See other National News Articles
Title: FREE SPEECH HATERS PISSING THEIR PANTS - FLORIDA - Thousands ride in support of Confederate flag at Marion County complex
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.ocala.com/article/20150712/ARTICLES/150719928?tc=cr
Published: Jul 12, 2015
Author: By Kristine Crane
Post Date: 2015-07-12 23:36:41 by HAPPY2BME-4UM
Keywords: CONFEDERATE, CONFEDERATE FLAG, FIRST AMENDMENT, FREE SPEECH
Views: 680
Comments: 102
An estimated 2,000 vehicles, mostly motorcycles and trucks adorned with Rebel flags, took part in a rally and ride Sunday afternoon in support of keeping a Confederate flag flying in front of the McPherson Governmental Complex in Ocala. The event was organized by David Stone, of Ocala, and was called the Florida Southern Pride Ride. Police officials estimated participation at a couple thousand vehicles. The ride started about 1 p.m., and by 1:30 p.m. could be seen winding its way through Ocala. Participants were wearing shirts that said “heritage not hate” and talked of defending a way of life rooted in Southern traditions. Danny Hart, of Dunnellon, had two Confederate flags and the American flag in the back of his truck. He pointed out that the U.S. flag was flying higher and said that he had come to participate in the ride to “defend freedom.” Another ride participant, Rick Hart, said, “It's a history thing. The flag is also a military flag. It's not a race symbol.” Phil Walters, a member of the Confederate Sons of America, felt compelled to attend to defend history against what he calls “intellectual dishonesty.” Walters said the NAACP's 1991 resolution “abhorring the Confederate Battle Flag” has set the tone for conflict and hatred. “According to the U.S. Congress, Confederate veterans are war veterans,” said Walters, whose branch of the Sons is named for Judah P. Benjamin, the Jewish secretary of state under Confederate President Jefferson Davis. “The South was fighting for states' rights, and the Northern slaves were freed after Southern slaves. Slavery is a guilt across the human race.” A replica of the General Lee from the 1979-85 “The Dukes of Hazard” TV show led the way during the ride, followed by motorcycles and then pickup trucks. The ride was expected to be 17 miles total and loop back to parking lots north of the city on North U.S. 441. Ocala Police Department Sgt. Erica Hay said the ride was rerouted away from the Northwoods neighborhood after some residents threatened to shoot into the procession. The ride was organized to support the Marion County Commission's decision Tuesday to return the Confederate flag to a historical display in front of the McPherson Governmental Complex. The flag had been removed after a massacre at an African-American church in Charleston. The suspected shooter is a white supremacist who was photographed with Confederate flags. Two small protests were held last week at the county complex in opposition to the Confederate flag — which many see as a symbol of racial hatred. On Sunday, a few black people participated in the ride. One of them, Renee Gore, 34, of Dunnellon, said that to her the flag means “heritage, love and family.” Another black person, Dwayne Webb, 23, of Ocala, said he came specifically “to show people (the flag) is not about prejudice and hate.” For Webb, the flag represents “good living, respect, and honesty,” things that he associates with the South. Webb participated in the ride with his friends, also in their twenties. “I got goose-bumps (during the ride),” said Mike Ponticelli, 29, also of Ocala. They were hanging out in a parking lot with several of the other participants after the ride's conclusion. “We were standing up for what we believe in: manners and common courtesy towards all people, no matter who you are,” Ponticelli said. “It's a positive movement,” Webb added. A handful of people who view the flag as a sign of disrespect also showed up at the ride, holding signs that explained why they are against the flag flying in front of a governmental building. Laila Abdelaziz, 23, who came to the rally from Tampa, held a sign with a quote from one of the flag's defenders in the 1860s, whose defense of the symbol was rooted in white supremacy. “What if your heritage is rooted in hate?” Abdelaziz said. “You have to confront that.” Abdelaziz, who was born in Palestine and came to the U.S. with her parents as a child, said she is very familiar with dynamics of hatred. “I know what hatred does to people,” she said. “America has to confront the fact that someone younger than me killed people out of hatred.” Abdelaziz said she also came to protest the ride to speak for another part of Ocala, where her parents live and she also lived for some time. “This (ride) does not represent all of Ocala,” Abdelaziz said. In the aftermath of the Charleston killings, too much emphasis has been placed on the flag, she added. “Dylann Roof held the flag in one hand, and a gun in the other. We've heard more about the flag than the gun control problem in America.” On Sunday evening, Awake Marion, in conjunction with the NAACP, held a meeting at the Second Bethlehem Baptist Theological Seminary in Ocala. About 75 people attended the meeting, where they discussed how to express their disagreement with the County Commission's decision to raise the Confederate flag. Draft copies of a letter to the Board of County Commissioners were handed out. The organizers also announced that a peaceful sit-in to protest the flag will take place Wednesday at 9 a.m. at the south end of the McPherson Governmental Complex. The sit-in is being sponsored by Brown Memorial Funeral Home. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
Where can I buy a CONFEDERATE FLAG?
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
Looking good! I'm glad to see folks standing up to the cultural cleansing started by the communists.
#2. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#0)
(Edited)
-Alex Kurtagic
#3. To: X-15, lod, jethro tull, neoconsnailed, christine, greylmist, dakmar, darkwing, (#2)
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
#4. To: X-15, neoconsnailed (#2)
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
#5. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#3)
Lovely news -- 2,000 rallied??? Very high number, great. Normally when they don't ay who's accused of some mayhem likes this, it's because it's embarrassing to liberalism. If the thug in the truck had been fired on you can bet your booties they'd be saying so. Connect the dots..... I said in my new editorial people are now going to be shot at and have rocks thrown through their windows for celebrating their Southern heritage.
#6. To: NeoconsNailed (#5)
================================================================= 2 words: Jade Helm I said in my new editorial people are now going to be shot at and have rocks thrown through their windows for celebrating their Southern heritage.
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
#7. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#1)
Wonderful news! I can get you a 3x5 flag if you're stuck. I also have some very cool pocket knives with the stars & bars on them.
#8. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM, X-15, Rebels, 4 (#0) (Edited)
Flying the BattleFlag no more makes you a racist, than flying the Jolly Roger makes you a pirate. Great job! MS.
“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
#9. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#0)
“Distrust all those in whom the urge to punish is strong.” -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
#10. To: jwpegler (#9)
There was no confederacy...there was mass treason that was quelled.
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#11. To: Lod, HAPPY2BME-4UM, X-15, Rebels, 4 (#8)
#12. To: Jethro Tull, 4 (#11)
memphis council votes to exhume forrest -
“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
#13. To: war, jwpegler, jethro tull, lod, neoconsnailed, x-15 (#10)
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958... ========================================================== war, are you aware that Abraham Lincoln attempted to ratify the 13th Amendment for the purpose of legalizing the ownership of human being as property (slavery)? He was unsuccessful. Pound sand. There was no confederacy...there was mass treason that was quelled.
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
#14. To: war, jwpegler, jethro tull, lod, neoconsnailed, x-15, CHRISTINE (#13)
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
#15. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#14)
^^that^^ dead on
#16. To: NeoconsNailed (#5)
#17. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#14)
Prior to the war, Lincoln was a supporter of the Corwin amendment as it was consistent with his belief that slave states should maintain self- determination. Lincoln was wholly opposed to the expansion of slavery in to new territories. This was rendered moot when the South committed treason. war, are you aware that Abraham Lincoln attempted to ratify the 13th Amendment for the purpose of legalizing the ownership of human being as property (slavery)?
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#18. To: war (#17)
Is the Union perpetual through the rest of time regardless of what percentage of the people still want it?
#19. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#13)
Your characterization is a bit off. The Corwin amendment did nothing more than bar amending the USCON to end slavery where it was in existence. Lincoln was a supporter of that *idea* prior to secession. It was passed a few days prior to his inauguration and once he assumed office, he never aggressively pursued its ratification. Abraham Lincoln attempted to ratify the 13th Amendment for the purpose of legalizing the ownership of human being as property (slavery)?
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#20. To: NeoconsNailed (#18)
The Union has a mechanism for dissolution...the constitutional amendment... Is the Union perpetual through the rest of time regardless of what percentage of the people still want it?
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#21. To: war (#20)
I can see it now -- "The Amendment to let the Southern states leave the Union has been passed. Mr. Lincoln is not expected to veto."
#22. To: NeoconsNailed (#21) (Edited)
A proposed amendment, once having been passed by the Congress, goes directly to the State legislatures (unless the Congress decides that the amendment should be decided by state conventions)...it is impervious to Executive action...
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#23. To: war, katniss, lod, jethro tull, neoconsnailed, greylmist, darkwing, christine, x-15 (#19)
Your characterization is a bit off. The Corwin amendment did nothing more than bar amending the USCON to end slavery where it was in existence. Lincoln was a supporter of that *idea* prior to secession. It was passed a few days prior to his inauguration and once he assumed office, he never aggressively pursued its ratification. =============================================================== Please be SET FREE! If you cannot be * SET F-R-E-E * then you will live the rest of your days POUNDING SAND. Accept the truth of the matter as recorded down in the archives you refuse to admit exist or accept as fact. Take it to your heart. Let this loosen those shackles that have your mind bound by lies and deceptions. Be set FREE from the SLAVERY than tends to bind thee .. He was the secret author of it, orchestrating the politics of its passage from Springfield before he was even inaugurated. Not only that, but he also instructed his political compatriot, William Seward, to work on federal legislation that would outlaw the various personal liberty laws that existed in some of the Northern states Abraham Lincoln attempted to ratify the 13th Amendment for the purpose of legalizing the ownership of human being as property (slavery)?
