waive immunity; this tends to happen only when the individual has committed a serious crime, unconnected with their diplomatic role (as opposed to, say, allegations of spying), or has witnessed such a crime. However, many countries refuse to waive immunity as a matter of course; individuals have no authority to waive their own immunity (except perhaps in cases of defection). Alternatively, the home country may prosecute the individual. If immunity is waived by a government so that a diplomat (or their family members) can be prosecuted, it must be because there is a case to answer and it is in the public interest to prosecute them. For instance, in 2002, a Colombian diplomat in London was prosecuted for manslaughter, once diplomatic immunity was waived by the Colombian government. Comparing to this example of no apparent diplomatic immunity protocols whatsoever extended by Paul Bremer or other acting U.S. officials in Iraq for this Iraqi Christian still on death row ... for the newfangled "crime" of having ever been an official of Saddam Hussein's government before we replaced it, I guess: ------- "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
what started the whole birther movement What you call the birther movement (in deriding shorthand of the Left about Advocates of the Constitution's Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requirement of natural born citizenship for the Presidency) was reportedly started by Democrats regarding the likelihood of McCain's citizenship status being non-qualifying, before Obama's was questioned also. How many Asian, and Arabic slaves were there? Southerners wanted the benefit of increasing their representation in Congress - that's why they wanted their non-voting, non-citizen slaves counted. Of course it wasn't the interests of the slaves that was represented, it was their white owners. Actually counting slaves as 3/5 of a free person did increase the slave holding states representation by a third, giving them considerable power in Congress. (You are no slouch in the deriding department) You are correct, Hillary supporters did question Obama's citizenship, but it was conservative Jim Geraghty who suggested that Obama release his bc to prove his middle name was not Muhammad. Four days later the Obama campaign did publish Obama's short form bc - then the real fun began.
Diplomatic immunity would not apply to Tariq Aziz.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President... Can you find me what qualifications did a person need to be a *citizen* of the US in 1788? In other words, excluding those born in the US...the parentage of whom, btw, is an unknown...what made anyone else a US citizen? Me: As I've stated before, back in the early era of our nation, having an American father at the time of the child's birth was enough to qualify a child then as an American citizen -- but not necessarily equivalent to a natural born citizen unless both parents were Americans only at the time of their child's birth here. The natural born citizenship clause, a section of which you highlighted, makes a distinction between that higher citizenship standard and a more basic State Citizenship, which was the case for those of our Founding Fathers' timeframe who were Citizens of their State at the time of the Articles of Confederation being replaced by the Constitution -- none of whom, I'm confidant in saying, are still being classified as applicable candidate-exceptions to the natural born citizenship rule for Presidential or Vice Presidential office in this century. Whether in plain language by your readings or not, the 14th Amendment neither states nor implies any nullification of the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requirement of natural born citizenship -- more complex than the assertions like yours as meaning anyone at all born here or born anywhere to an American parent, which could jeopardize our national security contrary to our Founders' intent of preventing foreign influence and obligation entanglements of the Presidency and Vice Presidency as best they could for us in America's best interest. Should be obvious, imo. To try and further clarify why there was a lowered standard of residential State Citizenship (temporarily), rather than natural born citizenship, for those of America's Founding time-period -- whether they had 1. been born here as Colonial era citizens or otherwise as citizens of foreign nations by their parentage (such as: Britian, France, Spain, etc.) or 2. were not born here and had arrived as foreign born Colonials or other immigrants sometime prior to the establishment of government by the Articles of Confederation during America's War of Independence or 3. were born here or had immigrated (as Military assitants or otherwise) during construction of the Articles of Confederation while the American Revolution was ongoing or 4. were not born here as residential citizens of a U.S. State but had become naturalized immigrants in the State of their residence during the Articles of Confederation period Those sort of legalistic minutia/minutiae incidentals/technicality exceptions were necessarily "Grandfathered" into the clause on Presidential requirements only for Americans of that timeframe by the lowered State Citizenship standard so that they (many of whom had helped to make America a nation) could be considered for the Presidency too because: possibly during their lifetime here, America was not even a semi-independent nation yet that could indisputably grant them citizenship status officially until the end of the American Revolution and the Articles of Confederation were then fully in official effect for America as new nation; and also because America was being transitioned from the Articles of Confederation to a new form of official government by the Constitution. ------- "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
Why not? America was officiating there. Was a misguided Nuremberg "precedent" invoked to implement "De-Ba'aathification" of Iraq as if the equivalent of De-Nazification of Germany Post WWII or what, do you think? The new Iraq government installees didn't extend diplomatic immunity to their countryman either as an institutionalized and internationally expected "norm". ------- "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
Diplomatic immunity wouldn't apply because the government, under whose protection he would have operated, was overthrown, and he was an Iraqi in Iraq, not on a diplomatic mission. I think the word you're looking for here is amnesty, or maybe pardon.
