It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 3
17
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2021 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ntech

Lets try this one more time:

Context: We have just suffered through years of civil war and the rebel traitors borrowed money to wage war against the Union. As one of the results of that war, human beings that have been held in bondage and treated and traded as cattle have been freed.


But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred


That is: the following kinds of debts shall not be paid


in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States,


So: if you lent the rebel traitors money, that is your bad luck. You bet on the wrong horse and you aren't getting paid.


or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave;


Normally, you might expect to get reimbursed for Government action that results in loss of cattle or pigs, or confiscation of property, but human beings are NOT cattle or pigs or property. The Government is not going to reimburse you for no longer being permitted to treat human beings as animals.


but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.


The upshot is: , if you were a lender to the traitors, or a slave holder, go suck on an egg. You lose.

The relevance to current events is: nothing in this amendment has anything to do with former slaves claiming compensation for 300 years (or whatever) of enslavement. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zip.

That question is, and always has been a political issue. Ever since emancipation, the traitor states and the former slave holders and their ideological successors have ensured that the former slaves and their descendants were too busy dealing with intimidation, fear, Jim Crow, segregation, etc to consider claiming for back pay.


edit on 14/7/2021 by rnaa because: tidying up


edit on 14/7/2021 by rnaa because: further point making


edit on 14/7/2021 by rnaa because: spelling



posted on Jul, 17 2021 @ 11:45 AM
link   
You are ignoring the historical record. No reparations claims during the time the former slaves were alive. Plus this was passed by the 1866 to 1869 Congress and states of the time. Also I think the 40 acres and a mule debacle caused a terrible backlash. So Congress realizing they needed to get out in front of the reparations issues that threatened to cause multiple problems and refighting the Civil war in the courts system pushed through the various bans on Confederate issues.

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.

The emancipation clause applies to any claim arising from the loss of any slave. AND any claim arising from the emancipation of any slave.

This clause specifically covers any claim arising from slavery. From all sides of the issue. And this is why there was no reparations claims after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. They were and still are illegal.
edit on 17-7-2021 by ntech because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2021 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I disagree with reparations for something that happened over a hundred years ago.

My high school back 70's had slave day, where students were auctioned off and had wear "chains" made out of red and green art paper and do stuff like carry the books and stuff of the students who bought them. Can I get reparations for being sold as a slave in high school too? /sarc
edit on 17-7-2021 by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2021 @ 10:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: ntech

The emancipation clause applies to any claim arising from the loss of any slave.

Correct



AND any claim arising from the emancipation of any slave.

This clause specifically covers any claim arising from slavery. From all sides of the issue.

Wrong



posted on Jul, 18 2021 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

So you don't really comprehend what you're defending here. Let me enlighten you.

Meet Mr. Joe Blow. A 40 year old slave from 1865. Mr Blow as a former slave was bull whipped several times for his escape attempts and finally had a foot amputated as a punishment and deterrent to do it ever again. Then in 1864 his part of South Carolina was liberated by the Union. And he was freed. And he was part of the 40 acres and a mule reparations of 1865.

BUT.

At the end of 1865 President Johnson cancelled the 40 acres and a mule program and that land reverted back to it's actual owners. Former slave owners. Is he ANGRY? Of course he is. So why didn't Mr. Blow and the thousands of other wronged slaves sue for reparations? Where's the history where the KKK formed militias and attacked the black settlements and committed genocide on the former slaves because their land was being stolen by the Federal government and given away as reparations?

There isn't any. The issue of slavery reparations goes dark. The deal was in exchange for emancipation all claims arising from the slavery issue were voided on all sides of the issue. Otherwise hoards of angry slaves would have filled the court system with reparations claims for decades after the civil war.

Your position is nonsensical and grasping at straws. So prove me wrong with facts and documents stating otherwise from the 1800s. Otherwise you have nothing.

edit on 18-7-2021 by ntech because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2021 @ 02:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: ntech
So prove me wrong with facts and documents stating otherwise from the 1800s.




I have satisfied your "demand" already in my commentary on the actual wording of the amendment above.

But I'll repeat it for you:

Here's the relevant text from the 14th amendment again:

DOCUMENT EXTRACT (from the 1800's

4. 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.


FACT: It says in PLAIN ENGLISH that neither the US nor the States will pay any DEBT arising from insurrection or rebellion, nor any CLAIM arising for the LOSS OR EMANCIPATION of any slave.

FACT: It does NOT SAY ONE WORD about claims for 'back pay' or 'reparations' for being held in bondage. The former slaves were not in debt from insurrection or rebellion, nor had they suffered the LOSS or EMANCIPATION of slaves. They had NOT paid money to be treated like animals - it was the owners that paid money so they could treat fellow humans as animals.

FACT: It was the OWNERS that had a monetary interest in the ownership of human beings. The 15th Amendment DENIES them compensation for the loss of that monetary interest.

FACT: The amendment had nothing to do with Sherman's field orders, they had already been dealt with 5 years before the amendment was passed. Sherman had to deal with ten's of thousands of starving refugees and he did so by giving them the power to farm the occupied lands so they could feed themselves. These were important measures during a Military Occupation by Military Commanders in the field.

FACT: POLITICIANS debated how the Traitor States would be re-integrated into the Union for years before the war ended. Various plans were put forth, started, cancelled, reversed, and worked around half-heartedly. Yes, land being worked by the former slaves under Military Occupation was taken back, and returned to the previous owners. BUT this took place well before the 15th Amendment.

FACT: The war ended in 1865. The amendment was passed in 1889.

FURTHER READING: HARPWEEK: Harper's Weekly on the Creation of the 14th amendment - Section Four: Confederate Debt
(Contains 1860's references in Harper's Weekly to Congressional debates on early proposals for the 14th amendment)

Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment dealt with the public debt, especially as related to the Civil War. The first part of the section declared that the public debt of the United States, including pensions made to Union veterans, could not be questioned. The second part prevented the federal and state governments from taking on and paying Confederate debt, including claims made by former slaveowners for the lost property value in slaves due to the abolition of slavery.


FACT: The Congressional Debates on the 14th Amendment took place between 30 April 1866 and 13 June 1866
Congressi onal Debates of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution

FACT: On page 10 of the above linked document is presented an early draft of the proposed amendment from the May 23 session. Notice the different wording of section 4:

Sec. 4. Neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation already incurred, or which may hereafter be incurred, in aid of insurrection or of war against the United States, or any claim for compensation for loss of involuntary service or labor.


Are you honestly proposing that the freed slaves might wish to make a claim for "loss of involuntary service or labor"? Who is actually the 'target' in this statement.

FACT: Page 21 May 24

The financial danger, so far as it depends upon an assumption or payment of the rebel debt or compensation for emancipated slaves, is properly guarded against in the fourth section of the report. ...


Notice the wording "compensation for emancipated slaves" NOT "compensation to emancipated slaves"

FACT: Page 37 May 24

The President... wishes the confederate debt and claims for emancipated slaves repudiated.


Notice the wording again 'for' NOT 'to'

I could go on (and on and on and on) but this horse has been well and truly beaten.

edit on 23/7/2021 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

edit on 23/7/2021 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2021 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Congressi onal Debates of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution

After the Senate has run the Amendment proposed by the House of Representatives through the meat grinder of committees, debate, amendment, debate, amendment... and finally voted on the final wording, the proposed amendment is to be voted on by the Senate for final approval. (It would then go back to the House for reapproval).





SPEECH OF HON. T. O. HOWE,of WISCONSIN,
IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE,
June 5 and 6, 1866.



Mr. HOWE said:
Mr. PRESIDENT: At some time during this debate I purposed to state to the Senate my apology for the vote I am going to give. Perhaps the Senate would as lief listen to it this afternoon, or at least as lief allow me to state it this afternoon as at any time.

I am going to vote for the constitutional amendment now pending....


At great length the Senator describes why he is voting for it, even though it is not all that he would have liked, and then this...



...
But again, we propose to declare that the obligations of the United States incurred in suppressing this rebellion shall be met as honest men meet all their obligations. I will not argue that proposition to the Senate. I do not know that it is likely to be opposed. We propose to say, furthermore, that the debt which has been incurred in the effort to overthrow the Government of the United States shall not be paid; nor shall the United States ever be taxed to pay the value of the slaves we have made free, and were compelled to make free, to save the life of the nation.


Senator Howe makes the meaning of the provision in Section 4 absolutely clear and beyond doubt: tax dollars will NOT be spent to pay the value of the slaves we have made free.

The 14th Amendment is simply and wholly silent on the subject of compensation TO former slaves (and their descendants).

ANY SUCH proposal is 100% wholly in the realm of the Political Will of "We The People", NOT the Constitution.
edit on 23/7/2021 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

edit on 23/7/2021 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

edit on 23/7/2021 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2021 @ 05:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: ntech
No reparations claims during the time the former slaves were alive.


None as in zero? You sure?



posted on Jul, 23 2021 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

Reply to self.



FACT: The war ended in 1865. The amendment was passed in 1889.


Correction: The war ended in 1865. The amendment was ratified in 1868.



posted on Jul, 24 2021 @ 12:41 AM
link   
It really doesn't matter anymore here because I sent several letters to members of Congress and they are aware of my concerns. And they are looking into the matter now.

But yeah. No records of reparations lawsuits or reparations after the civil war. It's apparent everyone treated it as a ban on reparation lawsuits. And it just slid down the memory hole as the civil war generation and the one following it aged and died.



posted on Jul, 24 2021 @ 06:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: ntech
It really doesn't matter anymore here because I sent several letters to members of Congress and they are aware of my concerns. And they are looking into the matter now.


LOL. Sure they are.



posted on Jul, 25 2021 @ 02:27 PM
link   
The emancipation clause says any and it says all. But it's quite obvious the intent of Congress meant to corral any claims over slavery and make them all illegal.

But this is far beyond any discussion board now. And to any and all lawyers tied up in future lawsuits over this issue I can say only one thing to you.

Your welcome. Now go get those billable hours. And make a name for yourself. A 14th amendment clause that's never been in a courtroom. Enjoy.

And to those on the nay side of this issue. You should probably notify your Congressmen about this issue. Before they get blindsided by it when they hold congressional hearings over H. R. 40.

Dear Larry,

Thank you for reaching out and contacting me about H.R. 40, the Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans Act.

This bill creates the Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans. The commission would examine slavery and discrimination in the United States colonies from the year 1619 to the year 2021 and would then recommend appropriate remedies. While examining, the commission would identify the federal and state government’s role in supporting the institution of slavery, forms of discrimination in the public and private sector against both freed enslaved people and their descendants, and the lingering negative effects of slavery on living African Americans and society.

I appreciate you writing to me about your thoughts and findings. My faith teaches me that everyone should be treated equally and with respect, after all, we are government together. H.R. 40 is currently in the House Committee on Judiciary. Should it come before Congress I will keep your thoughts and comments in mind.

Again, thanks for contacting my office. Your voice and comments are very important to me.

edit on 25-7-2021 by ntech because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2021 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ntech

Hey cool!

I got a reply letter almost the same as that when I wrote to my congressman to suggest that the US should propose that the United Nations temporarily take over the Suez Canal back in 1972 - just until Israel and Egypt get back on track. It would have served two ends, reopen the canal to international trade, and separate the warring sides. I thought it was a great idea. My Congressman assured me that the Suez Canal was very important, he was working hard on the very difficult problem, and would keep my suggestion in mind.

I especially like the artful way the letters you get from Congresscritters make you feel like you have their interest, all the while saying absolutely nothing at all.



posted on Jul, 27 2021 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: ntech

Looks like they took you super seriously.




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join