Party of Citizens wrote:
>
> Can anyone confirm what one discussant on our BCPOLITICS list said last
> year...That slavery in the US is not illegal, even today?
The 14th amendment does outlaw both slavery and peony. What they may
claim is that this only applies on federal property, which is untrue,
since the 14th specifically compells the states to comply with the Bill
of Rights for all US citizens. The original Emancipation Proclaimation
only freed the slaves within the states that seceded. Those in states
that remained in the Union were never freed by this proclaimation, but
only when the 14th Amendment was enacted and ratified.
Now, there is some debate about the ratification of the 14th Amendment.
For example, the rebel states were only allowed back into the union if
they ratified the as yet unratified 14th amendment (i.e. the union
didn't have 2/3 of the states ratify the amendment by that point), so
they essentially forced its ratification upon the people of the south if
they wanted to regain their own rights of representation. It can be
said, therefore, that as this is a contract signed under threat of
force, it has no legal weight.
Another point of contention is that there is a significant difference of
sovereignty of a natural citizen versus a person naturalized under the
14th Amendment, where a natural citizen posesses their rights as a
default, with the Constitution recognizing their preexisting rights,
while those that gained their rights under the 14th amendment were only
given their rights by the government, that they did not posess them
originally, naturally. I personally don't buy this, but it is, in fact,
how the 14th amendment was written that is the problem. Rather than
admit that the blacks posessed rights all along on a natural basis (and
therefore making whites at fault for their abrogation), the feds
smoothed it over by 'giving' black slaves their 'rights', as if the
federal government even has the power to do so, which propagates the
claims of white supremacists that blacks did not posess their rights
naturally.
> POC
>
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2001, Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> > > Olga writes
> > >>>> Remember - whites profited from UNPAID slave
> > >>>> labor for hundreds of years. When a tourist
> > >>>> goes to visit the White House, it is rarely
> > >>>> mentioned - if at all - that it was built
> > >>>> with unpaid slave labor. How shameful - both
> > >>>> this historic fact, and the fact that not
> > >>>> many people are aware of this.
> >
> > :-) This is getting comical, the miscommunication,
> > I mean! Get a load of the following:
> >
> > Okay, so I responded to the above with
> >
> > >> You are quite wrong. I don't think I've ever
> > >> met anyone so ignorant of history as to be
> > >> unaware of slavery.
> >
> > and first off, someone took this to mean that I
> > denied that slavery was implemented by white people,
> > or that I was defending it, or that I myself denied
> > that it existed. Good grief.
> >
> > Now Olga comes back with
> >
> > > You never met anyone so ignorant of history?
> > > Moi?
> >
> > Oh no! Even though *she* was the one to bring up
> > the evils of slavery, she thinks that **I** am
> > talking about *her*!? Wow! When, of course,
> > I was merely responding to
> >
> > >>>> and the fact that not many
> > >>>> people are aware of this.
> >
> > (because, of course, everyone does know this, i.e.,
> > that "whites profited from UNPAID slave labor
> > for hundreds of years"). Duh! Well what does
> > slavery mean? (Gee! I hope that that isn't
> > misunderstood too!) For the last #!*%$ time,
> > the quoted phrase is %100 percent true (not that
> > it was Olga who was doubting that I knew it, but
> > I just have to protect myself from the 800 lurkers
> > on this list).
> >
> > You think I'm exaggerating? No! She really
> > concluded from the above, that I was saying that
> > she was ignorant of the history (of course
> > that makes zero sense, since it was she who
> > described all that about who built the White
> > House, etc.).
> >
> > She continues
> >
> > > Lee, dearest, do you remember just a
> > > couple of days ago, when you were telling
> > > me that "It really would be best for all
> > > concerned to avoid personal references
> > > like this.
> >
> > Olga, can you believe that I wasn't, really,
> > really, really, wasn't referring to you???
> >
> > > You also wrote about the importance of
> > > "confin[ing] oneself to careful argument."
> > >
> > > And you didn't do that, either. Dear,
> > > oh dear - what am I going to do with you?
> >
> > Ah, but I did. You (for some unknown reason
> > took personally what clearly did not apply to
> > you).
> >
> > >You wrote:
> >
> > >> It's usually put forth as the reason that the
> > >> Civil War was fought, "to free the slaves".
> > >> Abraham Lincoln is probably best known "for
> > >> freeing the slaves." Okay :-) maybe you
> > >> didn't hear this growing up because you
> > >> weren't here.
> >
> > What I meant, was literal (as usual). Namely
> > that although you undoubtedly learned the
> > historical facts a long time ago (or have done
> > a very good job recently), you perhaps didn't
> > understand that everyone learns about Abraham
> > Lincoln in elementary school here. And in
> > middle school. And in high school.
> >
> > You probably thought that this was yet another
> > slam: that I was implying (I am not) that you
> > simply didn't know about this period.
> >
> > >>> If Thomas Sowell says that racism doesn't exist in the U.S.,
> > >>> he's lying ... if that's what he says ...).
> > >
> > >> By no means does he say such a thing!
> > >
> > > Lee, I didn't say Sowell says such a thing.
> >
> > But it's customary to clear any innocent third
> > party's name in these discussions. To make it
> > **perfectly** clear to any other reader the
> > true nature of some prominent person's views.
> >
> > > That's why I wrote the word
> > > "IF" up there a couple of times.
> >
> > Don't be so sensitive. Again, you were reading
> > implications where they did not belong. I know
> > exactly what "IF" means. (Maybe I should have
> > said, "For your information, Thomas Sowell...
> > etc.") But no, there is a way to mis-read that
> > too. I give up.
> >
> > Lee
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:58 MDT