THE LIES OF THE ABRAHAM LINCOLN CULT EXPOSED - HE PUSHED FOR SLAVERY TO BE PERMANENT FIXTURE OF U.S. CONSTITUTION
The Lincoln Cult's Latest Cover-Up
Not only did Lincoln support this slavery forever amendment, but the amendment was his idea from the very beginning.
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
#24. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#23)
Corwin had been around in some form or another going back to Calhoun's snit fits. That entire 36th Congress was devoted to addressing the growing issue of secession and war... the fact that Lincoln was *cahootin'* with political allies after his election is hardly a shocking revelation and is fairly well known to anyone who has studied the era. The fact that he was trying to peaceably keep the Union together - as did people like Senator Jefferson Davis, btw - shouldn't be a surprise either. So, if your bold and beautiful response above was done for *shock* value then your FAIL is *epic*.
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#25. To: war (#24)
Predictive.
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
#26. To: NeoconsNailed (#21) (Edited)
No Amendment was necessary to dissolve State bonds with the Union. Reference the Declaration of Independence. No Amendment was needed either to dissolve America's original government entirely, the establishment of which was called the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the U.S. Constitution by less than 100% ratification of the States was itself seen as an act of secession by some of those States of the Articles compact and also by some of our founders like John Jay, who became our first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice. I can see it now -- "The Amendment to let the Southern states leave the Union has been passed. Mr. Lincoln is not expected to veto."
-------
"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
#27. To: war (#24)
You agree with your hero's later violent approach, do you?
#28. To: NeoconsNailed (#27)
The South had been gearing up for a violent confrontation for at least 10 years prior to Lincoln's election. The South did not want to negotiate anything...not the *status* of new states or territories...not compensation for Federal assets in southern states...nor navigation of common waterways... Any objective analysis of history reveal the rests squarely on the shoulder of the intransigent southerners. You agree with your hero's later violent approach, do you?
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#29. To: GreyLmist (#26) (Edited)
Where is that referenced in the United States Constitution? Replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the U.S. Constitution by less than 100% ratification of the States was itself seen as an act of secession by some of those States of the Articles compact and also by some of our founders like John Jay, who became our first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice. That's an obvious statement of history...the states which negotiated the USCON agreed that only 9 were needed for the Union... "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same..." Reference the Declaration of Independence.
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#30. To: war (#28)
The Yankees had been plenty intransigent, grasping, exploitative, abusive, arrogant and tyrannical, just as they were once the war was over -- vastly beyond all proportion. Their behavior was communist in everything but name and had the open backing of Marx himself. A New York newspaper thoughtfully carried his writings on the subject! Southern states left gradually on realizing they had no choice due to the above factors. Everybody knows Lincoln was proud of manipulating Dixie into firing the first shot, everybody knows an emotionally hysterical racial abolitionism heavily drove the Union to war despite Lincoln's sometime protestations to the contrary -- one of the reigning hypocrisies of history. Julia Ward Howe called it "the glory of the coming of the Lord" -- psychiatrists would call it PROJECTION on a cosmic scale.
#31. To: NeoconsNailed, war (#30)
Comrade Abraham: Was President Lincoln a Closet Marxist? 
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
#32. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#31)
Happ, you are a never-ending magic genie of good stuff! Yeah, Ape was as race- obsessive as Obongo in his own sanctimonious way. I remember the episode of Disney's Wonderful World of Color where they introduced an audio-animatronic statue of Ape spouting that very "The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty" business. Of course we baby boomers just drank it cluelessly in as the most absolute, ultimate in amerikan greatness. Where has that page BEEN all my life? It's Christmas in July!! I really wish more people knew about 4um, but everybody's totally into Twitter, FB etc...... "To secure each laborer the whole product of his labor" -- uh, is this the same president that gave us our first income tax, which Congress promptly shot down as un-Constitutional? That must be the "as nearly as possible" part, an otherwise very strange thing to say. Lots of Ape's most beloved humanitarianistic quotes are FAKE. isp.netscape.com/whatsnew...? name=fte/lincoln/lincoln There used to be a Lincoln Never Said It site, wonder where it went. He was rightly hated and derided for the aberration he was during his lifetime. Thanks for nothing, Booth!!
#33. To: war (#29)
Where is that referenced in the United States Constitution? The 9th and 10th Amendments. The secessionist States agreed in violation of the Articles of Confederation: On the other hand, Article VII of the proposed Constitution stated that it would become effective after ratification by a mere nine states, without unanimityReference the Declaration of Independence.
the states which negotiated the USCON agreed that only 9 were needed for the Union...
[T]he Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
-------
"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
#34. To: GreyLmist (#33)
I've read them several times and never was the Declaration of Independence referenced. And the Declaration was a culmination of a meeting of the WHOLE of The People...not one delegation. There is a difference between a Confederation and a Republic. As is mentioned in the A/I the Union was to be perpetual. The Preamble of the USCON clearly states that the Union was to be *more* Perfect. I can't see any track of logic that leads me to believe that a Perpetual Union, made more perfect, was one that could be negated by one member. The 9th and 10th Amendments.
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#35. To: GreyLmist (#33)
And only enforceable between those states... On the other hand, Article VII of the proposed Constitution stated that it would become effective after ratification by a mere nine states, without unanimity
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#36. To: war (#34)
I've read them several times and never was the Declaration of Independence referenced. And the Declaration was a culmination of a meeting of the WHOLE of The People...not one delegation. The 9th and 10th Amendments encompass all rights reserved to the States and the people, including: "it is their right, it is their duty" to throw off Despotic Government and to provide new Guards for their future security. The Declaration was a culmination of Patriots who understood their God-given natural right to secede from despotic government without the permission of it. Loyalists to the Crown weren't of that view, so their consultations were soon no longer considered as admissable. It's arguable that the secession of States from the Articles of Confederation wasn't because it was a despotic form of government but because it was more of a wartime provisional system that was too legislature-centralized. A more Perfect Perpetual Union would not be one that's despotically forced to be unfreely amalgamated. The 9th and 10th Amendments.
There is a difference between a Confederation and a Republic. As is mentioned in the A/I the Union was to be perpetual. The Preamble of the USCON clearly states that the Union was to be *more* Perfect. I can't see any track of logic that leads me to believe that a Perpetual Union, made more perfect, was one that could be negated by one member.
-------
"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
#37. To: war (#35) (Edited)
And only enforceable between those states... Yes, that is correct...those secessionist States. Edit to add: And they were agreeable to substantially downsizing the Union to form and implement their own government. No war was fought over it; just a diplomatic separation of the States and their jurisdictional powers of governance. On the other hand, Article VII of the proposed Constitution stated that it would become effective after ratification by a mere nine states, without unanimity
-------
"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
#38. To: GreyLmist (#36)
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
#39. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#38)
Sounds like he might be an ancestor of Gus Hall, who was a Chairman of the Communist Party USA. A quote from Hall, a Loyalist
-------
"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
#40. To: GreyLmist (#36)
As I understand it, the Declaration is considered higher law than the Constitution. Doesn't the "alter or abolish" clause answer this whole thing? Original intent shows freedom, not statism, was the default position in the minds of the founders. The whole weight of the past millennium of history is on that side, going back to "Þorgnýr the Lawspeaker" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution
#41. To: NeoconsNailed (#40) (Edited)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution Right of revolution - Wikipedia Liberty depended upon the people’s “ultimate” right to resist [despotic government]. ... This right implied a duty on the part of the people to resist As Alexander Hamilton noted in 1775, government exercised powers to protect “the absolute rights” of the people and government forfeited those powers and the people could reclaim them if government breached this nccs.net: The Declaration of Independence Part of American Law "The United States Code Annotated includes the Declaration of Independence under the heading 'The Organic Laws of the United States of America' along with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance. Enabling acts frequently require states to adhere to the principles of the Declaration; in the Enabling Act of June 16, 1906, Congress authorized Oklahoma Territory to take steps to become a state. Section 3 provides that the Oklahoma Constitution 'shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.' (Christianity and the Constitution, pp. 360-361) What is the Alter or Abolish Clause? - YouTube [2.5 minutes] Published on Jan 8, 2014 Constitutional scholar Dr. Edwin Vieira sits down with Gary Franchi and answers the question... What is the Alter or Abolish Clause? As I understand it, the Declaration is considered higher law than the Constitution. Doesn't the "alter or abolish" clause answer this whole thing? Original intent shows freedom, not statism, was the default position in the minds of the founders. The whole weight of the past millennium of history is on that side, going back to "Þorgnýr the Lawspeaker"
the right of revolution is the right or duty, previously stated throughout history, of the people of a nation to overthrow a government that acts against their common interests.
"The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is often misconstrued. Some believe the Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force whatsoever today. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America.
-------
"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
#42. To: GreyLmist (#41)
Riches, Grey!
#43. To: NeoconsNailed, greylmist (#40) (Edited)
============================================= The Constitution is 'higher,' including all of the amendments thereto which are still in effect. That would include the Bill of Rights which is not a separate document but part of that Constitution. The reason for the importance of the Constitution can be found in the preamble where it states that the document was created to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity. The Declaration of Independence was more influential since it was the first instance where a people asserted that they were in charge, not some king. The bill of rights is important BUT it is part and parcel of the constitution AND as recently noted in the Heller decision, the Bill of Rights does NOT give any rights, it gives limitations on government for certain rights which we belive all people to HAVE by virtue of being living human beings. The constitution was not ratified until the Bill of Rights was added and would not exist without it BUT our rights WOULD! The Declaration of independence has no legal power or authority. As I understand it, the Declaration is considered higher law than the Constitution. Doesn't the "alter or abolish" clause answer this whole thing?