Please provide a credible source that clearly defines this third category of citizenship you claim exists.
Southerners wanted the benefit of increasing their representation in Congress - that's why they wanted their non-voting, non-citizen slaves counted. Of course it wasn't the interests of the slaves that was represented, it was their white owners. Actually counting slaves as 3/5 of a free person did increase the slave holding states representation by a third, giving them considerable power in Congress. Doesn't matter so much, imo, how many other Slaves there might have been or not as it does that any Slaves, being considered then to be non-citizens, were counted at all in the census. Aren't you astounded in the least that Native American Indians not taxed considered to be non-citizens were counted as Zero -- Repeat: Zero...not even fractionally -- but non-citizen Blacks not free to be taxed were counted higher as three fifths? I'm still astonished. Nevertheless, I'm sure that the South would have been glad to have them all counted fully to increase its Congressional representation and power. I am usually, I'd say. Practice daily at trying to stay polite and courteous always but still slip sometimes. Alrighty then. I'll take your word for the four day interval assertion because I don't have time now to verify it. Good that we can dispense with anymore caricatures of "birtherism" as Conservative "persecution" of Obama's citizenship status particularly. Btw, it wasn't just Democrats who were questioning McCain's citizenship status prior to questions about Obama. I know that to be so because I was among the questioners of McCain's status, even though I am a Conservative (not a Democrat, possibly motivated only to reduce competition instead of it being simply a matter of Constitutionality). ------- "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
No. The US government made treaties with Indian tribes as sovereign nations. They were located within the borders of the US but separate from it.
None of that class has been born or naturalized. as if specialer (sic) than the Native American Indians who were born within the United States. As was pointed out previously, aboriginals were never considered citizens. The power of treaties is to make them with FOREIGN nations and not with a class of US citizens. --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
And that conferral was a legislative one that was also extended to children born overseas of an natural born American father. The conditions or rules for automatic citizenship have changed. That's what you folks have never gotten. Even had Obama been born in Kenya, his mother never renounced her citizenship and he was back on US soil well before his 18th birthday to establish residency. Under the law in 1961, he would have been granted automatic citizenship. The clause was not meant to be an "Aha...we gotcha!" bar to citizenship. It was to keep someone like Arnold, who was born and raised in Austria as an Austrian, from becoming POTUS. --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
From the point of view of the Revolutionary era US, who could have disputed that other than what was, effectively, a foreign nation? Careful...this could get spun in to a discussion of the Civil War... --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
I think the word you're looking for here is amnesty, or maybe pardon. Nope. Those are not words that I'm looking for and the connotations are a presumption of guilt instead of innocence. The issue is "diplomatic immunity" and at #172 you said, "Indeed it is possible for a diplomat to get a pass on criminal activity," on those grounds. Now you are essentially claiming that whenever a government is overthrown, those who had been officials of it can be "retroactively" charged, prosecuted and maybe sentenced to prison for life or executed for: alleged crimes that weren't crimes at the time in question but law enforcement, for example, that the criminally-insurgent usurpers, who were the actual lawbreakers, want vengeance for as "persecution" and "crimes against humanity". By constrast, I suppose it could be said that our Founders extended a form of "diplomatic immunity" to the British officials still here after our War for Independence ended; with colonial America as the new nation of America with a new government. Not only did they act dignitarily by not spitefully imprisoning their foes as tormenting tyrants of the former rulership structure, they very sensibly even wrote a prohibition into our Constitution against ex post facto/retroactive laws. This is another case similar to Tariq Aziz, Iraqi Christian and official of Saddam Hussein's government: Libya court to rule on Gaddafi's son Saif, former officials on July 28 - Reuters The fact that they've been charged as former government officials is in itself a recognition that they had valid diplomatic status internationally at the time or, as you've submitted on the aspects of "diplomatic immunity": a pass on criminal activity. Ergo, the intergovernmental Hague/ICC/International Criminal Court would be the wrong venue for the Libyan case, I'd think -- and especially since Libya wasn't a party to the jurisdiction and judgements of that court until after the country was "regime changed" by the insurgency and NATO. Since the Libyan insurgency had been acting as a separate government within the country during Gaddafi's administration and, likewise, the Iraqi insurgency had been doing so there during Hussein's administration, shouldn't there have been a diplomatic immunity understanding between the dueling dual governments in each of those countries? If not, why not? Or reference paragraph 3 for an exemplary American History comparison; even though the British likely wouldn't have been as diplomatic towards their foes here if they had won and Americans surely anticipated that throughout the war if they didn't win. Yet, our Founders opted to rise above vengeance and give us Peace with Honor. That's how far the concept of "diplomatic immunity" has descended to where it is now: a bunch of fabricated excuses for lawbreaking politicos. ------- "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
