|
Posts:
3,541
From:
Monticello
Registered:
1/15/07
|
|
(1 of 44)
Why weren't slave-owners compensated for the 13th Amendment?
Nov 3, 2009 8:11 AM
|
Whle the Constitution always permitted property to be taken for public use, just compensation was required.
However the 14th Amendment expressly suspended $3 billion in just compensation due the property-owners-- in flagrant violation of the Constitution's promise against Bills of Attainder and Ex Post Facto laws.
The reason is clear: i.e. that the war was about destroying private freedom and property, and that the New Order could do whatever it pleased, under whatever moral excuse and rationalization that served.
However what was the "official" explanation for such a violation of sword good-faith agreement and aanction?
It couldn't even be "forfeiture of treason," since this act neither gave any due legal process, nor absolved the LOYAL states.
Rather, it seemed irrefutable that the new dictatorial government simply acted as it pleased against any unpopular group, regardless of earlier agreements and promises or circumstances-- as later world regimes later followed suit in Russia, Japan, Germany and China.
|
|
|
Posts:
7,583
From:
MD
Registered:
4/25/00
|
|
(2 of 44)
Re: Why weren't slave-owners compensated for the 13th Amendment?
Nov 3, 2009 9:38 AM
|
"However what was the "official" explanation for such a violation of sword good-faith agreement and aanction? "
I'm sure your stay at the top-tier law school was long enough to at least overhear a tried and true axiom viz: A lawyer should NEVER ask a question to which he doesn't already know the answer."
So, brian, you tell us the answer to your question with the usual documentation to support the answer.
--
Brgds,
Pat
|
|
|
Posts:
3,541
From:
Monticello
Registered:
1/15/07
|
|
(3 of 44)
Re: Why weren't slave-owners compensated for the 13th Amendment?
Nov 3, 2009 1:29 PM
|
>>"However what was the "official" explanation for such a violation of sword good-faith agreement and aanction? "
I'm sure your stay at the top-tier law school was long enough to at least overhear a tried and true axiom viz: A lawyer should NEVER ask a question to which he doesn't already know the answer."
I guess not; I learned it directly from F. Lee Bailey-- long before he used it to ambushed Mark Furhman on the witness stand; fortunately for OJ, Macia Clark was too inept to object.
>> So, brian, you tell us the answer to your question with the usual documentation to support the answer.
Oh, I think it'll mean more coming from YOU. Haven't you decided what you want to be when you grow up?
|
|
|
Posts:
1,902
Registered:
11/13/07
|
|
(4 of 44)
Re: Why weren't slave-owners compensated for the 13th Amendment?
Nov 3, 2009 2:58 PM
|
Brian,
Although compensated emancipation was offered to slaveholders before, and during, the Civil War, it was refused.
The issue was settled outside the courts in the chosen venue of the South.
Trial-by-combat.
Unionblue
--
Belief does not make truth.
Evidence makes truth.
And belief does not make evidence.
|
|
|
Posts:
7,583
From:
MD
Registered:
4/25/00
|
|
(5 of 44)
Re: Why weren't slave-owners compensated for the 13th Amendment?
Nov 3, 2009 5:02 PM
|
> >>"However what was the "official" explanation for
> such a violation of sword good-faith agreement and
> aanction? "
> I'm sure your stay at the top-tier law school was
> long enough to at least overhear a tried and true
> axiom viz: A lawyer should NEVER ask a question to
> which he doesn't already know the answer."
>
> I guess not; I learned it directly from F. Lee
> Bailey-- long before he used it to ambushed Mark
> Furhman on the witness stand; fortunately for OJ,
> Macia Clark was too inept to object.
>
>
> >> So, brian, you tell us the answer to your question
> with the usual documentation to support the answer.
>
> Oh, I think it'll mean more coming from YOU. Haven't
> you decided what you want to be when you grow up?
As usual, you have no source other than delusions.
--
Brgds,
Pat
|
|
|
Posts:
6,344
Registered:
2/27/03
|
|
(6 of 44)
Re: Why weren't slave-owners compensated for the 13th Amendment?
Nov 4, 2009 6:19 AM
|
Slaves were not taken for public use. The compensation provision relates to something like the government requisitioning a man's horse. He's entitled to fair market value, Indeed he can go buy another horse with the money if he wants.
What was decided by the 13th Amendment was that a certain class of property should no longer exist. Slaves did not become government property, they ceased to be property at all.
One could make a case for compensated emancipation as a matter of policy, but there was no constitutional requirement for it.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,541
From:
Monticello
Registered:
1/15/07
|
|
(7 of 44)
Re: Why weren't slave-owners compensated for the 13th Amendment?
Nov 4, 2009 7:12 AM
|
> Brian,
>
> Although compensated emancipation was offered to
> slaveholders before, and during, the Civil War, it
> was refused.
And rightfully so: the Constitution requires just compensation, while the fed only offered 40%.
> The issue was settled outside the courts in the
> chosen venue of the South.
> Trial-by-combat.
Unconstitutional. > Brian,
>
> Although compensated emancipation was offered to
> slaveholders before, and during, the Civil War, it
> was refused.
And rightfully so: the Constitution requires just compensation, while the fed only offered 40%.
> The issue was settled outside the courts in the
> chosen venue of the South.
> Trial-by-combat.
Unconstitutional. Letters of Marque cannot apply against US Citizens, while such combat could ONLY apply against US citizens.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,708
Registered:
10/10/99
|
|
(8 of 44)
Re: Why weren't slave-owners compensated for the 13th Amendment?
Nov 4, 2009 7:13 AM
|
I thought there was compensation, albeit not a lot, for those slave owners whose states remained in the Union - Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, etc. 
|
|
|
Posts:
3,541
From:
Monticello
Registered:
1/15/07
|
|
(9 of 44)
Re: Why weren't slave-owners compensated for the 13th Amendment?
Nov 4, 2009 7:17 AM
|
> I thought there was compensation, albeit not a lot,
> for those slave owners whose states remained in the
> Union - Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, etc.
Unjust compensation is NO compensation, according to the the Constitution.
Thus the phrase "property shall NOT be taken for public use without just compensation."
This is why the 14th Amendment said that slave-owners couldn't petition for any slaves, PERIOD.
Essentially the government said "since you didn't accept unjust compensation, you'll get NO compensation."
On what planet is that just? Uranus?
|
|
|
Posts:
3,541
From:
Monticello
Registered:
1/15/07
|
|
(10 of 44)
Re: Why weren't slave-owners compensated for the 13th Amendment?
Nov 4, 2009 7:31 AM
|
> Slaves were not taken for public use.
Legally, they were, since they were taken by the fed.
They weren't GIVEN as donations.
Likewise, the Constiution strictly guarantees against Bills of Attainder AND ex post facto laws.
This means that People of the states have the guaratnteed right to the value of their property, as well as fair warning of what's contraband and what isn't.
Slaves were NOT contraband.
> The
> compensation provision relates to something like the
> government requisitioning a man's horse.
Or land, or anything else. It means the owner doesn't have it anymore, REGARDLESS of what the fed does with it-- it's all the same to the owner, being out the property and its corresponding dollar-value.
> He's
> entitled to fair market value, Indeed he can go buy
> another horse with the money if he wants.
>
> What was decided by the 13th Amendment was that a
> certain class of property should no longer exist.
> Slaves did not become government property, they
> y ceased to be property at all.
> One could make a case for compensated emancipation as
> a matter of policy, but there was no constitutional
> requirement for it.
They were CONVERTED to non-property-- however conversion is STILL taking, under Common Law definition.
"Conversion" is defined under Common Law as Intentionally:
1. Dispossessing another of a chattel
2. Destroying or altering a chattel
3. Disposing of a chattel
4. Receiving a chattel
5. Using a chattel
6. Misdelivering a chattel
7. Refusing to surrender a chattel.
OBVIOUSLY, emancipation of chattel slaves, qualifies.
|
|
|
Posts:
965
From:
Virginia/Maryland
Registered:
12/10/07
|
|
(11 of 44)
Re: Why weren't slave-owners compensated for the 13th Amendment?
Nov 4, 2009 7:49 AM
|
|
Lincoln had already been allowed to trash the US Constitution in so many other ways, why would the US care about one more Constitutional violation?
|
|
|
Posts:
6,344
Registered:
2/27/03
|
|
(12 of 44)
Re: Why weren't slave-owners compensated for the 13th Amendment?
Nov 4, 2009 7:57 AM
|
Here's some constitutional law for you - an amendment, once adopted, IS the Constitution, and pre-existing provisions are null and void to the extent that they conflict with it.
For example, the 12th, 16th, and 17th Amendments invalidated previously existing provisions of the Constitution. In this respect the 13th was less radical since it was limited to a single case of property and did not affect the public use provision, which remains operative.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,541
From:
Monticello
Registered:
1/15/07
|
|
(13 of 44)
Re: Why weren't slave-owners compensated for the 13th Amendment?
Nov 4, 2009 8:10 AM
|
It depends on how you view the Constitution.
If you view it as a compact between sovereign states, then yes, it had been thoroughly abrogated to a token pretext, adding insult to injury.
If you mean as a constitution of a single sovereign state, then you really can't "trash" it, since such is merely a tool of the sovereign.
So which is it?
|
|
|
Posts:
7,583
From:
MD
Registered:
4/25/00
|
|
(14 of 44)
Re: Why weren't slave-owners compensated for the 13th Amendment?
Nov 4, 2009 8:17 AM
|
> I thought there was compensation, albeit not a lot,
> for those slave owners whose states remained in the
> Union - Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, etc.
There was in Washington DC. Kentucky and Deleware freed the slaves with the 13th Amendment Not sure of of MD and MO.
--
Brgds,
Pat
|
|
|
Posts:
3,541
From:
Monticello
Registered:
1/15/07
|
|
(15 of 44)
Re: Why weren't slave-owners compensated for the 13th Amendment?
Nov 4, 2009 8:24 AM
|
> Here's some constitutional law for you - an
> amendment, once adopted, IS the Constitution, and
> pre-existing provisions are null and void to the
> extent that they conflict with it.
Only after the fact, not to the voiding of prior agreements. The amendment didn't nullify the right to Due Process, which requires "Fair Warning;" no Bills of Attainder, and no Ex Post Facto Laws. So the amendment could only apply to emancipated slaves which were purchased after the passage of the 14th Amendment.
> For example, the 12th, 16th, and 17th Amendments
> invalidated previously existing provisions of the
> Constitution.
But not retroactively. For example, the 16th Amendment did not permit collection of taxes on private income dating back to 1787.
However, the 14th Amendment voided just compensation for slaves purchased on or after that date-- which voided all Due Process rights.
> In this respect the 13th was less
> radical since it was limited to a single case of
> property and did not affect the public use provision,
> which remains operative.
Not if applied penumbrally as a valid precedent or "color--" or however else the court construes it, like it has in the past: despotism is a sword which always cuts both ways.
|
|
|
|
|