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
#44. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#43)
Amen.
“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
#45. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#43)
But the Constitution was only witnessed, not signed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Treason In any case, we've closed the case. This is supposed to be a free country, and every indicator says that any union is based on voluntary association -- the individual model applied to the corporate.
#46. To: NeoconsNailed (#42) (Edited)
Glad you found those resources at #41 to be useful, NN. The video speaker, Dr. Edwin Vieira, is an excellent and voluminous reference guide for Patriot studies of Constitutionality issues, sound money matters, American Government History to the present and also regarding the imperative Revitalization of America's Constitutional State Militias in accordance with our Founders' directives for properly securing our nation's Freedoms. Riches, Grey!
-------
"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
#47. To: GreyLmist (#46)
Vieira's well known -- Freedom to Fascism etc. Great man, been at it forever.
#48. To: NeoconsNailed (#45)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Treason ??? United States Constitution - Wikipedia 74 delegates were named, 55 attended and 39 signed. Its final version was taken up on Monday, September 17, at the Convention's final session. Several of the delegates were disappointed in the result, a makeshift series of unfortunate compromises. Some delegates left before the ceremony, and three others refused to sign. Of the thirty-nine signers, Benjamin Franklin summed up, addressing the Convention: "There are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them." He would accept the Constitution, "because I expect no better and because I am not sure that it is not the best." the Constitution was only witnessed, not signed.
Signatories: 39 of the 55 delegates
-------
"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
#49. To: GreyLmist (#48) (Edited)
"In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names" http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html Rather odd, isn't it? Can you think of anything else "signed" that way? Sly dogs!
#50. To: NeoconsNailed (#49)
Rather odd, isn't it? Can you think of anything else "signed" that way? Sly dogs! Pic: Part of page four of the Constitution, showing the signatures of the delegates That's all I have time to research and post about that for today. When I can resume, it will most likely be after I've archived some info on the Corwin Amendment. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
List of signers of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
-------
"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
#51. To: GreyLmist (#36)
The Framers' intent was to create a government wherein *change* or revolution was accomplished through debate...i.e. warring with words and argument... And keep your eye on the ball here, the tariff argument doesn't fly because, as of 1856, they were actually lower and narrower than what was passed in the 1820's...so...if your future *security* is dependent upon the power of a state government to forcibly enslave human beings then I submit that is hardly a *security* worth saving and perpetuating... The Declaration was a culmination of Patriots who understood their God-given natural right to secede from despotic government without the permission of it. The Declaration was a *culmination* of the realization that the colonists would never be granted a say in how they were governed. The Southern States suffered under no such yoke and, in fact, FREELY entered in to an agreement that bound them to the rules of the Republic. What happened is, that as time progressed on the Republic, what they wished to preserve was no longer tenable. They were also Creator given which, to some I am sure, including Jefferson, could have meant nothing more than having been born. Atheism was hardly unknown in the 18th century and Deism/Unitarianism was a way of being so without saying so. It's arguable that the secession of States from the Articles of Confederation wasn't because it was a despotic form of government but because it was more of a wartime provisional system that was too legislature-centralized. A more Perfect Perpetual Union would not be one that's despotically forced to be unfreely amalgamated. That is very well stated and I have to say, again, that I really admire how it is that you write. This is an open question of history: What would have happened had Annapolis failed or had 9 states not ratified? Would the States have continued to operate under the Articles and tried again? Would the US have fractionated in to 13 Republics or Commonwealths? But when we look, again, at history, we know that it took an actual trail. In 1860, there were 33 states that, again, FREELY entered in to the United States. They FREELY agreed to a the form of government that they all knew could either advance some practices or end them. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 (3/5's of all other persons) ADVANCED the notion that the South would be best served by INCREASING the slave population. Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 (slave trade) was a timebomb/poison pill that slave states KNEW could go off or be activated any time after 1808. And anyone who had anything to do with Founding or Framing the Confederation and then the Republic, KNEW that the question of slavery was going to be an open ended one that would be debated until either made permanent or ended. Every slave state knew this when they FREELY entered into the United States... The 9th and 10th Amendments encompass all rights reserved to the States and the people, including: "it is their right, it is their duty" to throw off Despotic Government and to provide new Guards for their future security.
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#52. To: NeoconsNailed (#40)
I would submit that the Declaration is a statement of principles without force of law but a force on the law...
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#53. To: war (#51)
The question isn't whether it was lower in 1856 but whether tariffs (and other gouges) were still punishing. I don't happen to have the figures handy, but it's academic in view of "alter or abolish". We've already busted up the slave angle. You look a bit ridiculous trying to form a moral argument against the Confederacy -- there isn't any. The so-called draft riots were in fact a rebellion against Mr. Lincoln's War that stretched all the way over to Ohio. New Yorkers showed what they thought of abolition (and racial equality) by hanging negroes in the streets of NYC. Yeah, negroes, "Martin Luther" King's word for them. The north and South were two completely different societies from the beginning, notably thanks to the narcissistic, messianic, tyrannical New Englanders. The two "sections" as they were called then were no more meant to be glued together forever than the Beatles were (four wildly different personalities that consistently showed through and often clashed during their decade as a unit). If you think Southern secession was wrong you should be calling for the Virginias to be rejoined. Yankee oppression persists today in the Voting Rights Act and many other ways. Their vicious hate campaign against the South never lets up and only increases. "Martin" said the difference between Birmingham and Boston was that Boston would never change. Yankees are collectively incapable of moderation or reason and the Southern states were still paying them for Mr. Lincoln's war into the 1950s. Yankees are in fact psychotic as a group and the world needs to recognize this fast. Why did the Underground Railroad end in Canada? Because yankees refused to have the slaves they had freshly liberated enter their states. I say yankees meaning the evil kind of northerner, but not all northerners, obviously, since many have always been fine people despite mostly being diversity-delusional. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afr..._Ground_National_Monument And keep your eye on the ball here, the tariff argument doesn't fly because, as of 1856, they were actually lower and narrower than what was passed in the 1820's...so...if your future *security* is dependent upon the power of a state government to forcibly enslave human beings then I submit that is hardly a *security* worth saving and perpetuating...
#54. To: NeoconsNailed (#53)
It's not moral to enslave human beings. Period. You look a bit ridiculous trying to form a moral argument against the Confederacy -- there isn't any.
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#55. To: war (#54)
It's not moral to enslave human beings. Period. I meant a special case, obviously. You lose! You look a bit ridiculous trying to form a moral argument against the Confederacy -- there isn't any.
#56. To: war, 4 (#54)
Moral, or not, slavery has been part and parcel of the human condition since our existence began; it continues around the world today in one form or another. It's particularly pernicious here with all the welfare slavery going on.
“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
#57. To: war (#54)
Period. So you are saying I am hereby absolved of any tax assessment which will be used to fund TANF/SECT-8/etc? You see, I feel that paying lazy morons to sit on their asses while I work for a living upsets the fundamental fairness of the social contract. It's not moral to enslave human beings.
corruptissima re publica plurimae leges - Tacitus
#58. To: Dakmar (#57)
I'm unclear as to what exactly is the "contract" between the makers and the takers. Hep me out, please.
“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
#59. To: Lod (#58)
Haven't you ever heard of Newt Gingrich's Contract On America?
#60. To: Lod (#58)
Therein lies the problem, it is ever changing, depending on the political will and whims of a parasitic ruling elite. I'm unclear as to what exactly is the "contract" between the makers and the takers.
corruptissima re publica plurimae leges - Tacitus
#61. To: NeoconsNailed (#55)
I don't know what that is supposed to mean. As I stated, the *tariff* meme was BS...the South had effectively thwarted keeping slavery out of new territories...it had prevailed in Dred Scot...prior to Lincoln, it had 4 years of the second dumbest man to ever hold the office of POTUS (he was number one until 2001)... The fact is, there was no moral reason for the Southern States to attempt to secede... I meant a special case, obviously. You lose!
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#62. To: Dakmar (#57)
Taxation isn't slavery... So you are saying I am hereby absolved of any tax assessment which will be used to fund TANF/SECT-8/etc?
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#63. To: war (#61) (Edited)
You do know what it's supposed to mean -- your attempt to pin special slavery guilt on the South is up in smoke, because the north was equally guilty or much more so. And since you're playing such a silly game over it, still pretending not to get it, I see no point in taking these subjects further with you. If you're getting paid by the post or word, me so solly......
#64. To: war (#62)
Consent to be governed is not acquiescence to tribute, you creepy little man. Taxation isn't slavery...
corruptissima re publica plurimae leges - Tacitus
#65. To: Dakmar (#64)
Ha -- you got that right! Try to get through if you like, but casuistry cannibalizes ratiocination.
#66. To: Dakmar (#64)
That is exactly what it IS...more so when the final decision is made by and among ourselves. You don't want to be taxed...fine...make a better argument as to why you shouldn't be... Consent to be governed is not acquiescence to tribute, you creepy little man.