No. Not every government official is a diplomat. Here is a definition of diplomat "an official representing a country abroad. synonyms: ambassador, attaché, consul, chargé d'affaires, envoy, nuncio, emissary, plenipotentiary; archaic legate" Were either functioning outside their country in a diplomatic capacity at the time of their capture? Just out of curiosity, what does Tariq Aziz's religion have to do with this discussion?
There was a philosophical law between nations that gave guidance for the conduct of war and its end. The theory of *quarter* of a surrendering soldier was well established in the 18th century. Surrendering troops were not engaged...a white flag signified truce...parleys, in which field leaders surrendered their arms to the aide of their foe, while they met to discuss terms of surrender or retreat... ...they very sensibly even wrote a prohibition into our Constitution against ex post facto/retroactive laws. Yes...also forfeiture of blood...no revenge... That's how far the concept of "diplomatic immunity" has descended to where it is now: a bunch of fabricated excuses for lawbreaking politicos. If it has *descended*, which I reject it has, it's a matter of how advanced we are...e.g. there were no cars in 1776... --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
alleged crimes that weren't crimes at the time in question but law enforcement, for example, that the criminally-insurgent usurpers, who were the actual lawbreakers, want vengeance for as "persecution" and "crimes against humanity". This exchange has come a long way from the discussion of citizenship and who is not subject to "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
No. The US government made treaties with Indian tribes as sovereign nations. They were located within the borders of the US but separate from it. I'm fairly certain that we didn't have treaties with all of the Indian tribes and, in fact, we were still at war with the Apaches then, iirc. Might we have had formal Trade Treaties or Slave Trade agreements of record with some African countries that Black Slaves here would have been considered citizens of and their descendants? Probably but treaties are, imo, beside the point of any non-citizen/foreign nationals within the borders of the US being counted at all and, worse, counted differently ... a Black Slave in this country for one day counted higher -- 60% higher -- than Native Americans born here and living here all their lives counted as Zero. If you're ok with that, I don't even want to hear about it. I've done what I can to address this topic that you brought up. If all you've gotten from it by now is that the South would have been ok with counting Slaves fully but it was the North that wasn't ok with it so much because then the South could have about doubled its Congressional representation and power (enough to maybe repeal some taxes, as well as reroute such revenues from the North's profiteers), I'll count that as something more than nothing. Not much more, though, because it should have been common knowledge already by simple common sense and not another exercise in Leftist stonewalling. ------- "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
Yes but diplomatic immunity was another topic that you brought up at #151. You said, "Think diplomatic immunity," so I did. As for "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, so are visitors and invaders. Edit to add: And that's why you should not be under the impression that's all it means in the 14th Amendment regarding citizenship. It means not being subject to the jurisdiction of other nations, which "anchor babies" are. The wording of 14A might seem clearer if you studied some Congressional commentaries about it at the time that it was being written and enacted. ------- "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
It really isn't a matter of being *okay* with it, it is a matter of what the law was. And while I really do value your historical recounting of the furcation of peoples at the Founding, you really haven't made a case for how this affects Obama, today. --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
Indians were not "stateless". They were citizens of sovereign nations recognized as such (though not always respected) by the United States government. The Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott that… "Scott had no right to sue in federal court because neither slaves nor free blacks were citizens of the United States. At the time the Constitution was adopted, the Chief Justice wrote, blacks had been "regarded as beings of an inferior order" with "no rights which the white man was bound to respect." (In fact, some states did recognize free blacks as taxpayers and citizens at the time that the Constitution was adopted)." So, while Indians were citizens of their own nations, slaves were, for all intents and purposes, stateless. They were property - nothing more.
