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.
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.
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.
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.....
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??
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?
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
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.