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#67. To: NeoconsNailed (#63)
Sorry...but I really do not. attempt to pin special slavery guilt on the South is up in smoke I don't need to attempt to do it...history has already done so... So the csA becomes the CSA...read their proposed constitution...take all of their supposed gripes that the *industrialized* North allegedly did to them (even though the nation was overwhelmingly agrarian at the time including the North) out of the equation when does slavery end? The fact is, the csA constitution made slavery permanent. You do know what it's supposed to mean...
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#68. To: war (#67)
The union made slavery permenate too. Double check your thriteenth amendment , their shall be no slavery EXCEPT as a term of punishment. We dont have the largest prison population in the world for nothing. And when the governmnet feels entitled to tax your home or how many miles you drive , well thats another form of slavery too ... The fact is, the csA constitution made slavery permanent.
______________________________________
Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.
#69. To: NeoconsNailed, All (#50)
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html Your posted archives.gov reference, activated: Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text From the listed signers after Article VII: The Founding Fathers: South Carolina You: Rather odd, isn't it? Can you think of anything else "signed" that way? My posted Wikipedia references: List of signers of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia [Rhode Island sent no delegates.] Pic: Part of page four of the Constitution, showing the signatures of the delegates [after Article VII] Some excerpts for both Pinckney signatories from Charleston, SC, linked above at #s 16 & 17: 16 Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (February 25, 1746 – August 16, 1825) 17 Charles Pinckney (October 26, 1757 – October 29, 1824) "American Civil War" - Wikipedia Juneteenth - Wikipedia Clementa C. Pinckney - Wikipedia Clementa Carlos "Clem" Pinckney (July 30, 1973 – June 17, 2015) Pinckney was a member of Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity. He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree from Allen University in 1995 and went on to obtain a Master of Public Administration degree from the University of South Carolina in 1999. He then obtained a Master of Divinity degree from Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary. Pinckney was a student at Wesley Theological Seminary pursuing a Doctor of Ministry degree. ... Pinckney preached in Beaufort, Charleston, and Columbia. ... He became pastor of Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, South Carolina in 2010. ... Pinckney spent the earlier part of his last day, June 17, 2015, campaigning with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in Charleston. That evening, he led a Bible study and prayer session at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, where he was senior pastor. A 21-year-old shooter, suspected to be Dylann Roof, opened fire on the congregation, killing Pinckney and eight others. On June 24, 2015, there was a public viewing ... in the rotunda lobby of the State Capitol Senate Chamber where Pinckney served in the South Carolina legislature ... Public viewings were held at St. John AME Church in Ridgeland, South Carolina, and Mother Emanuel in Charleston, South Carolina. A funeral was held on June 26, 2015, at the College of Charleston in TD Arena, which was filled up to maximum capacity, necessitating a viewing center with a video feed at the Charleston Museum. President Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and Jill Biden, among many other politicians and public figures, attended the funeral, with Obama giving the eulogy. During the eulogy, Obama sang the opening line of "Amazing Grace". As a result of the shooting, in July 2015, the South Carolina Legislature put forth a bill to take down a Confederate flag that had been flown in front of the statehouse by state law since 2000 and move it to the Confederate Relic Room and Military Museum. Pinckney's widow attended the session during the final vote to thank her husband's colleagues for their support. The bill was passed Reference: #51. Obama, Barack (June 26, 2015). "Remarks by the President in Eulogy for The Honorable Reverend Clementa Pinckney" (PDF). The Post and Courier. Retrieved June 26, 2015.Your posted reference:
America's Founding Fathers - Delegates to the Constitutional Convention
J. Rutledge
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney [info at that site]
Charles Pinckney [info at that site]
Pierce ButlerSouth Carolina [names written near lower left corner of the Pic]
15 John Rutledge
16 Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
17 Charles Pinckney
18 Pierce Butler
represented South Carolina at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. ... advocated that African American slaves be counted as a basis of representation. ... played a key role in requiring treaties to be ratified by the Senate and in the compromise that resulted in the abolition of the Atlantic slave trade. ... [Reference notation] "The Third Amendment and the Issue of the Maintenance of Standing Armies: A Legal History," American Journal of Legal History (1991), volume 35, p. 393: Elbridge Gerry...proposed that the Constitution contain express language limiting the size of the standing army to several thousand men. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, ostensibly at the instigation of Washington, responded that such a proposal was satisfactory so long as any invading force also agreed to limit its army to a similar size. ... In 1789, President George Washington offered ["C. C."] Pinckney his choice of the State Department or the War Department; [He] declined both. When Washington offered [him] the role of Ambassador to France in 1796, Pinckney accepted. ... Castle Pinckney in Charleston Harbor, completed about 1810, and an earlier fort on the same site, were named for Charles C. Pinckney.
an American politician who was a signer of the United States Constitution ... was first cousin once removed of fellow signer Charles Cotesworth ["C. C."] Pinckney. ... was an ancestor of seven future South Carolina governors. ... well after the War for Independence had begun, young Pinckney enlisted in the militia (though his father demonstrated ambivalence about the Revolution). ... When Charleston fell to the British the next year, [he] was captured and held as a prisoner until June 1781. ... Pinckney's role in the Constitutional Convention is controversial. ... South Carolina had established Protestantism as the state religion, so it was interesting that he introduced a clause into the Constitution article VI in opposition to an established state religion. His "no religious test" clause [...] passed with little opposition and so for the first time in history an official of a national government was not required to have a religion. ... Jefferson appointed Pinckney as Minister to Spain (1801–05). He tried but did not succeed in gaining cession by Spain of the Floridas to the United States. He facilitated Spanish acquiescence in the transfer of Louisiana from France to the United States in 1803 by the Louisiana Purchase.
April 12, 1861 – May 9, 1865
a holiday that commemorates the announcement of the abolition of slavery in Texas in June 1865, and more generally the emancipation of African-American slaves throughout the Confederate South. Celebrated on June 19 ... On June 18, 1865, Union General Gordon Granger arrived at Galveston Island with 2,000 federal troops to occupy Texas on behalf of the federal government. On June 19, standing on the balcony of Galveston's Ashton Villa, Granger read aloud the contents of "General Order No. 3", announcing the total emancipation of slaves
a Democratic member of the South Carolina Senate, representing the 45th District from 2000 until his death. As a state senator, Pinckney pushed for laws to require police and other law enforcement officials to wear body cameras after Walter Scott, an unarmed black man, was shot eight times in the back by a police officer in North Charleston. ... He was previously a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives from 1997 through 2000. Pinckney was a senior pastor at Mother Emanuel A.M.E. in Charleston. On June 17, 2015, Pinckney was assassinated in a mass shooting at an evening Bible study at his church. U.S. President Barack Obama delivered the eulogy at Pinckney's memorial in his honor. ... Pinckney's name is in honor of the baseball player Roberto Clemente of the Pittsburgh Pirates ... During his eulogy, multiple friends and family pronounced his first name as "Clemen-tay". ... Pinckney's father's family, the Pinckney family based in the Beaufort, South Carolina area, could possibly be descendants of slaves owned by Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, who was instrumental in framing the United States 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
#70. To: titorite (#68)
========================================== Mileage taxation was JUST PASSED in Oregon two weeks ago. And when the governmnet feels entitled to tax your home or how many miles you drive ..