Yes...also forfeiture of blood...no revenge... If it has *descended*, which I reject it has, it's a matter of how advanced we are...e.g. there were no cars in 1776... no cars. lol That era, too, had vehicles with horsepower, though -- just not as mechanical. Thanks for your other historical and philosophical input, especially the "no revenge" part. Am fast running out of time again and don't know when I can catch up here on the various discussions. Won't be today but would if I could. ------- "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
No worries...cheers...enjoy your day... --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
It really isn't a matter of being *okay* with it, it is a matter of what the law was. And while I really do value your historical recounting of the furcation of peoples at the Founding, you really haven't made a case for how this affects Obama, today. You're slowing me down by inserting words I have to stop and look up, like "furcation". I've been discussing this issue for years and years and before I was even aware there was an issue with Obama's citizenship status. When I say I don't want to hear about something if you don't agree, it's not because I'm trying to be rude or just need to understand a bit better that anything "the law" says that Liberals are ok with, no matter how Unconstitutional -- or like that counting issue, totally absurd -- is the only case there is to be made, in their opinions. It's because I very much do understand when such an impasse isn't going to be resolved for them by any amount of evidence or logic or anytime soon, anyway. While I appreciate and do highly value these conversational opportunities to seek common ground and perhaps reconcile some differences, that apparently hasn't happened. If I can think of anything else that might be more considerable, I'll let you know when I can return. See ya then, maybe about this controversy or maybe not. ------- "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
Thanks. You too. :) ------- "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
Yes and No. 4th September 1861, Leonidas Polk took Columbus, KY to gain a high ground vantage point over the banks of the Mississippi. They were the first troops to enter Kentucky. Union troops entered to protect the Kentuckians from this blatant and egregious violation of sovereignty. The legislature convened and asked only for the insurgents to leave. Continued at this 4um outpost. ------- "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
Yes, the criminal lincoln ordered the invasion of the Sovereign States of the South.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#165. To: NeoconsNailed (#164)
Not since Jesus -- what does that mean?
#166. To: lucysmom (#151)
(Edited)
I know you don't intend to claim that non-citizens of the United States are not subject to our laws while in our country,
but that is what you're saying.
The exception would be diplomats, and other officials of foreign governments. Think diplomatic immunity.
Citizenship is either inherited at birth through one or both parents who are, themselves US citizens no matter where in the world they are born, or by birth on US soil, no matter what citizenship their parents hold.
#167. To: GreyLmist (#166)
(Edited)
Native American Indians are a clear example of the 14th Amendment not being about Jus soli auto-birthright citizenship if simply born here
#168. To: war (#167)
(Edited)
The USCON makes it fairly clear that Indians are not US citizens and were treated as a separate nation of peoples until 1924...the fact that the US negotiated treaties with the various indigenous nations is ample evidence of that fact...
