After oversight, Mississippi ratifies 13th Amendment

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


It is obvious they resisted and did so at least until the early 1960's. I know of African Americans that recenlty grew up in that State.

Nothing really positive to report.


"They resisted" means they knew it was no longer acceptable and I am not turning a blind eye to some parts that may have retained such acts. What I am saying is, it wasn't legal, regardless of ratification status of Mississippi. People are people and can do deplorable things but your logic isn't following here.




posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


In so far as State sponsorship can you specifically define any agency in the world whose primary responsibility is to enforce slavery laws? In all sincerity unless there is some ancillary investigation
that somehow discovers slavery, because they are looking into something else, it is rarely discovered.

The States decision to not ratify this amendment in a timely manner made possible the 1961 incident

Why do you think otherwise??



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


It is obvious they resisted and did so at least until the early 1960's. I know of African Americans that recenlty grew up in that State.

Nothing really positive to report.


"They resisted" means they knew it was no longer acceptable and I am not turning a blind eye to some parts that may have retained such acts. What I am saying is, it wasn't legal, regardless of ratification status of Mississippi. People are people and can do deplorable things but your logic isn't following here.



It was illegal in theory..... the Governor of that state reserved the right to respond militarily in defense of the right to own slaves.

This being up until 2/7/13.....
edit on 19-2-2013 by Kashai because: added content



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
It was illegal in theory..... the Governor of that state reserved the right to respond militarily in defense of the right to own slaves.

This being up until 2/7/13.....


Shed some light here. Can you direct me in the way of this? Meaning, documentation that specifically implicates the Governor of Mississippi of this?



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


In so far as State sponsorship can you specifically define any agency in the world whose primary responsibility is to enforce slavery laws? In all sincerity unless there is some ancillary investigation
that somehow discovers slavery, because they are looking into something else, it is rarely discovered.

The States decision to not ratify this amendment in a timely manner made possible the 1961 incident

Why do you think otherwise??



That is a sad state and no law will stop those who believe they should be able to hold a slave. They are disgusting people; even heroes of the Founding Fathers (none which are mine) held slaves while proclaiming freedom. Sadly the biggest proponents of our form of Government held slaves; save a few and most notably John Adams held none and even questioned how we could be fighting for such while engaging in such activities.

People are going to break the law. Slavery is abolished and was when the 13th Amendment was ratified, Mississippi withstanding, is regardless of the fact that in the United States of America, under the Constitution and binding provisions of the 5th Article, each state was to adhere to the abolishing of slavery.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Kashai
It was illegal in theory..... the Governor of that state reserved the right to respond militarily in defense of the right to own slaves.

This being up until 2/7/13.....


Shed some light here. Can you direct me in the way of this? Meaning, documentation that specifically implicates the Governor of Mississippi of this?


What I am saying is that in respect to enforcement a State has a right to respond negatively to any Federal Edict, in this case the State by not ratifying the 13th Amendment. Until this year, they literally left the door open, to the possibility of engaging in conflict in support of someone who possessed slaves

edit on 20-2-2013 by Kashai because: modified content



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:30 AM
link   
It is about time.

Michael Moore (I know, I know... sigh) exposed the legal status of slavery in Mississippi when he had that tv programme on FOX some time in the mid '90s or so. And supposedly it is not an "oversight" that slavery was still legal, supposedly it was still legal and viable for a person to sell themselves into slavery to absolve their debt with a creditor, for example.

Yeah right, Mississippi is just like, "Dang y'all, we totally forgot about that whole thing. Cause we colorblind." Ha!



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Kashai
It was illegal in theory..... the Governor of that state reserved the right to respond militarily in defense of the right to own slaves.

This being up until 2/7/13.....


Shed some light here. Can you direct me in the way of this? Meaning, documentation that specifically implicates the Governor of Mississippi of this?


What I am saying is that in respect to enforcement a State has a right to respond negatively to any Federal Edict, in this case the State by not ratifying the 13th Amendment. Until this year, they literally left the door open, to the possibility of engaging in conflict in support of someone who possessed slaves

edit on 20-2-2013 by Kashai because: modified content


So the Governor didn't proclaim this or state it right? You stated that the government of Mississippi explicitly stated such and now you are moving the goal posts saying it was what you were trying to express.....it is disingenuous as best and a flat out lie at worst if you cannot provide the evidence of such.

Until this year, they left nothing open. The State and the People were barred from such activity via the Federal Constitution. Now if the State allowed it, they are implicitly culpable in such actions and the People should seek recourse in the court of law along with Federal actions against the state for violating the Constitution of the United States of America. Such is the way of law.

In an exercise of thought, it would be similar to a State that wasn't in existence denying basic First Amendment rights; because they were not original signatories of the Bill of Rights. Regardless they are still in violation of the Constitution. So any persons held as a slave in Mississippi has strong legal precedence for recourse and will surely win; regardless of the State's argument that they didn't ratify the Amendment.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


I would site States that have made Marijuana legal and the current conflict between the Federal Government in this regard. Mississippi, based upon its relationship to the Federal government may have been obligated, legally to comply with the 13th Amendment. But in relation to the spirit of the law the State maintained a position to contradict the 13th Amendment in earnest.
edit on 19-2-2013 by Kashai because: modified content


States can pass any law they want but they are still bound by the Constitution.

If a State law conflicts with a federal law the federal law trumps it per the Constitution, specifically the Supremacy Clause:

Article VI, Clause 2



This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.



Right you are. States cannot pass laws that violate the Constitution. Now if we can only explain that to states that think they have the authority to infringe on citizens 2nd Amendment rights.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by LazarusTsiyr
 


Yeah, we are certainly racist....How did you find out???? Isn't everyone who you don't know, like or have any knowledge of racist/?? Been to sippi before??? Probably not..We now have indoor plumbing you know. Eat with forks spoons and knives too...And what we hate or prejudiced against isn't skin color here in Mississippi

It is just a mindset of people like you, who judge and do not know

Such a total waste of forum space.




posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Excuse me but this Amendment was passed in 1865 and slaves were found in Mississippi in 1961, could that mean that the law was not enforced? Could it mean that law enforcement in that state did not enforce the law??

Further you speak as if slavery was not still a problem not only in the United States but in the world.

Therein exist the hypocrisy ladies and gentlemen and all I have done is make that obvious.

For the record I spent a week in Mississippi in relation to a project of mine. I had a chance
to meet many different people.

Also, for the record let us not forget what happened in Montgomery Alabama in the middle
1950's where a Governor did everything in his power to intervene.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


If state officials or law enforcement turned a blind-eye then they should be prosecuted. What are you not getting here? It was illegal under the Constitution; not some legislation that a state can resist. It was ratified by at least the 3/5ths majority as defined in Article 5.

People break laws no matter what and it is despicable that people in this state continued such practices but the matter of the fact is, it was in fact illegal regardless if the State of Mississippi ratified the 13th Amendment or not.

Your premise is that since Mississippi didn't ratify it was legal; it wasn't, plain and simple and those that engaged in such practices thereafter are guilty of crimes against not only the Constitution of the United States, but also of the people it victimized. In any case, they have strong precedent to take it to court and win a large sum of money for such actions against them.



new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join