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
#71. To: All (#50) (Edited)
At Post #5 of 4um Title: The Terrible Truth About Abraham Lincoln and the Confederate War From the Comment section at AL.com [Alabama] July 02, 2015: A close-up look at Birmingham's embattled Confederate monument March 1861 “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of such state.” If the war was over slavery, all the South had to do was to ratify the original 13th Amendment, the Corwin Amendment, and slavery would have forever been protected by the Constitution. Why did the South NOT accept this amendment? Because it was about tariffs, not slavery. Attempts to Amend the Federal Amendment Clause Only one attempt to amend Article V was among the select group of six proposed amendments that was actually passed by Congress and defeated by the states. It is the so-called Corwin amendment. Without its preamble it read: Congress adopted this proposal on March 2, 1861. ... It proposes to protect slave states from congressional interference. But it can rightly be considered an amendment to Article V because, if ratified, it would significantly and expressly have curtailed the federal amending power. ... [T]he Corwin amendment did not (explicitly) bar its own repeal. [Lester Bernhardt] Orfield counts 14 proposed amendments that would somehow have precluded the abolition of slavery. Only the Corwin amendment passed Congress. ... [T]he Corwin amendment had only been validly ratified by two states (Ohio, Maryland). Illinois attempted to ratify it, but probably did so defectively by voting to ratify it in a state constitutional convention that happened to be in session in 1861. Incidentally, the Corwin amendment and the Thirteenth Amendment were the only proposed amendments ever signed by the President. ... James Buchanan signed the Corwin amendment two days before leaving office for Abraham Lincoln ... Lincoln signed the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery, but thinking he erred he notified Congress. The Senate declared the signature unnecessary and not to be a precedent. ... When the Twelfth Amendment was still in Congress, a Senate resolution to submit it to the President (Jefferson) was defeated. Before and after the Corwin amendment Congress realized that the President need not sign, and cannot veto, a constitutional amendment. Lincoln’s Pro-Slavery Record – LewRockwell.com article: The Lincoln Cult's Latest Cover-Up posted at 4um Title: THE LIES OF THE ABRAHAM LINCOLN CULT EXPOSED - HE PUSHED FOR SLAVERY TO BE PERMANENT FIXTURE OF U.S. CONSTITUTION; Excerpts: Actually, the letter is not at all "amazing" to anyone familiar with the real Lincoln. It was a copy of a letter that was sent to the governor of every state urging them all to support the amendment, which had already passed the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, that would have made southern slavery constitutionally "irrevocable," to use the word that Lincoln used in his first inaugural address. The amendment passed after the lower South had seceded, suggesting that it was passed with almost exclusively Northern votes. Lincoln and the entire North were perfectly willing to enshrine slavery forever in the Constitution. This is one reason why the great Massachusetts libertarian abolitionist Lysander Spooner ... hated and despised Lincoln and his entire gang The Lincoln cult knows about all of this, but works diligently to keep it out of view of the general public. The fact that news organizations reported the "find," however, creates a problem for the cult. ... Every once in a while, though, a cult member (or an aspiring cult member) slips up and spills the beans. A recent example is the "political biography" of Lincoln recently published [by] Doris Kearns-Goodwin entitled "Team of Rivals". This is Goodwin’s first publication on Lincoln, and she has apparently not been filled in on the standard modus operandi of cover-up and obfuscation that is the hallmark of "Lincoln scholarship." She discusses the above-mentioned "first thirteenth amendment" in some detail (as I do in my forthcoming book, Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe, to be published in October). Goodwin dug into the same original sources that all Lincoln scholars are familiar with, but unlike most [Pro-Lincoln] others, she includes the information in her book. Not only did Lincoln support this slavery forever amendment, but the amendment was his idea from the very beginning. He was the secret author of it, orchestrating the politics of its passage from Springfield before he was even inaugurated. Not only that, but he also instructed his political compatriot, William Seward, to work on federal legislation that would outlaw the various personal liberty laws that existed in some of the Northern states. These laws were used to attempt to nullify the federal Fugitive Slave Act. As explained by Goodwin (p. 296): "He [Lincoln] instructed Seward to introduce these proposals in the Senate Committee of Thirteen without indicating they issued from Springfield. The first resolved that 'the Constitution should never be altered so as to authorize Congress to abolish or interfere with slavery in the states.' Another recommendation that he instructed Seward to get through Congress was that 'all state personal liberty laws in opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law be repealed.'" Goodwin reveals all of this because the theme of her book is what a great political conniver and manipulator Lincoln was and this, of course, is a good example of such deceitfulness. ... She praises him for his pro-slavery amendment because it supposedly "held the Republican Party together." In his first inaugural address Dishonest Abe explicitly supported this amendment while pretending that he hardly knew anything about it (i.e., lying). What he said was: "I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution . . . has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the states, including that of persons held to service." Then, while "holding such a provision to be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." Lincoln was not an abolitionist and, unlike Lysander Spooner, he believed that slavery was already constitutional. Nevertheless, he also favored making it "express and irrevocable." The director of the museum in Allentown where Lincoln’s letter to the governors was recently discovered made a feeble attempt to dismiss this entire episode as unimportant by saying that Lincoln was only being "pragmatic." Actually, exactly the opposite is true. Another reason why abolitionists like Spooner detested Lincoln, Seward, and the rest is that he understood that their opposition to slavery was always theoretical or rhetorical. They never came up with any kind of pragmatic plan to end slavery peacefully, as the real pragmatists — the British, Spanish, Dutch, French, and Danes — had done. Indeed, the political leaders of these countries could have provided the Lincoln regime with a detailed roadmap regarding how to go about it. But as Lincoln repeatedly said, his agenda was always, first and foremost, to destroy the secession movement, not to interfere with slavery. And as this episode reveals, for once his actions matched his words. Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia The text refers to slavery with terms such as "domestic institutions" and "persons held to labor or service" and avoids using the word "slavery", following the example set at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which referred to slavery in its draft of the Constitution with comparable descriptions of legal status: "Person held to Service", "the whole Number of free Persons..., three fifths of all other Persons", "The Migration and Importation of such Persons...". Its supporters believed that the Corwin Amendment had a greater chance of success in the legislatures of the Southern states than would have been the case in state ratifying conventions, since state conventions were being conducted throughout the South at which votes to secede from the Union were successful — just as Congress was considering the Corwin Amendment. Out-going President James Buchanan, a Democrat, endorsed the Corwin Amendment by taking the unprecedented step of signing it. His signature on the Congressional joint resolution was unnecessary, as the Supreme Court, in Hollingsworth v. Virginia (1798), ruled that the President has no formal role in the constitutional amendment process. Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, said of the Corwin Amendment: Just weeks prior to the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln sent a letter to each state's governor transmitting the proposed amendment, noting that Buchanan had approved it. External links Signed letter from Abraham Lincoln transmitting the Corwin Amendment to North Carolina Governor John W. Ellis, March 16, 1861 [digital.ncdcr.gov] 4um Title: When Americans Understood the Declaration of Independence From Post #s 30 and 44 of 4um Title: Judge Napolitano: Lincoln Set About On The Most Murderous War In American History At the time of the "Civil War", America was still a new nation struggling to become strong enough to free itself from the business of slavery that other nations had entrenched here. Even so, [hundreds of thousands of] lives could [likely] have been spared by a Compensated Emancipation transition for less than it cost financially to wage that war [if Slavery had been the cause rather than tariffs and representative government issues but it wasn't. See also: 4um Ref., Post #s 9-12.] The Federal government officially endorsed Slavery in the Constitution (North, South and also in the Western Territories) and supported it by the Fugitive Slave Clause, etc.]. Appending an additional 4um Ref. with further relevant info and discussion issues. Also, 4um Title: DIXIE'S CENSORED SUBJECT: BLACK SLAVEOWNERS, with additional historic info on Slavery in America at Post #s 2 and 3. info on the Corwin Amendment
THE CORWIN AMENDMENT
B. An historical proposal passed by Congress [The Corwin Amendment]
No Amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.
On July 19 the Associated Press and Reuter’s reported an "amazing find" at a museum in Allentown, Pennsylvania: A copy of a letter dated March 16, 1861, and signed by Abraham Lincoln imploring the governor of Florida to rally political support for a constitutional amendment that would have legally enshrined slavery in the U.S. Constitution. ... The document was found in the Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, Historical Society archives in Allentown, Pennsylvania.
a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution passed by the 36th Congress on March 2, 1861 and submitted to the state legislatures for ratification. Senator William H. Seward of New York introduced the amendment in the Senate and Representative Thomas Corwin of Ohio introduced it in the House of Representatives. It was one of several measures considered by Congress in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to attract the seceding states back into the Union and to entice border slave states to stay. Technically still pending before the states, it would, if ratified, shield "domestic institutions" of the states (which in 1861 included slavery) from the constitutional amendment process and from abolition or interference by Congress.
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution — which amendment, however, I have not seen — has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service....holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
In his first inaugural address Lincoln strongly supported the Fugitive Slave Act and the proposed "Corwin Amendment" to the Constitution, which had already passed the House and Senate, which would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery. Thus, it was his position that slavery should be explicitly enshrined in the Constitution, made "express and irrevocable" to use his exact words, which is hardly the position one who believes that "all men are created equal" would take. It was empty political rhetoric at its worst.
slaveholding border States of the Union were Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri. New Jersey and New Hampshire were two more slaveholding Union States ... fully 1/3 of the Union being slave States [+ Territories and D.C. itself] ... Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" freed none of them from slavery. It was a year into the war before slavery in the Union's own capitol-city of Washington D.C. was monetarily facilitated towards being ended there by the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act [Wikipedia]. Even with that, the fugitive slave laws still applied and D.C. was reportedly among slaveholders after the war until slavery was officially abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment. [Ref. Slavery in the United States: The end of slavery - Wikipedia] ... [S]lavery was not completely lifted in New Hampshire and New Jersey until the nationwide emancipation in 1865. ... [S]lavery in America [had to be abolished] again after we acquired Alaska from Russia [4um Ref.]
-------
"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
#72. To: christine (#16)
What a nice song -- too bad he and the Blowfish are so anti-Southern.
#73. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#70) (Edited)
HAPPY2BME-4UM at Post #70: Mileage taxation was JUST PASSED in Oregon two weeks ago. Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. The Eleventh Amendment was the first Constitutional amendment adopted after the Bill of Rights. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has ruled that Puerto Rico enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity. [My note: Here in America, the "unilateral despots" of the U.S. Supreme Court have long been abrogating, nullifying and eradicating the 11th Amendment.] USA TODAY June 30, 2015: [United States] Supreme Court to decide new war between the states [Issues of taxation and evasion rewarded by Nevada's judicial 11th Amendment Nullification] The [U.S.] Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to reconsider its 35-year-old precedent allowing one state to use its court system to sue another state without consent — or even the same immunity the first state grants its own agencies. California filed the high court appeal following a Nevada jury's award of $375 million to a former California resident who contested his 1991 tax assessment there. The Nevada Supreme Court later reduced the award to $1 million. "A Nevada jury with an opportunity to award damages to a Nevada citizen at the expense of a California governmental entity did so to the tune of half a billion dollars," the California Franchise Tax Board asserted in its Supreme Court petition. "Sovereign immunity does not allow a sovereign state to be placed at the mercy of foreign juries and judges absent consent." That's not what the [U.S.] Supreme Court said in Nevada v. Hall, a 1979 case that held states are not immune from lawsuits in other states' courts. The original lawsuit, filed by Gilbert Hyatt, a technology inventor, alleged that the California auditor pursuing him had divulged his personal data, trespassed on his Nevada property and vowed to "get that Jew [epithet]" — ample reasons to sue in Nevada courts.titorite at Post #68: The union made slavery permenate too. Double check your thriteenth amendment , their shall be no slavery EXCEPT as a term of punishment. We dont have the largest prison population in the world for nothing. And when the governmnet feels entitled to tax your home or how many miles you drive , well thats another form of slavery too ...
passed by Congress on March 4, 1794, and ratified by the states on February 7, 1795, deals with each state's sovereign immunity
Text
WASHINGTON — Call it the new War Between the 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
#74. To: GreyLmist (#71)
================================================== Are you trying to confuse war with facts? What If You Had ABSOLUTELY NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS? From Post #s 30 and 44 of 4um Title: Judge Napolitano: Lincoln Set About On The Most Murderous War In American History
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
#75. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#74)
No, your judgeness. I was trying to defuse "Civil War" malingerings with facts. P.S. Great video. : ) Are you trying to confuse war with facts?