#169. To: GreyLmist (#168)
Likewise, "anchor babies" are also citizens of a separate nation or more through their mother's country/countries of citizenship.
#170. To: war (#169)
(Edited)
#171. To: NeoconsNailed (#152)
1. Apparently you didn't read my short post fully -- I was referring to your statement that "Obama was elected twice in the 21st century, it doesn't matter if the founding fathers, many of which were slave holders, would have approved of him or not." In other words you trash original intent and attempt to hang the issue instead on the total irrelevancy of slave-owning. Yep, the TOTAL irrelevance of slave-owning!
#172. To: GreyLmist (#166)
They aren't supposed to be issued a criminality pass, afaik. I'm fairly certain that would not be in accordance with anything said about foreign officials in the Constitution. Think applicable espionage charges in their case, for instance -- especially in times of war.
#173. To: lucysmom (#171)
#174. To: NeoconsNailed (#173)
There, you got me to blow another ten minutes on this -- don't expect an encore.
#175. To: war (#154)
According to me, their child shouldn't be made liable for taxes owed by their parents and not them.
As for other foreign laws applicable to people in the U.S. of foreign parentage; also those of dual or multiple foreign citizenship ..
I've already noted the drafting of American men by Britain that considered them to be British subjects as well.
I've been intending to get back to our Civil War discussion in this thread eventually and you are prolonging that by errantly conflating the 14th Amendment as if it's a nullification of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5's natural born citizenship stipulation which, according to your interpretation, would then do nothing whatsoever to protect the Presidency and Vice Presidency from divided allegiances and foreign complications and 14A would very much facilitate those national security dilemmas.
#176. To: NeoconsNailed (#173)
Everybody here except you and war understand with no assistance that Obama is evil, those pulling his marionette strings and putting their words in his mouth even more so. It's called Freedom4um and liberalism is all about enslaving everybody. You persistently defend the worst president in amerikan history, ergo you don't belong here any more than Phyllis Schlafly belongs in Hillary's lesbian club.
#177. To: lucysmom (#171)
(Edited)
the belief that blacks were inferior to whites, and counted for only 3/5 of a human
what started the whole birther movement
#178. To: lucysmom (#176)
#179. To: lucysmom (#172)
Me: Foreigners present here of any sort are not permitted by the Constitution to disregard America's laws as subjects of other government(s),
You: snip
#180. To: GreyLmist (#177)
This isn't a Slavery issue and they weren't American citizens or being counted for taxation of them. Liberals shouldn't be paid to teach History classes in this country because they don't do that. They are primarily indoctrinators of dummified PC illusions. The phrase is "three fifths of all other Persons", which isn't an exact definition of Black Slaves only. Could just as readily be applied to Oriental Slaves of Oriental residents and Arabic Slaves of Arabian residents or something. Alaska hadn't been acquired yet but even the Eskimos had Slaves and that Slavery was abolished after Lincoln's War. To which advantage was it, mostly, for Black Slaves (some being Slaves of the North but fewer than those in the South) to not be counted fully? Answer: Not to the South's advantage. Counting them fully, even though they weren't considered to be citizens of America, would have given the South more Congressional representation and power -- possibly enough to stop the North from continuing to funnel taxes unfairly into its benefitings at the expense of Southerners, the vast majority of which weren't Slave owners but many freed Blacks in the South were.
#181. To: GreyLmist (#179)
Comparing to this example of no apparent diplomatic immunity protocols whatsoever extended by Paul Bremer or other acting U.S. officials in Iraq for this Iraqi Christian still on death row ... for the newfangled "crime" of having ever been an official of Saddam Hussein's government before we replaced it, I guess:
#182. To: All (#175)
You: The plain language of Article II Section I SS5:
#183. To: lucysmom (#181)
Diplomatic immunity would not apply to Tariq Aziz.
#184. To: GreyLmist (#183)
Why not? America was officiating there. Was a misguided Nuremberg "precedent" invoked to implement "De-Ba'aathification" of Iraq as if the equivalent of De-Nazification of Germany Post WWII or what, do you think? The new Iraq government installees didn't extend diplomatic immunity to their countryman either as an institutionalized and internationally expected "norm".
