How did the Emancipation Clause fall down the memory hole....Conspiracy..?..

Here is the text from the 14th Amendment. With the Emancipation Clause highlighted.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

I believe this is quite obvious. The Congress of 1866 being tired and totally fed up with the Civil War and facing the possibility of a repeat of it dragging out in the Federal and State court systems for the decades following simply washed their hands of the entire mess. The problem I discovered is that it's been forgotten about. I have looked at multiple web pages trying to explain the 14th Amendment and they gloss over the Emancipation Clause. No references to it what so ever.

Wikipedia Quote.

Section 4 confirmed the legitimacy of all public debt appropriated by the Congress. It also confirmed that neither the United States nor any state would pay for the loss of slaves or debts that had been incurred by the Confederacy. For example, during the Civil War several British and French banks had lent large sums of money to the Confederacy to support its war against the Union.[197] In Perry v. United States (1935), the Supreme Court ruled that under Section 4 voiding a United States bond "went beyond the congressional power".[198]

The debt-ceiling crises of 2011 and 2013 raised the question of what is the President's authority under Section 4.[199][200] Some, such as legal scholar Garrett Epps, fiscal expert Bruce Bartlett and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, have argued that a debt ceiling may be unconstitutional and therefore void as long as it interferes with the duty of the government to pay interest on outstanding bonds and to make payments owed to pensioners (that is, Social Security and Railroad Retirement Act recipients).[201][202] Legal analyst Jeffrey Rosen has argued that Section 4 gives the President unilateral authority to raise or ignore the national debt ceiling, and that if challenged the Supreme Court would likely rule in favor of expanded executive power or dismiss the case altogether for lack of standing.[203] Erwin Chemerinsky, professor and dean at University of California, Irvine School of Law, has argued that not even in a "dire financial emergency" could the President raise the debt ceiling as "there is no reasonable way to interpret the Constitution that [allows him to do so]".[204] Jack Balkin, Knight Professor of Constitutional Law at Yale University, opined that like Congress the President is bound by the Fourteenth Amendment, for otherwise, he could violate any part of the amendment at will. Because the President must obey the Section 4 requirement not to put the validity of the public debt into question, Balkin argued that President Obama would have been obliged "to prioritize incoming revenues to pay the public debt, interest on government bonds and any other 'vested' obligations. What falls into the latter category is not entirely clear, but a large number of other government obligations—and certainly payments for future services—would not count and would have to be sacrificed. This might include, for example, Social Security payments."[200]

And it's the same way for all the other web pages I looked at as well.

The Emancipation Clause was supposed to be a 2 way street binding on both SLAVE OWNERS AND SLAVES as well as their descendants. No reparations for slavery.

So I thought I would make a note of it. Also if somebody has a Wikipedia account how about you put in a edit on the Emancipation clause and see how it goes? Then again you might get banned over it.

a reply to: ntech

I'm not for reparations but I don't see where it applies to freed slaves making a claim, it dealt with slave owners making a claim.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The key word is Emancipation. They gave the slave freedom breaking the legal tie between the slave owner and slave. This phrase blocks both sides from making claims on the US or any state over the slavery issue. Or cross claims between the owners and slaves.

The government of 1866 just wanted the legal S*** show from the Civil war to just go away. And the States concurred. Otherwise the slave owners would have sued over the loss of valuable slaves and the slave would have sued over the loss of their freedom and being imported into the US.

Why were there no reparations lawsuits in the late 1800s or early 1900s then while the slaves were alive? You think there would have been shyster lawyers all over the issue back then. A reparations commission to pay the former slaves. Etc etc.

originally posted by: ntech
This phrase blocks both sides from making claims on the US or any state over the slavery issue.

Where? The portion inside the commas is a clarifier of the first part of the sentence which mentions slave owners and slave states as the subjects, not the slaves themselves.

bit of a stretch here...

a reply to: wheresthebody


It says ANY Claim.

or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Word it this way.

or any claim for the emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. That "or" is a big word here.


Reparations are covered by the word "claims" They meant both sides of the equation. If not why wasn't their any reparations claims when the slaves were alive?

Because they were unconstitutional.

originally posted by: ntech
or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Put the front of the sentence back on, you know, the part that contains the subject.

FFS, this is basic English.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus



or any claim for the emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

That "or" is a big word here.

1.
used to link alternatives.
"a cup of tea or coffee"

a reply to: ntech

The sentence fragment needs a subject. Who is the subject?

originally posted by: ntech
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus



or any claim for the emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

That "or" is a big word here.

1.
used to link alternatives.
"a cup of tea or coffee"

That's saying that no slaveowner can sue the government due to a debt, perhaps to a slave trader for a slave they no longer own, due to the slaves emancipation. It doesn't say freed slaves can't sue the government for damages caused because of their slavery before their emancipation.

I guess they just didn't think of that, or it would have been included. LOL

a reply to: ntech
I like the bit, neither the United States or any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Now forget slaves and reparations and think on this, knowing ALL governments like to pull these laws out of the ether for their own ends.
Think about Ashley Babbitts family, so according to this law they cannot sue for "damages" because she was aiding (in their words) an insurrection against the United States.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: ntech

The sentence fragment needs a subject. Who is the subject?

The loss or emancipation of any slave.

And that those debts, obligations, or claims shall be held illegal and void.

originally posted by: ntech
The loss or emancipation of any slave.

No, that part of the sentence is called a subordinating conjunction. Try again.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Subordinating conjunctions
A conjunction is a word, or words, used to connect two clauses together. Words such as: 'although', 'because' or 'when' .

A subordinating clause is a part of a sentence that adds additional information to the main clause. A subordinating conjunction is simply the word/words that is used to join a subordinating clause to another clause or sentence.
"He was annoyed, the train had stopped."
"He was annoyed because the train had stopped."
By adding 'because' we are linking the subordinating clause "the train had stopped" with the main clause "He was annoyed".

A robot monster holding up two words

Then the subject is the Confederacy and it's war debts. And the Slavery issues are conjoined to the Confederacy and it's war debt issues.

originally posted by: ntech
A subordinating clause is a part of a sentence that adds additional information to the main clause.

And the main clause is, wait for it, slave states.

I also believe the reason for the emancipation clause was the experience the US had when they tried out 40 acres and a mule.

Link

I think they realized after the manure was flying they were going to have to refight the civil war. In the courts if not actual battlefields again. And the 5th Amendment would demand that such land be paid for.

Not to mention the KKK of later years probably would have massacred the black land owners.

Don't forget the Tulas race riots of 1921. They weren't ready for Black freemen back then.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Why didn't they?????

a reply to: ntech

I say pay them reparations weekly/biweekly/monthly. Every paycheck in America, every income earned, should have 25% go to reparations, from here on out, as long as America is a country.

What will change?

Absolutely nothing. Except for the drug dealers that will get a boost in sales.

See what happens when you decide to live comfortably, no more back breaking blood, sweat, and tears, no more fending for yourselves, no more tilling the ground and raising animals, no more self reliance, no more independence.

Now you're all reliant on a system of government that controls every aspect of life, you all depend on government to provide you with everything, from water to hygiene to food to healthcare to educating your children to fuel and electric power, you freaking name it, you are a dependent of the government, a member of the welfare nanny state except you pay to be a member.

And there's no going back, the government will always own you, your family, and everything you own. That land someone brags about saying they're "off grid".....owned by the government as well, that property tax isn't to pay for safety and security, it's to remind you that you own nothing and you are willing to pay for nothing.

If you have that little blue card in your wallet or purse, you's a slave and that's your slave identification number.

Or be ignorant and believe other wise, like the majority of the walking dead.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ntech
or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Put the front of the sentence back on, you know, the part that contains the subject.

FFS, this is basic English.

One subject, one sentence.

Unless you’ve got a claim to life certificate.

David Wynn Miller anyone?

Now there’s a dude who will rock your conjunctions.


a reply to: EdisonintheFM