-------
"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
#76. To: GreyLmist (#71)
As was point6d out, the tariffs were actually lower in 1860/61 than they had been over the previous decades. Then you have this: Georgia Statement of Secession: "For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery." avalon.law.yale.ed u/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp The word *tariff* appears nowhere in the statement. Why is that? Because it was about tariffs, not slavery.
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#77. To: GreyLmist (#71)
Mississippi: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth." avalon.law.yale.ed u/19th_century/csa_missec.asp Again, no mention of tariffs...
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#78. To: titorite (#68)
And when the governmnet feels entitled to tax your home or how many miles you drive , well thats another form of slavery too ... Windows were taxed when this nation was founded...so were bachelors...
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#79. To: war (#78)
........., you're just trolling aren't you you.... Windows were taxed when this nation was founded...so were bachelors...
______________________________________
Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.
#80. To: titorite (#79)
Facts are facts...
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#81. To: war (#76) (Edited)
As was point6d out, the tariffs were actually lower in 1860/61 than they had been over the previous decades. Morrill Tariff - Wikipedia The Morrill Tariff raised rates to encourage industry and to foster high wages for industrial workers. [i.e. Northerners, predominantly -- effectively jeopardizing Southern trade with Europe] The Morrill Tariff was met with intense hostility in Britain, where the free trade movement dominated public opinion. The Morrill tariff was adopted against the backdrop of the secession movement, and provided an issue for [secession] in some southern states. The law's critics compared it to the 1828 Tariff of Abominations that sparked the [tariff] Nullification Crisis, although its average rate was significantly lower [compared to: 1825 and 1830, when rates had sometimes been over 50%] ... the average rate for 1857 through 1860 being around 17% overall (ad valorem), or 21% on dutiable items only. The Morrill Tariff immediately raised these averages to about 26% overall or 36% on dutiable items, and further increases by 1865 left the comparable rates at 38% and 48%. In its first year of operation, the Morrill Tariff increased the effective rate collected on dutiable imports by approximately 70%. The [financial] Panic of 1857 [had] led to calls for protectionist tariff revision. Well-known economist Henry C. Carey blamed the Panic on the Tariff of 1857. His opinion was widely circulated in the high tariff (or "protectionist") media. Efforts to revise the tariff schedules upward began in earnest in the 35th Congress of 1857–1859. The Morrill bill was passed out of committee and brought up for a floor vote near the end of first session of the Congress (December 1859 – June 1860). The vote was on May 10, 1860; the bill passed by a vote of 105 to 64. the Morrill Tariff was addressed in the [secession] conventions of Georgia and South Carolina. ... [Before it could be made official and imposed,] many tariff-averse Southerners had resigned from Congress after their states declared their secession. The Morrill bill was brought to the Senate floor for a vote on February 20, [1861] and passed 25 to 14. President James Buchanan ... signed the bill into law as one of his last acts in office. It replaced the low Tariff of 1857, which was written to benefit the South. ... As secession became more evident and the fledgling Confederacy adopted a much lower tariff of its own, the [New York Times] urged military action to enforce the Morrill Tariff in the Southern states. ... Two additional tariffs sponsored by Morrill, each one higher, were passed during Abraham Lincoln's administration to raise urgently needed revenue during the Civil War.it was about tariffs, not slavery.
The Morrill Tariff of 1861 was an increased tariff in the United States, adopted on March 2, 1861, during the administration of President James Buchanan, a Democrat. It was a key element of the platform of the new Republican Party [of Lincoln], and it appealed to industrialists and factory workers [i.e. Northerners, predominantly]
-------
"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
#82. To: war (#77) (Edited)
avalon.law.yale.ed u/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp The word *tariff* appears nowhere in the statement. Why is that? war at #77: Mississippi: avalon.law.yale.ed u/19th_century/csa_missec.asp Again, no mention of tariffs... From the Wikipedia source posted at #81 for the Morrill Tariff: Am posting this link so that readers trying to study these matters won't be as prone to get the wrongful impression of Slave-generated unanimity from your piecemealed selectivity there to persistently inflate Slavery as the cause of Secessions and Confederacy formation: Ordinances of Secession of the 13 Confederate States of America, with links to Declarations of Secession by the few Confederate States that actually issued such documents -- 4 only, of the initial 13 seceding (Missouri and Kentucky being fractiously "Unionized" later); those 4 with Declaration of Secession docs being: South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas On the Ordinances of Secession page, only 3 of the 13 mention "slave" wording and only in the context of conferencing with slave-holding States or the oppression of slaveholding States; those 3 being: Alabama, Texas and Virginia. No doubt Georgia and others had legitimate complaints against the hostilities of abolitionist States fomenting Slave rebellions and so on. No doubt Mississippi and others objected to slaveholding States being deprived of equal access to the Western territories and fair representation governmentally being obstructed by hostiles. No doubt the economic and property concerns of the South were being thwarted by Northern moguls and such, which later plundered all of the South's resources after the war that they could manage to acquire. Am paraphrasing this linked commentary for summarial clarification: The Truth About States' Rights by Adam Freedman, City Journal Autumn 2014 During the first half of the nineteenth century, pro-slavery politicians were much more likely to rely on federal power than on states’ rights. The United States Constitution implicitly permitted slavery, while the “three-fifths clause” [partially] boosted the congressional delegations and Electoral College votes of the slave states. Federal law guaranteed the return of fugitive slaves to their masters. [Reference, too, the Corwin Amendment info at Post #71, in further protection of Slavery Federally -- Congressionally authorized for State ratifications on the very same day as the Morrill Tariff was signed into law -- but the 7 Southern States that had left the Union didn't move to return and still more continued seceding.] war at #76: Georgia Statement of Secession:
"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth."
the Morrill Tariff was addressed in the [secession] conventions of Georgia and South Carolina
Consider the logic. If [Secession is insisted to have been motivationally about protecting the institution of Slavery in the South,] then it’s fair to ask: Protect
ed it against what? Presumably, against a threatened federal law that would impose abolition upon unwilling Southern states. But the federal government never came close to enacting such a law before the Civil War; the Emancipation Proclamation would not come until the middle of the war (1863), and even then, it applied only to the states in rebellion. Before that, few federal proposals would have interfered with the autonomy of existing slave states, and those proposals went nowhere. Constitutional amendments to abolish slavery had been introduced in the House in 1818 and 1839; neither made it to the floor for a vote.
-------
"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
#83. To: All (#82)
From the Wikipedia source posted at #81 for the Morrill Tariff: Reception abroad The well known novelist Charles Dickens used his magazine, All the Year Round, to attack the new tariff. On December 28, 1861 Dickens published a lengthy article, believed to be written by Henry Morley, which blamed the American Civil War on the Morrill Tariff: Communist philosopher Karl Marx was among the few writers in Britain who saw slavery as the major cause of the war. Marx wrote extensively in the British press and served as a London correspondent for several North American newspapers including Horace Greeley's New York Tribune. Marx reacted to those who blamed the war on Morrill's bill, arguing instead that slavery had induced secession The Marxist Slavery-meme is still inducing mass hysteria and traumatic divisiveness to destablize America and worse, as intended. Many prominent British writers condemned the Morrill Tariff in the strongest terms.
... where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? ...Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this [tariff] extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived ... The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union ...