#185. To: GreyLmist (#182)
#186. To: lucysmom (#180)
(Edited)
How many Asian, and Arabic slaves were there?
(You are no slouch in the deriding department)
You are correct, Hillary supporters did question Obama's citizenship, but it was conservative Jim Geraghty who suggested that Obama release his bc to prove his middle name was not Muhammad. Four days later the Obama campaign did publish Obama's short form bc - then the real fun began.
#187. To: GreyLmist (#186)
Aren't you astounded in the least that Native American Indians not taxed considered to be non-citizens were counted as Zero --
#188. To: GreyLmist (#170)
Foreign residents/visitors/illegal aliens are also subject to the laws hereof.
#189. To: GreyLmist (#182)
Me: As I've stated before, back in the early era of our nation, having an American father at the time of the child's birth was enough to qualify a child then as an American citizen...
#190. To: GreyLmist (#182)
America was not even a semi-independent nation yet that could indisputably grant them citizenship status officially until the end of the American Revolution...
#191. To: lucysmom (#184)
(Edited)
Why not? America was officiating there. Was a misguided Nuremberg "precedent" invoked to implement "De-Ba'aathification" of Iraq as if the equivalent of De-Nazification of Germany Post WWII or what, do you think? The new Iraq government installees didn't extend diplomatic immunity to their countryman either as an institutionalized and internationally expected "norm".
Diplomatic immunity wouldn't apply because the government, under whose protection he would have operated, was overthrown, and he was an Iraqi in Iraq, not on a diplomatic mission.
#192. To: GreyLmist (#191)
The fact that they've been charged as former government officials is in itself a recognition that they had valid diplomatic status internationally at the time or, as you've submitted on the aspects of "diplomatic immunity": a pass on criminal activity.
#193. To: GreyLmist (#191)
By constrast, I suppose it could be said that our Founders extended a form of "diplomatic immunity" to the British officials still here after our War for Independence ended; with colonial America as the new nation of America with a new government. Not only did they act dignitarily by not spitefully imprisoning their foes as tormenting tyrants of the former rulership structure,
#194. To: GreyLmist (#191)
Now you are essentially claiming that whenever a government is overthrown, those who had been officials of it can be "retroactively" charged, prosecuted and maybe sentenced to prison for life or executed for:
#195. To: lucysmom (#187)
(Edited)
Aren't you astounded in the least that Native American Indians not taxed considered to be non-citizens were counted as Zero --
#196. To: lucysmom (#194)
(Edited)
This exchange has come a long way from the discussion of citizenship and who is not subject to "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
#197. To: GreyLmist, lucysmom (#195)
a Black Slave in this country for one day counted higher -- 60% higher -- than Native Americans born here and living here all their lives counted as Zero. If you're ok with that
#198. To: GreyLmist (#195)
#199. To: war (#193)
There was a philosophical law between nations that gave guidance for the conduct of war and its end. The theory of *quarter* of a surrendering soldier was well established in the 18th century. Surrendering troops were not engaged...a white flag signified truce...parleys, in which field leaders surrendered their arms to the aide of their foe, while they met to discuss terms of surrender or retreat...
...they very sensibly even wrote a prohibition into our Constitution against ex post facto/retroactive laws.
That's how far the concept of "diplomatic immunity" has descended to where it is now: a bunch of fabricated excuses for lawbreaking politicos.
#200. To: GreyLmist (#199)
Am fast running out of time again and don't know when I can catch up here on the various discussions. Won't be today but would if I could.
#201. To: war (#197)
a Black Slave in this country for one day counted higher -- 60% higher -- than Native Americans born here and living here all their lives counted as Zero. If you're ok with that
#202. To: war (#200)
No worries...cheers...enjoy your day...
#203. To: war (#104)
Awww man...you want me to BACK UP what I said? Doesn't that violate the #1 rule of the internet?
history.ky.gov/landmark/k...ity-during-the-civil-war/
#204. To: GreyLmist (#203)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest