View Full Version : The Constitution "Has no Binding Power on Anything."
Ezra Klein also states the Constitution is 'confusing because it was written more than a 100 years ago." Mr. Klein started the now defunct e-mail list, Journolist (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29745&highlight=ezra+klein).
Video Link (http://www.breitbart.tv/liberal-star-blogger-ezra-klein-constitution-has-no-binding-power-on-anything-confusing-because-its-over-100-years-old/)
I wonder how many of our fellow citizens share this view of our constitution?
I wonder how many of our fellow citizens share this view of our constitution?
More liberals than I care to think of....all the ones I know. I find it ironic that these same folks whom find the Constitution a stupid artifact are allowed to do what they do because of it. I would conclude that without the Constitution, it is likely Ezra Klein's gene pool would have ended in oven.
I would conclude that without the Constitution, it is likely Ezra Klein's gene pool would have ended in oven.The 'logic' of this conclusion is elusive.
My $0.02.
Surgicalcric
01-01-2011, 12:57
Wonder if he feels the Bill of Rights is confusing or outdated as well? Or how about the Declaration of Independence?
Lil twerp is exactly what klein is...
Oldrotorhead
01-01-2011, 13:07
Klein and his ilk really just want to pick and choose. Some parts they like and others not so much. How far have we all let the Federal Government go beyond the 18 enumerated powers? Can we get the snake back in the box? We could start the the Dept of HEW.
FWIW, Mr. Klein has posted a clarification of his remarks here (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/yes_the_constitution_is_bindin.html).
Surgicalcric
01-01-2011, 13:33
FWIW, Mr. Klein has posted a clarification of his remarks here (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/yes_the_constitution_is_bindin.html).
Clarification huh...
He is still a lil piss ant...
I saw Klein's comments earlier this morning and chose not post so as to not potentially disrupt an otherwise wonderful day and my wonderful meal.
Now, that the little Klein stain is out of the bottle (closet, whatever) so to speak;
I will borrow from another oft used post on this board...regarding Klein's original comments that are the subject of this thread -- as well as his his follow up...all I can say (that is fit for print, is)...astounding.
p.s. My sincere apologies to stains of all manner, shape, form, everywhere. This comment takes up more bandwidth than Klein deserves...but helps me digest a wonderfully prepared meal a little bit better after listening to this little stain's drivel about the Constitution.
Now, please pass me another piece of that delicious standing rib roast beast. Thank you.
The 'logic' of this conclusion is elusive.
My $0.02.
Without a Constitution there would be no United States. And without the United States the outcome of WWII and Ezra Klein would likely have been quite different. So Ezra Klein (as do we all) likely owes his existence to some dumb old men who wrote that stupid scrap of parchment called The US Constitution.
Were would we all be if they stopped with the Articles of Confederation.
It is that simple.....in my mind, which likely defies logic....but then again I ain't Mr. Spock ;)
Green Light
01-01-2011, 19:51
FWIW, Mr. Klein has posted a clarification of his remarks here (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/yes_the_constitution_is_bindin.html).
Whenever these fascists (note the lowercase "f") say what they really think in an unguarded moment, they have to say "that's not what I really said."
Of course they think the Constitution isn't binding. They ignore the parts they hate and add things that aren't there.
Take three minutes and listen to the Majority Whip of the House of Representatives argue that they don't need the authority of the Constitution to do anything. LINK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXqLITK1uiE)
If the Constitution is "fundamentally flawed to this day", why on earth would any sincere person take an oath to preserve, defend, and uphold it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4
:munchin
Truckie117
01-01-2011, 22:22
No He's the confused one.:boohoo
Without a Constitution there would be no United States. And without the United States the outcome of WWII and Ezra Klein would likely have been quite different. So Ezra Klein (as do we all) likely owes his existence to some dumb old men who wrote that stupid scrap of parchment called The US Constitution.
Were would we all be if they stopped with the Articles of Confederation.
It is that simple.....in my mind, which likely defies logic....but then again I ain't Mr. Spock ;)
Would there have been a Second World War at all without a United States to intervene in the Great War?
Do not Europeans (and others) owe their existence to their own efforts against the enemy to which you allude?
Are you sure that we don't owe our existence to those Americans who opposed slavery--an institution that the Constitution enshrined?
"Slavery...an institution that the Constitution enshrined"?
Enshrined - to preserve, cherish as sacred, consecrate, idolize, sanctify...
Enshrined :confused: not really...
"In order to get the unified support needed for the Constitution's ratification and successful establishment, the framers made certain concessions to the pro-slavery interests. The compromises they agreed to, however, were designed to tolerate slavery where it currently existed, not to endorse or advance the institution"
"It was purposely so framed as to give no claim, no sanction to the claim, of property in man. If in its origin slavery had any relation to the government, it was only as the scaffolding to the magnificent structure, to be removed as soon as the building was completed"
"It is significant to note that the words "slave" and "slavery" were kept out of the Constitution"
"John Adams opposed slavery his entire life as a "foul contagion in the human character" and "an evil of colossal magnitude." James Madison called it "the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man."
"That doesn't sound as though slavery were cherished or santified by at least some of the Founding Fathers. Rather, it was acknowledged as an evil, an issue that needed to be avoided to ensure the building of a nation"
"...our Constitution did not enshrine slavery. The practice was in no way cherished or sanctified. Acknowledging that it was reluctantly tolerated so that the nation could be formed is closer to the truth"
Source: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2002/08/How-to-Understand-Slavery-and-Americas
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/michael-m-bates/2008/09/20/ap-us-nation-enshrined-slavery-its-constitution
I'd like to go 3 five-minute rounds with Klein and test his constitution.
Would there have been a Second World War at all without a United States to intervene in the Great War? Surely there would have, but likely not for the same reasons.
Do not Europeans (and others) owe their existence to their own efforts against the enemy to which you allude? Aside from GB, Germany was having its way with Europe. So No. Without the assistance of the US and it's Industrial Complex (By Products of the Worthless Parchment written by Old Men) Europe was in dire straights. Without the US Resources Europe would have likely been speaking German or Russian.
Are you sure that we don't owe our existence to those Americans who opposed slavery--an institution that the Constitution enshrined? Enshrined? No. Grandfathered in possibly. Not all the framers favored slavery and they too put their mark on the document.
greenberetTFS
01-02-2011, 06:56
Wonder if he feels the Bill of Rights is confusing or outdated as well? Or how about the Declaration of Independence?
Lil twerp is exactly what klein is...
He's also an asshole!.........;)
Big Teddy :munchin :munchin
Klein should refrain from "wonking" off in public...at least regarding the Constitution. ;)
Entire post.IMO, the casual reading of blog posts cobbled together by journalists, by editorialists, and by pundits is a poor substitute for the study of history.
David Waldstreicher, Slavery's Constitution: From Revolution to Ratification (New York: Hill and Wang, 2008).
George Van Cleve, A Slaveholders' Union: Slavery, Politics, and the Constitution in the Early American Republic (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010).
IMO, the casual reading of blog posts cobbled together by journalists, by editorialists, and by pundits is a poor substitute for the study of history.
David Waldstreicher, Slavery's Constitution: From Revolution to Ratification (New York: Hill and Wang, 2008).
George Van Cleve, A Slaveholders' Union: Slavery, Politics, and the Constitution in the Early American Republic (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010).
Yeah, and there's:
Myths of American Slavery and The South was Right by Walter Kennedy.
Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe by Thomas Dilorenzo.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to the South by Clint Johnson.
It's amazing how many books there are, unknown to many, regarding the revision of history re: the war of northern aggression and us ignernt Southern rednecks in general. :eek:
He's also an asshole!.........;)
Big Teddy :munchin :munchin
Steel on target. Not to mention you beat me to it. :D
The Politically Incorrect Guide to the South by Clint Johnson.
This one I've read...very enlightening.
219seminole
01-02-2011, 14:18
To see where slavery was enshrined, compare the Constitution of the Confederate Sates of America with the Constitution of the United States of America...big difference.
To see where slavery was enshrined, compare the Constitution of the Confederate Sates of America with the Constitution of the United States of America...big difference.
Slavery was legal until the Emancipation Proclamation.
The Constitution of the Confederacy assured its legality in the new government.
The question is not whether slavery was legal in the Union, it's whether the South had a right to secede and live by its own regulation.
It's like the DADT repeal; some people were ready for the new law, and some weren't.
IMO, the casual reading of blog posts cobbled together by journalists, by editorialists, and by pundits is a poor substitute for the study of history.
When I think of Slavery being enshrined as the Law of the land, I think of Sharia, and the beauty of Islam - where Slavery still today, is enshrined in the Law. It is deeply embedded, cherished as sacred, idolized, and sanctified in law and tradition.
John Alembillah Azumah, The Legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa: A Quest for Inter-religious Dialogue (Oneworld Publications, 2001)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOs_iv6djhk
"Fellow-citizens! there is no matter in respect to which, the people of the North have allowed themselves to be so ruinously imposed upon, as that of the pro-slavery character of the Constitution. In that instrument I hold there is neither warrant, license, nor sanction of the hateful thing; but, interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT. Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? Is it at the gateway? or is it in the temple? It is neither..."
~Frederick Douglass~
To see where slavery was enshrined, compare the Constitution of the Confederate Sates of America with the Constitution of the United States of America...big difference.Your argument does not square with what the confederates themselves contemporaneously argued.
In Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union (1860), available here (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp), South Carolians affirmed their belief that the U.S. Constitution as written protected the institution of slavery not only in slave states but throughout the union.In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
Georgians offered a similar argument the following year in their message of succession, available here (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp).They [non slave holding states] have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.
Likewise, Texas and Mississippi framed succession as part of an effort to return to the fundamental meaning of the U.S. Constitution.
Why would the confederates have wanted to return to the fundamental framework of the Constitution if "[t]he word 'slavery' was never mentioned in the Constitution"? As one historian put it, "its presence was felt everywhere."Indeed, the slave states had obtained significant concessions at the convention. Through the three-fifths clause they gained extra representation in Congress. Through the electoral college their votes for president were far more potent than the votes of northerners. The prohibition on export taxes favored the products of slave labor. The slave trade clause guaranteed their right to import new slaves for at least twenty years. The domestic violence clause guaranteed them federal aid if they should need it to suppress a slave rebellion. The limited nature of federal power and the cumbersome amendment process guaranteed that, as long as they remained in the Union, their system of labor and race relations would remain free from national interference. On every issue at the convention, slaveowners had won major concessions from the rest of the nation, and with the exception of the commerce clause they had given up very little to win these concessions. The norther delegates had been eager for a stronger Union with a national court system and a unified commercial system. Although some had expressed concerns over the justice or safety of slavery, in the end they were able to justify their compromises and ignore their qualms.*
__________________________________________________ ________
*Paul Finkleman, "Slavery and the Constitutional Convention: Making a Covenant with Death," in Beyond Confederation: Origins of the Constitution and American National Identity, ed. Richard Beeman, Stephen Botein, and Edward C. Carter, II (Chapel Hill and London: The University of North Carolina Press, 1987), pp. 188-225. The quote is on page 224.
GratefulCitizen
01-03-2011, 19:59
RE: Civil War and slavery
Probably would've been far more effective to offer something in exchange for freeing all the slaves:
Give 5th amendment "just compensation" to former slave holders and immediately reapportion congressional districts with all of the former slaves counting as full persons.
Of course, that would've drained the national treasury and diminished the power of the northern states and central government.
The alternative was to drain the treasury anyway, slay over 600,000 human beings, and concentrate more power into the northern states and central government.
Hmmm...
Wonder which one the northern states and central government would favor?
What alternatives do central governments always favor?
Entire post.The number missing from your 'balance sheet' approach to American history is four million.
GratefulCitizen
01-04-2011, 13:46
The number missing from your 'balance sheet' approach to American history is four million.
What makes you think I'm disagreeing with you?
Not trying to refute any point you made.
Rather, my comments were supplementary.
The intension of the 3/5 provision may have been to encourage the freeing of slaves by slave states.
In practice, freeing slaves would diminish the power of free states.
A primary goal of the Confederacy may well have been to retain slavery.
It does not follow that the Confederacy's goal was the Union's anti-goal.
Indeed, the Emancipation proclamation did not apply to areas which did not secede.
Who knows where the empire-building would've stopped if the price of the Civil War had not been so high.
Manifest destiny probably wouldn't have been constrained to a westward trajectory.
The appetite for power is never satiated by more power.
RE Posts #27 and #29
I'm just curious - do you really believe that?
Richard :munchin
GratefulCitizen
01-04-2011, 19:09
RE Posts #27 and #29
I'm just curious - do you really believe that?
Richard :munchin
I don't believe the goals of the north were noble.
Nor do I believe the goals of the south were noble.
Both sides were wrong.
Both sides were wrong.
It was wrong to promote rebellion (secession) and wrong to disallow it? :confused:
Richard :munchin
Holyfire23
01-04-2011, 22:38
In reply to the original post:
It is my observation that Mr. Klein, along with many men and women within our government, have lost the concept of original meaning. They call the Constitution a "living document", one that changes through the times. But in my opinion, that is just fluffy rhetoric which could more accurately be interpreted as "a document which dies constantly, only to be replaced with a new interpretation bound for the same fate". A "living Constitution" will never have any binding power on anything, because a "living Constitution" is relative whereas a binding document, such as the one penned by our forefathers is absolute in its statements.
Remember the famous quote "it all depends on what your definition of 'is' is...". What happens when that same philosophy is applied to much more meaningful terms such as "truth", "self-evident", and "freedom"?
GratefulCitizen
01-04-2011, 22:59
It was wrong to promote rebellion (secession) and wrong to disallow it? :confused:
Richard :munchin
Very well.
Concerning the slavery issue:
Lincoln's support of the Corwin amendment and the nature of the Emancipation Proclamation would indicate he didn't fight the war for the purposes of ending slavery.
The south's rejection of the Corwin amendment would indicate that there were interests in expansion of their economic empire.
The north didn't seek to end slavery, they wanted to be the primary beneficiaries.
Restricting international trade would drive up commodity prices for foreign industry and drive them down for domestic industry.
The north didn't seek to hurt the south directly.
They stood to benefit by hurting foreign competition and cashing in on cheap slave-produced commodities.
Concerning secession:
If Lincoln truly viewed secession as "rebellion", then why did he issue a "Proclamation of Blockade", rather than closing the ports?
It would seem to have more to do with stopping the outgoing cotton, rather than the incoming guns.
The reduction in cotton exports had dire effects on the north's foreign competitors.
(Of course those nations eventually secured cotton supplies from Egypt and India, bastions or freedom, free from oppression, castes, or anything resembling slavery.)
A small minority of rich industrialists in the north and a small minority of large plantation owners in the south were pulling their respective levers of political power, seeking an increase in personal wealth and power.
It spun out of control.
The love of money is the root of much evil.
In the end, I believe Lincoln regretted the escalation of events.
I believe he was geniune in his attitude of reconciliation.
Both north and south sought to profit from the evil of slavery, just in different and incompatible ways.
In that sense, slavery did indeed cause the war.
MOO
YMMV
What makes you think I'm disagreeing with you?You do. With posts like this one.Entire post.And that one.
Entire post.You completely and utterly disregard the contributions those Americans made to their own liberation. You also dehumanize thoroughly Americans who invested themselves in that terrible conflict by arguing that they were dupes of elites. IMO it is highly problematic that you take these positions while you question the motivation of the north and the south.
The Civil war was about state vs federal rights ie ballance of power not slavery. Then why did slavery feature so prominently in the statements of succession of confederate states such as Mississippi <<LINK (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp)>>?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. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
Let us not forget the emancipation proclimation was not freeing of people, but confiscation of war material.
Slaves as war materiel - an ancient tradition adhered to by Lincoln? :confused: Now there's an original concept...but I doubt its applicability in this instance.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/
As for the right to succeed in the articles of confederation there is some mention that lends legal precedance that the states could break away legally.
Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the united States in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the 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.
http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Article13
The Articles of Confederation made no such 'mention' of secession and were superceded by the US Constitution in 1789 as agreed to by the states under Article Xlll of the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution, combined with the ratified Bill of Rights in 1791, and not the Articles of Confederation, was the supreme law in effect when the Civil War broke out.
http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_history.html
In fact part of the acceptance of Texsas into the Union stipulated that they would be allowed to break away from the US if it wanted to.
That is an entirely false statement and a long promoted legend - the actual proviso is that Texas, because of its size, can divide itself into as many as 5 separate states if it so chooses to do so...but there is no mention of secession or any such 'stipulation' for it.
The Civil war was about state vs federal rights ie ballance of power not slavery.
The Civil War proved to be about many things - and slavery was undeniably one of them.
...the issue is still not completly settled today although federal rights are stronger than ever before.
Aren't 'federal rights' our collective rights? :confused:
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
GratefulCitizen
01-05-2011, 20:26
You do. With posts like this one.And that one.
You completely and utterly disregard the contributions those Americans made to their own liberation. You also dehumanize thoroughly Americans who invested themselves in that terrible conflict by arguing that they were dupes of elites. IMO it is highly problematic that you take these positions while you question the motivation of the north and the south.
Hopefully all those people who died before I was born won't hold it against me.
Guess I'm also pretty much assured of never getting tenure in the history department.
You said it all in post #19.
I get it. You're an expert in history.
I don't have much invested in being "correct" in this issue (or many others).
Not planning on taking a multiple-choice exam over it anytime soon.
In all likelyhood, the vast majority of your criticisms and arguments regarding American history are "correct".
(However, IIRC -- TR has a master's in Civil War history, so maybe we can file an appeal.):p
Not trying to stir things up. (too much)
This media has its limitations and your posts, however correct, come across as argumentum ad verecundiam.
I am willing to listen to, and perhaps be convinced of, just about anything.
When facts are presented and the arguments made, they not only educate, but create new thought which may be applicable beyond the original subject.
I am not trying to pick a fight and am sincerely interested in your thoughts and arguments.
Specifically, I am curious as to your thoughts on the implications of the declaration of blockade, how the decision was made, other nations' responses, etc.
The trade issue, tariffs, and the Constitution's prohibition on export tax (as you've mentioned elsewhere) are interesting in their effects at the time.
The implications are interesting to today's world as well.
Does the prohibition on export tax apply to "use taxes" currently being imposed by the states?
What are the implications given the nature of interstate trade with the effects of the internet and companies like UPS?
Is the Constitution indeed outdated given new technology and modern commerce?
The questions and conflicts of the past are pertinent to today.
*************
*************
In a spirit of fun, here is a little snarky argumentum ad verecundiam:
My own education is in mathematics.
Sigaba, I hereby revoke your calculator operating privileges (the partial person reference a few weeks ago).
Further, I declare you incompetent to balance a checkbook.
You may appeal this ruling to bandycpa.
(Just the checkbook part, not the calculator.) :p
This is just too good!
...I'm also pretty much assured of never getting tenure in the history department.
I don't have much invested in being "correct" in this issue (or many others).
Not planning on taking a multiple-choice exam over it anytime soon.
In all likelyhood, the vast majority of your criticisms and arguments regarding American history are "correct", (H)owever, IIRC -- TR has a master's in Civil War history, so maybe we can file an appeal.
Not trying to stir things up. (too much)
This media has its limitations and your posts, however correct, come across as argumentum ad verecundiam.
Does the prohibition on export tax apply to "use taxes" currently being imposed by the states?
What are the implications given the nature of interstate trade with the effects of the internet and companies like UPS?
Is the Constitution indeed outdated given new technology and modern commerce?
The questions and conflicts of the past are pertinent to today.
*************
*************
In a spirit of fun, here is a little snarky argumentum ad verecundiam:
My own education is in mathematics.
Sigaba, I hereby revoke your calculator operating privileges (the partial person reference a few weeks ago).
Further, I declare you incompetent to balance a checkbook.
You may appeal this ruling to bandycpa.
(Just the checkbook part, not the calculator.) :p
I don't have much invested in being "correct" in this issue (or many others).
Pretty good summary - kinda says it all.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
GratefulCitizen
01-05-2011, 21:42
Pretty good summary - kinda says it all.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
The internet is not currently suffering from a shortage of people who are correct.
(Just ask them.)
The internet is not currently suffering from a shortage of people who are correct.
(Just ask them.)
Yet another fine example of cognitive dissonance to add to the list.
Thanks.
Now...back to the topic of the thread.
Richard :munchin
Southern Democrats wanted slaves counted in the census as a full person. Northern abolitionists wanted slaves not counted as all. As a result, the Constitutional Convention came to a compromise: Slaves would be counted as 3/5ths of a person. Had Slaves been counted as 0 persons, slavery in the South would probably have ended prior to the Civil War.
Today, Democrats, Unions, and big corporations want to count illegal immigrants as full persons in the census. Republicans don't want to count them at all. If illegal immigrants are counted as full persons, they will continue to be treated just as slaves were 200 years ago, and modern slavery will continue onwards, because pro-illegal immigrant Democrats will have the votes to continue illegals in America. Count them as zero votes in the census and we'll be closer to eradicating illegal immigrants in America.
Or this....
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-moral-obligation-to-end-illegal-immigration/
Southern Democrats wanted slaves counted in the census as a full person. Northern abolitionists wanted slaves not counted as all. As a result, the Constitutional Convention came to a compromise: Slaves would be counted as 3/5ths of a person. Had Slaves been counted as 0 persons, slavery in the South would probably have ended prior to the Civil War.
There was no great movement in America to abolish slavery in the 1780's, when the Constitutional Convention met. To be sure, there were opponents of slavery, on a philosophical level, but the abolition movement did not appear until the 1830's, when the American Anti-Slavery Society was founded with William Lloyd Garrison writing the organization's nascent statement of principles. Prior to the Convention in 1787, many "Founding Fathers" expressed opinions that condemned slavery.
Slavery is seen in the Constitution in a few key places. The first is in the Enumeration Clause, where representatives are apportioned. Each state is given a number of representatives based on its population - in that population, slaves, called "other persons," are counted as three-fifths of a whole person. This compromise was hard-fought, with Northerners wishing that slaves, legally property, be uncounted, much as mules and horses are uncounted. Southerners, however, well aware of the high proportion of slaves to the total population in their states, wanted them counted as whole persons despite their legal status. The three-fifths number was a ratio used by the Congress in contemporary legislation and was agreed upon with little debate.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html
The law states that the count done in 1980 and every ten years thereafter shall be an actual headcount.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_cens.html
Is History Repeating itself?
So...repeating? Or just continuing? :confused:
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Dozer523
01-05-2011, 23:40
The reduction in cotton exports had dire effects on the north's foreign competitors.
(Of course those nations eventually secured cotton supplies from Egypt and India, bastions or freedom, free from oppression, castes, or anything resembling slavery.)
I have to disagree here. For quite some time I have been baffled by why the South thought they could afford a war with the North. They had to know wars are financially expensive, they had to know that the combined coffers of all the Southern states probably did not match that of the single state of New York (I need to find a cite on that statement). So my question has for a long time been:
How did they intend to pay for this war?
With oil.
The "oil" of the period, was cotton. Before America there was no cotton, cotton did not grow anywhere else. The Southerners thought they could hold the industrial world (or at least the ones who didn't want to wear flax and wouldn't wear silk) hostage. The Civil War was the reason for the cotton industry in Egypt (at the behest of the British who had established a strong presence after the revolution in 1852) and India (which was a British colony). The British could/would not contenence slavery no matter how desperately they needed cotton. Which came as a sad surprise to the Southern financiers.
Not trying to stir things up. (too much)Perhaps. But you are trying to have it both ways. You want your views on the history of this country to be taken seriously but you are unwilling to support your positions when folks who have put in their time studying the subject disagree with you.
You say that you're willing to consider different perspectives, but when presented with those perspectives, you turn to disconnected attempts at snark and retreat into the realm of feigned disinterest and relativism.
In combination, these and other inconsistencies raise questions about your motivation.
I have to disagree here. For quite some time I have been baffled by why the South thought they could afford a war with the North. They had to know wars are financially expensive, they had to know that the combined coffers of all the Southern states probably did not match that of the single state of New York (I need to find a cite on that statement). So my question has for a long time been:
How did they intend to pay for this war?
With oil.
The "oil" of the period, was cotton. Before America there was no cotton, cotton did not grow anywhere else. The Southerners thought they could hold the industrial world (or at least the ones who didn't want to wear flax and wouldn't wear silk) hostage. The Civil War was the reason for the cotton industry in Egypt (at the behest of the British who had established a strong presence after the revolution in 1852) and India (which was a British colony). The British could/would not contenence slavery no matter how desperately they needed cotton. Which came as a sad surprise to the Southern financiers.
The British were hoping we would be at war (North and South), they had established cotton production prior to our markets failing. GB then sold cotton and to a lessor degree wool to both sides.
GB also aided the south with weapons, the french helped us in the north. GB/France made money retiring or at least re-financed their own losses when we took the country in 1776 and 1812.
SC seceeded because of Lincoln's stance on slavery which, as every sane person knows, was correct; it's wrong.
10 states followed suit, and you had your Confederacy, which adopted a strategy of erosion to exhaust the North in its efforts to police the Country.
In '62, Lincoln declared war on the South-an aggressive, all-out war-because the North needed the cotton and other resources.
Lee fucked up at Gettysburg, and the North wound up with much of the stuff it had taken away by the recession.
So, the reason for the initial secession was indeed slavery, but the reason for the war was booty.
Hence, it's named the War of Northern Aggression by every sane human being, which sadly doesn't include you damn Carpebaggers.
RE Post #49
Now we know why all those birds met the Grim Rooster in The Natural State - they overdosed on historical corn pone. :p
http://www.paulgraham.com/cornpone.html
And so it goes...;)
Richard :munchin
RE Post #49
Now we know why all those birds met the Grim Rooster in The Natural State - they overdosed on historical corn pone. :p
http://www.paulgraham.com/cornpone.html
And so it goes...;)
Richard :munchin
You're on the right track.:D
Before America there was no cotton, cotton did not grow anywhere else.
I think there are a few Indians (dot, not feather) and Chinese (and Greeks, Romans, Africans, etc.) that would disagree with that.
http://www.plantcultures.org/plants/cotton_history.html
GratefulCitizen
01-06-2011, 15:39
Perhaps. But you are trying to have it both ways. You want your views on the history of this country to be taken seriously but you are unwilling to support your positions when folks who have put in their time studying the subject disagree with you.
You say that you're willing to consider different perspectives, but when presented with those perspectives, you turn to disconnected attempts at snark and retreat into the realm of feigned disinterest and relativism.
In combination, these and other inconsistencies raise questions about your motivation.
The disconnect here is convergent vs. divergent thinking.
The limitations of this media exacerbate the problem.
I am not concerned with the end conclusions of various arguments and thoughts.
I am interested in the thoughts and arguments which might support a given conclusion, regardless of whether the conclusion is "correct".
Exploring those thoughts and arguments leads to new ideas, sometimes directly related to the original idea, sometimes not.
Making a beeline for the conclusion and deeming it "correct" or "incorrect" stifles the process.
Squaring the circle, doubling the cube, and trisecting an angle are impossible.
Exploring how you might attempt it, if it were possible, leads to new thoughts and ideas.
Concerning my motivations, consider where this thread has gone in the past day.
Consider the new thread Nmap spun off today.
New thoughts and ideas are being explored.
I'm happy with the results.
Your knowledge was most certainly earned.
If you don't want to share it, that is your right.
I'm not making a judgement on convergent thinking or saying it is "incorrect".
Just recognizing that convergent and divergent thinking don't always mesh well.
Most of the MEN that frequent this bulletin board had already distinguished themselves themselves as defenders of this fine Nation before Ezra Kleins parents had even figured out how to stop him from shitting in his pants...
...and somehow I am supposed to consider what this jackass has to say as either as newsworthy or relevant?
He is young enough that he still giggles when he farts in the bathtub; so enjoy your right to free speech that we have provided through judicious application of that silly document that allows your neck to vomit empty thoughts onto the world wide web. Go f##k yourself Ezra...
Oh, by the way, you're welcome
...just my two cents: I could be wrong
Dozer523
01-07-2011, 09:18
I think there are a few Indians (dot, not feather) and Chinese (and Greeks, Romans, Africans, etc.) that would disagree with that.
http://www.plantcultures.org/plants/cotton_history.html Granted yes there was cotton in other places of the world but it was not as good as New World :
"By the 1840s, (mine:20 years was plenty of time) India was no longer capable of supplying the vast quantities of cotton fibers needed by mechanized British factories, while shipping bulky, low-price cotton from India to Britain was time-consuming and expensive. This, coupled with the emergence of American cotton as a superior type (due to the longer, stronger fibers of the two domesticated native American species, Gossypium hirsutum and Gossypium barbadense), encouraged British traders to purchase cotton from plantations in the United States and the Caribbean. By the mid 19th century, "King Cotton" had become the backbone of the southern American economy. In the United States, cultivating and harvesting cotton became the leading occupation of slaves.
During the American Civil War, American cotton exports slumped due to a Union blockade on Southern ports, also because of a strategic decision by the Confederate government to cut exports, hoping to force Britain to recognize the Confederacy or enter the war, (mine, the plan) prompting the main purchasers of cotton, Britain and France to turn to Egyptian cotton. (mine: the unintended consequences) British and French traders invested heavily in cotton plantations and the Egyptian government of Viceroy Isma'il took out substantial loans from European bankers and stock exchanges. After the American Civil War ended in 1865, British and French traders abandoned Egyptian cotton and returned to cheap American exports, sending Egypt into a deficit spiral that led to the country declaring bankruptcy in 1876, a key factor behind Egypt's annexation by the British Empire in 1882. (mine: and another British land grab)
It's wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton
The US South was the major producer of the world's perferred cotton. It was still the major cash crop for the South and it was the linchpin to the finance side of the Southern war strategy.
1stindoor
01-07-2011, 09:25
He is young enough that he still giggles when he farts in the bathtub;
I just choked on a pretzel stick and put coffee through my nose....and yes...I am quite serious. That has to be one of the funniest things I have read
...and I'm stealing it.
I just choked on a pretzel stick and put coffee through my nose....and yes...I am quite serious. That has to be one of the funniest things I have read
...and I'm stealing it.Definitely an early entry for 2011 quote of the year.:cool:
FWIW, before reading any of Billy L-Bach's posts, I make sure all airways are clear.:p
TrapLine
01-07-2011, 09:57
Definitely an early entry for 2011 quote of the year.:cool:
FWIW, before reading any of Billy L-Bach's posts, I make sure all airways are clear.:p
I agree with Sigaba on this. Billy L-bach's posts can be detrimental to keyboards, screens and anyone around who does not like belly laughs. I made it to to the part about the neck and vomiting before I nearly fell out of my chair. It reminded me of one last year about a rock and a life preserver.
More importantly, I agree with his thoughts on Ezra Klein.
A good quote from Learned Hand, a Federal Judge who served in the first half of the last century, that I hope might add to the Constitution conversation:
What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it…
The Constitution is (obviously) important, but it is tough for me to fault Hand's logic and easy for me to bet on men with freedom in their hearts (read QPs) outlasting any document.