-------
"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
#84. To: All (#82) (Edited)
On the Ordinances of Secession page, only 3 of the 13 mention "slave" wording and only in the context of conferencing with slave-holding States or the oppression of slaveholding States; those 3 being: Alabama, Texas and Virginia. An act declaring the political ties heretofore existing between the State of Missouri and the United States of America dissolved. Whereas the Government of the United States, in the possession and under the control of a sectional party, has wantonly violated the compact originally made between said Government and the State of Missouri, by invading with hostile armies the soil of the State, attacking and making prisoners the militia while legally assembled under the State laws, forcibly occupying the State capitol, and attempting through the instrumentality of domestic traitors to usurp the State government, seizing and destroying private property, and murdering with fiendish malignity peaceable citizens, men, women, and children, together with other acts of atrocity, indicating a deep-settled hostility toward the people of Missouri and their institutions [My note: e.g. civilian safeguardings, the Missouri Militia, civil administrative centers...]; and Whereas the present Administration of the Government of the United States has utterly ignored the Constitution, subverted the Government as constructed and intended by its makers, and established a despotic and arbitrary power instead thereof: Now, therefore, Be it enacted by the general assembly of the State of Missouri, That all political ties of every character new existing between the Government of the United States of America and the people and government of the State of Missouri are hereby dissolved, and the State of Missouri, resuming the sovereignty granted by compact to the said United States upon admission of said State into the Federal Union, does again take its place as a free and independent republic amongst the nations of the earth. This act to take effect and be in force from and after its passage. Approved by the Missouri Legislature on October 31, 1861. Whereas, the Federal Constitution, which created the Government of the United States, was declared by the framers thereof to be the supreme law of the land, and was intended to limit and did expressly limit the powers of said Government to certain general specified purposes, and did expressly reserve to the States and people all other powers whatever, and the President and Congress have treated this supreme law of the Union with contempt and usurped to themselves the power to interfere with the rights and liberties of the States and the people against the expressed provisions of the Constitution, and have thus substituted for the highest forms of national liberty and constitutional government a central despotism founded upon the ignorant prejudices of the masses of Northern society, and instead of giving protection with the Constitution to the people of fifteen States [My note: 13 + Maryland and Delaware, expectedly] of this Union have turned loose upon them the unrestrained and raging passions of mobs and fanatics, and because we now seek to hold our liberties, our property, our homes, and our families under the protection of the reserved powers of the States, have blockaded our ports, invaded our soil, and waged war upon our people for the purpose of subjugating us to their will; and Whereas, our honor and our duty to posterity demand that we shall not relinquish our own liberty and shall not abandon the right of our descendants and the world to the inestimable blessings of constitutional government: Therefore, Be it ordained, That we do hereby forever sever our connection with the Government of the United States, and in the name of the people we do hereby declare Kentucky to be a free and independent State, clothed with all power to fix her own destiny and to secure her own rights and liberties. And whereas, the majority of the Legislature of Kentucky have violated their most solemn pledges made before the election, and deceived and betrayed the people; have abandoned the position of neutrality assumed by themselves and the people, and invited into the State the organized armies of Lincoln; have abdicated the Government in favor of a military despotism which they have placed around themselves, but cannot control, and have abandoned the duty of shielding the citizen with their protection; have thrown upon our people and the State the horrors and ravages of war, instead of attempting to preserve the peace, and have voted [My note: i.e. drafted] men and money for the war waged by the North for the destruction of our constitutional rights; have violated the expressed words of the constitution by borrowing five millions of money for the support of the war without a vote of the people; have permitted the arrest and imprisonment of our citizens, and transferred the constitutional prerogatives of the Executive to a military commission of partisans; have seen the writ of habeas corpus suspended without an effort for its preservation, and permitted our people to be driven in exile from their homes; have subjected our property to confiscation and our persons to confinement in the penitentiary as felons, because we may choose to take part in a cause for civil liberty and constitutional government against a sectional majority waging war against the people and institutions of fifteen independent States of the old Federal Union, and have done all these things deliberately against the warnings and vetoes of the Governor and the solemn remonstrance's of the minority in the Senate and House of Representatives: Therefore, Be it further ordained, That the unconstitutional edicts of a factious majority of a Legislature thus false to their pledges, their honor, and their interests are not law, and that such a government is unworthy of the support of a brave and free people, and that we do therefore declare that the people are thereby absolved from all allegiance to said government, and that they have a right to establish any government which to them may seem best adapted to the preservation of their rights and liberties. Adopted 20 Nov 1861, by a Convention of the People of Kentucky. Ordinances of Secession of the 13 Confederate States of America, with links to Declarations of Secession by the few Confederate States that actually issued such documents -- 4 only, of the initial 13 seceding (Missouri and Kentucky being fractiously "Unionized" later); those 4 with Declaration of Secession docs being: South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas
The Missouri and Kentucky Ordinances of Secession:
Missouri
Kentucky
-------
"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
#85. To: war, All (#84) (Edited)
Although the Confederate States of Missouri and Kentucky Independents were reconfigured into like "Political Prisoner of War" detainees of the Unionists, their stars of representation remained on the Confederate Battle Flag in honor of them and their free lancing warriors. [Pic] In the case of Kentucky, a deceptive pretense of neutrality was asserted by the Unionist Governor there, supposedly acknowledging in resigned fashion that, being a Border State, both Militaries -- Federal and Confederate, as well -- would have to invade or march through to fight the other. However, when the Confederacy entered to move into defensive positioning along the rivers before the Union Army got there, General Grant attacked a small Confederate camp at Belmont, across the river from the Confederate fortification at Columbus. The Pro-Unionist tricksters called for Federal reinforcements on the false-accusation that the Confederates were invading occupiers who had breached Kentucky's neutrality policy by entering and encamping first in the region; where Grant, who attacked first, likely would have occupied the same strategic spaces if they hadn't arrived there sooner. [National Endowment for the Humanities] NEH Landmarks of American History and Culture » Kentucky’s Neutrality during the Civil War [a 4um Ref. posted by war at another topic; with additional detailing.] See also, Wikipedia Refs. for Confederate Generals Pillow: Battle of Belmont and Polk: KentuckyThe Missouri and Kentucky Ordinances of Secession:
-------
"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
#86. To: GreyLmist (#84)
Southern sympathizers in Kentucky got their asses kicked in the 1860 election; so, some of them got together and tried to form their own government, including appointing a governor. Had secession actually been valid, their act was still invalid...
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#87. To: war (#86) (Edited)
Had secession actually been valid, their act was still invalid... The Articles of Confederation asserted a "Perpetual Union". The U.S. Constitution documenting the secessions from it doesn't contain such phrasing. The D.C. Federal Government itself endorsed the secession of West Virginia from Virginia and admitted it into the Union, as you know. In fact (and contrary to popular belief that the war began at Fort Sumter), it was officials of America's government that seceded D.C. jurisdictionally from South Carolina first -- with no interceding authorized replacements; just a stealth attempt to occupy a S.C. fort -- a month and a half before that State moved to secede: closing down the Federal District Court and Grand Jury there (i.e. an orchestrated staging of defacto Martial Law conditions) ... jeopardizing State security and its port in the process ... [See also: 4um Ref., Post #s 9-12]; noted in the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph from the end at Post #71 above. South Carolina's Governor should have immediately ordered the State Militia to occupy all forts of the harbor at that point. That he evidently didn't indicates possible complicity on his part in the endangerment of that State and its people. What claiming that secession was invalid simply amounts to, technically, is that all of the various Union States warring in league with U.S. Military Forces against States of the Confederacy (as supposedly still parties of the United States in errant rebellion of Federal authority) committed high Treason against them in violation of Article Three of the United States Constitution, Section 3: Treason: Southern sympathizers in Kentucky got their asses kicked in the 1860 election; so, some of them got together and tried to form their own government, including appointing a governor.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them
-------
"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
#88. To: war (#51) (Edited)
Thanks for your generosity and stoically thoughtful input of regularity at Post #51. Until that point, I had intended to comment only on the transition of America's government from the War of Independence and the Articles of Confederation to the Union-downsizing establishment of the Constitution -- refrain from debating contentions of the War Between the States anymore; just post informational sources on the subjects occasionally that might be of assistance, so as not to provide any quarter to continual perpetuations of the unity-demolishing, Marxist meme that Slavery was the Confederacy's raison d'etre/reason or justification for existence. Would have to check but am fairly sure that there were few, if any, non-slaveholding States of the Articles of Confederation. The Federal Government of the Constitution wasn't moving to dissolve Slavery. Quite the opposite, as the Corwin Amendment and its Congressional authorization for ratification demonstrates. I think most of the issues submitted at #51 may have been addressed in the postings here since then. On the 3/5's notion that the South would be best served by increasing the slave population, that clause was inserted at the Constitution convention, when most all of the States would have had slaves. [Ref. Post #69: Charles Cotesworth Pinckney info] The 3/5's clause was a deterrent to increasing slave populations, imo, because it meant that taxation of the States would be increased according to the counting of those non-citizen populations but there would not be 100% governmental representation permitted for the States -- i.e. taxation without full representation and the North benefitting most from the tax revenues, as usual. Other than that reply, what I'd like to ask is: Would you agree that condemning Slavery but suggesting that the Constitution of the Union was a State enslavement contract is ironic or something?
-------
"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
#89. To: GreyLmist (#88)
Thanks for the great history lesson!
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
#90. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#89)
You're very welcome. :) Thanks for your attendant consideration and gracious hosting. Thanks for the great history lesson!
-------
"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
#91. To: All (#90) (Edited)
Archiving: 10 facts about secession from U.S. Is Secession Legal? - The American Conservative Southern Side of the Civil War Thomas J. DiLorenzo, "Yankee Confederates: New England Secession Movements Prior to the War Between the States," in David Gordon, ed., Secession, State and Liberty, Transaction Publishers, 1998. Abolition of slavery timeline: 1850–1899 ... 1900–present Maryland was an independent nation for over three years before it ratified the Articles of Confederation, and North Carolina and Rhode Island were independent nations until they ratified the federal Constitution. On a related note, it’s interesting to note that the First Continental Congress implicitly recognized the right of secession. When the Congress was considering an embargo on British trade, South Carolina threatened to withdraw if an exception weren't made for rice imports, which were vital to the state's economy. No one questioned South Carolina’s right to leave.
Contrary to standard accounts, the birthplace of American secessionist sentiment was not Charleston, South Carolina in 1860, but the heart of the New England Yankee culture -- Salem, Massachusetts -- more than half a century before the first shot was fired at Fort Sumter. From 1800 to 1815, there were three serious attempts at secession orchestrated by New England Federalists, who believed that the policies of the Jefferson and Madison administrations, especially the 1803 Louisiana Purchase, the national embargo of 1807, and the War of 1812, were so disproportionately harmful to New England that they justified secession.
1924: League of Nations appoints a Temporary Slavery Commission.
1926, 25 September: Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery bound all signatories to end slavery.
-------
"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
#92. To: GreyLmist (#87)
So "a more *perfect* union", in your opinion, is one that is less so? The D.C. Federal Government itself endorsed the secession of West Virginia from Virginia and admitted it into the Union... Members of the government of Virginia gave such permission to the US to form the State of Kanawha which was to become West Virginia. The U.S. Constitution documenting the secessions from it doesn't contain such phrasing.
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#93. To: GreyLmist (#88) (Edited)
Ha...interesting question... The answer is contingent upon your point of view. My answer is, of course, no. That such an alliance, compact etc is going to be somewhat elastic as to who is going to benefit more than another at any given time. On the 3/5's notion that the South would be best served by increasing the slave population, that clause was inserted at the Constitution convention, when most all of the States would have had slaves. IIRC, and I'll research this and edit, if need be (and note if I do)...5 states had ended slavery (edit: which means it still existed in 8)...3 or 4 more were in the process of doing so but none of the *Northern* states in which slavery was still an institution allowed for the open bartering or trading of slaves in 1789...I'm positive that NJ did not allow slave trading... Would you agree that condemning Slavery but suggesting that the Constitution of the Union was a State enslavement contract is ironic or something?
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#94. To: war (#92) (Edited)
So "a more *perfect* union", in your opinion, is one that is less so? Members of the government of Virginia gave such permission to the US to form the State of Kanawha which was to become West Virginia. Interesting, if so. Never heard of that before and rather do suspect many in high places at the time were working on the sly as chaos agents. Can you post a link to the documentation? The U.S. Constitution documenting the secessions from it doesn't contain such phrasing.
That is not an answer to my question at #88, war. [Edit: Disregard that and the next adjustments similarly. Didn't notice you had answered my inquiry in your preceeding post.] You don't seem to object to America's secession from the government of Britain considered to be despotic or to America's Union-downsizing secession from the Articles of Confederation that wasn't considered tyrannical -- just to the South's secession from a rogue run system distorting the Constitution. Why is that[?] and why do you denounce Slavery except in the sense of State enslavement? It wasn't like those States wanted to secede from the Constitution -- just the mismanagement of it. My opinion of "a more perfect union" is still like it was at #36: one that's not forced to be an unvoluntary conglomerate. The D.C. Federal Government itself endorsed the secession of West Virginia from Virginia and admitted it into the Union...
-------
"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
#95. To: GreyLmist (#94)
I've pointed out the inherent differences between subjugate colonial America which had 0 representation in Parliament versus the Southern States which, in 1860, had the exact number of representatives and Senators that they had agreed to have in 1788. Never heard of that before and rather do suspect many in high places at the time were working on the sly as chaos agents. Can you post a link to the documentation? You don't seem to object to America's secession from the government of Britain
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#96. To: war (#93)
Ha...interesting question... The answer is contingent upon your point of view. My answer is, of course, no. That such an alliance, compact etc is going to be somewhat elastic as to who is going to benefit more than another at any given time. Your contingent answer is a definitive no because... the compact is like silly putty, nevermind that it gets incessantly and unrecognizably stuck on stupid, skewed, oppressive and so on... only the compact signatures aren't flexible. Just skip that question and answer session for now. IIRC, and I'll research this and edit, if need be (and note if I do)...5 states had ended slavery (edit: which means it still existed in 8)...3 or 4 more were in the process of doing so but none of the *Northern* states in which slavery was still an institution allowed for the open bartering or trading of slaves in 1789...I'm positive that NJ did not allow slave trading... I could only find Massachusetts in this listing as having no slaves in that timeframe: Abolition of slavery timeline: 1700–1799 [Wikipedia source added last at Archive Post #91] Would you agree that condemning Slavery but suggesting that the Constitution of the Union was a State enslavement contract is ironic or something?
On the 3/5's notion that the South would be best served by increasing the slave population, that clause was inserted at the Constitution convention, when most all of the States would have had slaves.
1775–83: Britain's rebellious North American Colonies ban or suspend the Atlantic slave trade.
1775: Pennsylvania Abolition Society formed in Philadelphia, the first abolition society within the territory that is now the United States of America.
1777: Constitution of the Vermont Republic partially banned slavery, freeing men over 21 and women older than 18 at the time of its passage. The ban was not strongly enforced.
1780: Pennsylvania passes An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery, freeing future children of slaves. Those born prior to the Act remain enslaved for life. The Act becomes a model for other Northern states. Last slaves freed 1847.
1783: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules slavery unconstitutional, a decision based on the 1780 Massachusetts constitution. All slaves are immediately freed.
1783: New Hampshire begins a gradual abolition of slavery.
1784: Connecticut begins a gradual aboliton of slavery, freeing future children of slaves, and later all slaves.
1784: Rhode Island begins a gradual abolition of slavery.
1787: The United States in Congress Assembled passed the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, outlawing any new slavery in the Northwest Territories.
-------
"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
#97. To: war (#95) (Edited)
You didn't say anything there about why you seem to be ok with America's secession from the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, which wasn't done because of non-representations or despotism. A State of Convenience: The Creation of West Virginia From a quick scan through the chapters, it looks like they took it upon themselves to install a Unionist and WVA Secession friendly government of their making to get Independence while the Virginians busied at war who might not have approved didn't get a vote on that. I've pointed out the inherent differences between subjugate colonial America which had 0 representation in Parliament versus the Southern States which, in 1860, had the exact number of representatives and Senators that they had agreed to have in 1788.
www.wvculture .org/history/statehood/statehood05.html
-------
"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
#98. To: GreyLmist (#97)
I was never asked. There were a lot of pissed off *founders* when the Annapolis convention came back not with improvements to the A/C, which was their mandate, but with an entirely different form of government. But, to answer your question...I believe that had the Article of Confederation been only modified that we'd be bordered by France on out left. From a quick scan through the chapters, it looks like they took it upon themselves to install a Unionist and WVA Secession friendly government of their making to get Independence while the Virginians busied at war who might not have approved didn't get a vote on that. Well...that's the interesting question...the secessionists never counted the votes outside of the Richmond area...it was not a slam dunk that Virginians were going to approve secession. The western part of the State was grossly under-represented in the state convention that debated secession. There was subterfuge afoot! You didn't say anything there about why you seem to be ok with America's secession from the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#99. To: GreyLmist (#96)
Yea...most states, when they abolished slavery, did not immediately manumit them as well but kept them in servitude until the *owner* died.... I could only find Massachusetts in this listing as having no slaves in that timeframe:
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
#100. To: war (#98)
I was never asked. Was so, at #94: You don't seem to object to America's secession from the government of Britain considered to be despotic or to America's Union-downsizing secession from the Articles of Confederation that wasn't considered tyrannical -- just to the South's secession from a rogue run system distorting the Constitution. Why is that[?] You're saying that you are ok with Secession from the Articles of Confederation government ... on the grounds of Manifest Destiny Expansion convenience? Really? Am going to archive this excerpted Annapolis info here for historical perspective, conversantly: The Report of the Annapolis Conference [links at the site; scroll down for further details, as needed] Unable to do much of anything, the assembled group, most of whom were nationalists, eager for a stronger national government, decided that another conference was needed to investigate the deficiencies of the United States under the Articles of Confederation, and recommend changes to the Articles. The report of the Annapolis Conference was the first step toward the Constitutional Convention that would eventually hammer out the Constitution of the United States.You didn't say anything there about why you seem to be ok with America's secession from the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union
to answer your question...I believe that had the Article of Confederation been only modified that we'd be bordered by France on out left.
There were a lot of pissed off *founders* when the Annapolis convention came back not with improvements to the A/C, which was their mandate, but with an entirely different form of government.
In September 1786, a conference was called in Annapolis, Maryland to discuss the state of commerce in the fledgling nation. The national government had no authority to regulate trade between and among the states. The conference was called to discuss ways to facilitate commerce and establish standard rules and regulations. The conference was called by Virginia, at the urging of one of its great minds of the time, James Madison. Only five of the 13 states sent any delegates at all.
-------
"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
#101. To: war (#98) (Edited)
A State of Convenience: The Creation of West Virginia From a quick scan through the chapters, it looks like they took it upon themselves to install a Unionist and WVA Secession friendly government of their making to get Independence while the Virginians busied at war who might not have approved didn't get a vote on that. Well...that's the interesting question...the secessionists never counted the votes outside of the Richmond area...it was not a slam dunk that Virginians were going to approve secession. The western part of the State was grossly under- represented in the state convention that debated secession. There was subterfuge afoot! Widespread and high-level subterfuges, indeed -- North and South. Have accumulated more than a few chaos agent footprints to file eventually in other topics; railroad schemings an apparent pattern of some frequency in the mix. www.wvculture.org/history/statehood/statehood05.html
-------
"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
#102. To: GreyLmist (#100)
No...I'm *saying* that there would have been no United States, i.e. national sense of unity. Louisiana Purchase would have never been approved by a weak, unicameral government being guided by, essentially, a figurehead and even if it was approved, there would have been no way to manage it. The US most likely would be like the Easter Caucuses of pre-Soviet Russia. More autonomy less cooperation. Probably invasion or incursion of one state in to another. You're saying that you are ok with Secession from the Articles of Confederation government ... on the grounds of Manifest Destiny Expansion convenience? Really?
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest