After oversight, Mississippi ratifies 13th Amendment

It’s about time!

The State of Mississippi officially ratified the 13th Amendment, which outlawed slavery … nearly 150 years after most of the states in the union did.

The gross delay, fixed earlier this month, was the result of a clerical error that left unrecorded what many state officials thought was its official ratification nearly 20 years ago.

The Mississippi Legislature had actually formally ratified the historic amendment in 1995, which even then was more than a century late, but because the ratification document was never presented to the U.S. archivist, it was never considered official.

According to The Clarion-Ledger, the bizarre error was discovered by a pair of patriotic Mississippians, who, after seeing the movie "Lincoln," looked up historical accounts of Mississippi's action and brought to the attention of state officials that they had never, in fact, ratified one of the most important documents in modern history.

The 13th Amendment, which outlawed all slavery and involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime, was passed by the U.S. Senate on April 8, 1864, and by the House of Representatives on Jan. 31, 1865.


Read more: www.nydailynews.com...

Source

What is really strange about this is that at the very least and up until 1995 it was legal to own slaves.

But if one if so inclined? They would have to depend upon the State of Mississippi, to defend that right against federal prosecution.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


Personally I don't think it was an oversight. I think it was on purpose. I think Mississippi is a racist state that never ratified it out of protest.

That will definitely go well with my report.

Thank you.

Talk about perfect timing.

I live here, it doesn't surprise me at all.

This state has always been backwards....

reply to post by LazarusTsiyr


It really is a very, very long time to wait

Is today when they ratified it?

Where can I find the actual date?

N/M

Feb.7, 2013

Crafty people running that state. It wasn't really legal if it wasn't done right. I guess some in the legislature back then didn't want to see it go through, whether it be a few of the the legislators or a clerk of some kind.

reply to post by Manhater


I am not sure as to the specific date but as of the date this article was published 2/18/13 I would offer that as of today this issue has not yet been legally resolved.

In other words I do not think the paper work is done yet.

reply to post by Kashai


Looks like it is because when I looked it up it became ratified on Feb. 7th 2013. The article was on the 18th. Thanks for the post.

Originally posted by Kashai
What is really strange about this is that at the very least and up until 1995 it was legal to own slaves.

No it wasn't, even without an official ratification. The Amendment passed the Article V test and was included in the Constitution and via the 10th Amendment and supremacy clauses, Mississippi would have to adhere to it; regardless of ratification status.

Resisting a federal law is much different that resisting a Constitutional Amendment that was ratified. Slavery was abolished and regardless of dissenting states, ratification into the Constitution was complete and each state must comply.

What is really strange about this is that at the very least and up until 1995 it was legal to own slaves.

This isn't actually correct. The amendment still passed whether Mississippi agreed to it or not therefore they are bound to follow it as long as they are still a State in the union.

The second it passed they were obligated to follow it just the same as any other provision in the Constitution.

At that point ratifying it in their State was nothing more than a symbolic gesture. Its kind of easy to see how it could have been simply forgotten about while other more pressing issues came to their legislature's attention.

reply to post by Manhater


Thanks, up until that time is was legal to own slaves in the State of Mississippi.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by Manhater

 

Thanks

, up until that time is was legal to own slaves in the State of Mississippi.

Any thoughts?

How was it legal? Regardless of any law that Mississippi or ratification status, they are Constitutionally bound to adhere to and follow the Federal Constitution barring the 9th and 10th Amendment clauses. The 13th was ratified by a majority and passed Article V muster; they are legally bound to it, as is its citizens.

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.

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 13the Amendment in earnest.

That is legislation, not Constitutional authority. Again, it is a big difference. I support States that stand up against the Federal Government with issues such as recreational drug use citing the 9th and 10th Amendments. Again, it is very big difference.

There are people, cities and States resisting the Federal authority over certain substances but there are none, in particular, claiming prior to the official ratification, of owning a slave in Mississippi.

wow,
does anyone know how the constitution works.

your dumb if you think it was legal to own slaves in mississippi after 1865.

keep on race pimping, race pimps.

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.

By the 1940s, according to records in the National Archives, only rare cases of long-term peonage survived, mostly in rural areas and small towns. That places the Wall family—who say they lived in drafty shacks with grass-filled pallets for beds on white-owned farms until 1961—among a tiny minority. The family's story might not be known at all if it weren't for the work of a New Jersey lawyer, Deadria Farmer-Paellmann. In 2001 she began a national effort to claim reparations from corporations that long ago profited from slavery. She scoured the country for descendants of slaves and learned about the Wall family from Louisiana genealogist Antoinette Harrell. Farmer-Paellmann still marvels that the end of slavery had made no practical difference in their lives, even after the advent of TV and jet travel. "They didn't know blacks were free, that's what's so incredible about their story," says Farmer-Paellmann. "They thought freedom was for whites only."

Mostly out of fear, but also of shame, Mae Miller says she never breathed a word of her family's history, even to her own children, until 2001. Mae's father, Cain Wall Sr., she says, was born into peonage in St. Helena Parish, La. Census records place the date around 1902, though the family says he is even older. Now in frail health and bed-bound, he married when he was 17 (his wife died in 1984) and by the mid-1930s, the family says, was living across the Mississippi border in Gillsburg, working the fields for white families who lived near each other or attended the same church—the Walls (a common name in the region), the McDaniels and, mostly, the Gordons.

While blacks in nearby towns like Liberty, Miss., attended school, owned businesses and protested Jim Crow laws that denied them civil rights, life in the countryside was a very different matter. The Walls had no electricity, phone or radio. Trips to town, to visit relatives, even to church, were forbidden. Once during World War II, according to the family, Cain Sr. escaped from the Gordon farm. Within two hours he was picked up by two white men; they said they were taking him to a military recruiting station in Jackson, but immediately returned him to the farm. The Amite County school district, where Gillsburg sits, records the six oldest children being enrolled in the fall of 1951—but none of them recall going at that time. "I went to school for a little while in the seventh grade, but I was a lot older than all the other students," Mae says. "I couldn't read or write."

The Last Slaves of Mississippi?


Slavery Today

reply to post by Kashai


Yes there are bad people but this story you presented doesn't imply that the State of Mississippi condoned the action of this family. Sadly, it was a long time coming for many parts of rural areas to recognize that they indeed were in violation of the Constitution (not just law, but the binding order of Government).

We can find stories based on many of the newer amendments and even the old, some perpetuated by the very Government that is supposed to be barred from doing so (First, Second, Fourth Amendments come to mind). It still doesn't make it legal nor State sponsored.

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.