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

originally posted by: Dalamax
One subject, one sentence.

Some people just don't know basic sentence structure. What can you do....

I heard they don’t teach it to kids anymore 🙄

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Would that debt not be on those who had slaves, in the confederacy, which means can't be collected on?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Would that debt not be on those who had slaves, in the confederacy, which means can't be collected on?

That's what I said, but that's not what the Original Poster said.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
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.

That's because ya don't read anything after an "and"

a reply to: Dalamax



There IS always an exception to the rule.

That is NOT the "Emancipation" clause' - it is the "Compensation for the Emancipation of Slaves" clause and it forbids slave owners from being compensated for the loss of slaves.

The operative sentence is:

[N]either the United States nor any State shall assume or pay . . . any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave.

And you can be assured that NO SLAVE OWNER WAS COMPENSATED when the slaves they held sway over were freed. There are no former slave owners alive who might be tempted to file a claim for compensation so that answers your question about why it has not been receiving much attention for the last 50 years or more. It is basically irrelevant.

FYI: The ACTUAL Slavery "Emancipation" clause is in the 13th Amendment and reads thusly:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

originally posted by: crayzeed
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.

Yes.

That clause forbade the Feds and the States both for repaying loans granted to the traitors by foreign governments and banks. The Traitor States did raise war funds via loans. This clause tells the lenders to F-off, we are not going to allow you to profit off trying to destroy our country.

Babbitts family will not win compensation from any government at any level, but this clause doesn't really apply. They aren't trying to be compensated for credit card charges she incurred buying plane tickets to get to D.C. for the insurrection (even if it is officially and legally termed an insurrection).

They are claiming wrongful death of an "innocent bystander" (more or less) and/or "excessive force". She was not an innocent bystander, and the security personnel did not use 'excessive force'. The security personnel defending the chamber were being attacked with intent, lethal weapons, and superior forces. She refused to obey lawful orders to disperse, continued to physically attack the chamber. She paid the ultimate price for her, and her 'comrades' absolute stupidity.

The family, as sympathetic as I am to their loss, will not win their lawsuit over her death, unless they can find someone among the insurrectionists and their co-conspirators to sue 'properly'.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Actually I believe the sentence is quite clear.

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.


If they intended for this clause to apply only to slave owners then this part was unnecessary (or emancipation). By adding these 2 words their intention was quite plain. They wanted the entire issue of slavery to go away and it did.

If this didn't apply to the slaves then where are the lawsuits for reparations in the 50 years following the Civil War? I say the reason there are none is because everyone knew at the time it was made unconstitutional to ask for reparations.

Also mentioning the memory hole it appears that there was a determined effort to put the racism of the 19th and 20th centuries behind us by simply forgetting it. Deleting and erasing history. The Tulsa riots I mentioned earlier were subjected to a effort to make it go away and it was mostly successful until recently. At least until woke liberals decided to dredge it up.

But I still say reparations claims over the slavery issue is covered here and are unconstitutional. And seriously do you really think the Congress of 1866 meant it any other way? They saw the debacle of 40 acres and a mule. And they knew slavery issues would be a cancer that would keep on giving unless it was dealt with decisively.

a reply to: ntech

How could be unconstitutional when the United States gave reparations to the Japanese and the Native Americans?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Pretty obvious. The Japanese and American Indians were not slaves in 1865. Therefore they were not emancipated.

originally posted by: ntech
If they intended for this clause to apply only to slave owners then this part was unnecessary (or emancipation). By adding these 2 words their intention was quite plain. They wanted the entire issue of slavery to go away and it did.

Because freed slaves were fighting for the Union and if they were 'lost', i.e. killed, the Confederacy couldn't be compensated. So, 'loss or emancipation' had a practical application then.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

On both sides of the issue. Slave owners and slaves. There's a dual intention here.

originally posted by: ntech
On both sides of the issue. Slave owners and slaves. There's a dual intention here.

No, because, once again, the subject is slave states.

I'm not surprised the emancipation clause of the 14th has been memory holed. Before that happened the entire 9th and 10th were ignored. In favor of federal expansionism the 9th and 10th were conveniently ignored in favor of the interstate commerce clause. Which has been used to justify all forms of federal abuse of states and individuals sovereignty.

The argument that all rights not enumerated in the constitution specifically belong to the people and the states accordingly has been usurped by the feds as meaning anything not clearly forbidden them by the constitution must be allowed as long as you can argue that it regulates interstate commerce.


Bahahaha. If our founding fathers were alive today seeing us spending paper notes from a federal reserve instead of species from the mint, they would be at arms well before ever hearing about standing armies under federal control for longer than 2 years and multiple federal police agencies to include DHS and the fbi.

There is a reason civics is either ignored or outright lies are taught to our children regarding our founding documents.

I used to get so upset about all of this but I learned one simple phrase that helps a little, and has been true longer than I have been alive.

Our constitutional republic is dead! Long live the republic!

Once you truely understand the concept this one simple phrase relates, I hope it will help you find peace with your surroundings and maybe add a little clarity of purpose to your deeds.

Sure it is borrowed, but no less true than when something similar was first uttered en-mass by those who refuse to grieve for that which can not be destroyed so long as it lives on in us.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Then we'll have to agree to disagree. But. I say you are grasping at nonexistent grammatical straws there. The history of the 50 years following the Civil war and the passage of the 14th Amendment disagrees with you. Why were there no reparations lawsuits after it's passage? You don't think shyster lawyers would leave that kind of money on the table do you? Why wasn't the Civil war refought in the courts system? Where's the major reparations awards?

I say your prejudices are blinding you to the truth. Prove me wrong.

originally posted by: ntech
I say you are grasping at nonexistent grammatical straws there.

LOL, you're the one posting sentence fragments to try and make a point.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

But you never answered my questions.

a reply to: ntech

They have nothing to do with your chopping up sentences.

I sent the following to several congressmen. I'll let you know their responses.

Several weeks ago it was in the news that the Democrats are making another push for reparations for slavery. Remembering a touch of history I went and took a look at the history of reparations in the US since the Civil War and found a amazing void on the issue. It looks like there was an experiment with it with the 40 acres and a mule fiasco in 1865 with President Johnson at the time cancelling it and voiding it out. Then nothing until well into the 20th century. Extremely mysterious since I would suspect that there would have been multiple lawsuits and most likely a commission of some kind to deal with the issue. So having a thought I looked at the Constitutional Amendments from that time and found the Emancipation Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Quote.
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.

From all the circumstantial evidence I found so far this clause appears to do among it's multiple functions is it voids all reparation claims when it comes to the slavery issue. Both slave owners and slaves.

So what I want to do is verify this. Are their any documents from the 1865-1869 range that verifies this in some dusty old government archive somewhere. And if true we really need to stop the Democrats before they start committing major felonies here. The clawbacks would be a witch don'tcha know.