What would you do - 200 years ago

[bellesotico]

Re: what would you do

So yes, many if not most of the slaves were first sold by members of their own race. From all over Africa. I know that some Americans
are not comfortable with that thought, but it happens to be true.

d

Totally true. One other thing..it's estimated that about 1/4 of the Africans sold into slavery actually reached the U.S.

 

[pickup]

Re: what would you do

Solidarity , about that book "how the irish became white" . I never read the book but I heard a one hour interview with the author over the radio in the late 90s when the book came out. He mentioned that even in post bellum america with freed slaves coming up north , that there were advertisements for workers in newspapers that said something like :

Job- ditch digger,
Pay

whites- 40 cents an hour

blacks 28 cents an hour

irish 25 cents an hour

I might be off on the actual wages and the actual disparities, but the disparities did exist. The irish were treated in many of the same ways as blacks with obviously quite a few exceptions such as not working as a slave on a plantation.

I took the following off another web site to dovetail with what I am saying


Umm the signs Irish Need Not Apply are actually referred to as INNA as in I-rish N-eed N-ot A-pply ....and the signs were EVERYWHERE far beyond any "television" program. I look at it yes of course as racism but also symbolic of how far we the irish have come.
For a more current viewpoint on "NINA", have a look here:
bostonmagazine.com
There are also several "pro" and "con" websites on the subject, but when you see the likes of a popular American Saturday evening television programme spouting this rhetoric in many of its "backstage scenes" (yes, SNL has had a "NINA" sign hanging backstage for well over 20 years), I'd think it safe to say that "NINA" is more than just mere "urban legend"...
Answer
It was regularly seen in England too. At boarding houses, where labourers would stay, you'd commonly find signs like:
No Blacks No Dogs No Irish
Just went to show that bigotry is bigotry, and it is stupid no matter where it is found.
Answer
No Irish need apply is NOT an urban legend.
In the 1800's when Irish immigrants took up whole neighbourhoods in New York City, many business owners put up "No Irish need apply" signs up. Many business owners did not want Irish to apply, especially in New York City, because of the reputation they had as drinking loud mouths. Irish were also seen as dirty and disease ridden and it was a common belief that the potato blithe in the Great Potato Famine could be passed through humans and was a disease.
Also stories have been told that New York City newsboys often fought with each other and Italian and Jewish immigrants would scream "No Irish need apply" in teasing to the Irish boys.
Answer
Theres an english pub in the Baleric islands which has a no dogs no irish sign outside its door.

 

[pickup]

Re: what would you do

You know , I learned a lot about robert e lee from dannyboy's postings. Good stuff. However, a song kept going through my head when the name of lee and virginia was mentioned. and I tracked it down. It turns out that a man by the name of Richard Henry Lee was the grand uncle of Robert E. Lee and he introduced, as a virginia rep of the second continental congress, the resolution for independency of the colonies from the english crown. Now, mind you, it was done by him because it wouldn't have gotten a hearing if it were introduced by anyone from the northern states.

this clip is from the film musical 1776. Lots of good songs and dialogue. I remember one fourth of july when I was I kid. I wanted to blow some fireworks off that day but it was raining cats and dogs. So at about 7 o clock that night, I was stuck inside flipping through the 7 channels of televison ( well, maybe 6, pbs didn't count for me when I was that age). I came across this movie from the start and was dreading watching it but there was nothing else to do and nothing else on. I thoroughly enjoyed it and throughout the years, found that many events and issues talked about in the movie were true.
I rewatched the movie at a much later date and took notes and researched the historical accuracies. Now mind you, I don't think the final vote was as dramatic as it was and while they used facts, the writers of the film did mix up their timelines of when these facts occurred in order to make the story telling tighter.

Well July 4th is coming around again. If it happens to be raining where you are on that day, I suggest you get your hands on it. If you like musicals, all the better but even if you don't ,if you are a fan of american history, the words in most of the songs present the issues that were going on at the time. Well acted and well written and well done.

Here is the clip, right after John Adams is telling Benjamin Franklin that he can't introduce a resolution for independency because the congress will vote against it because it was introduced by the most hated man in congress,himself. Franklin then tells him what if someone else did it and then introduces his "wild card " to adams.

Anyway enjoy or ignore: Richard henry lee portrayed by sexyupsman:

[video=youtube;I2Tiar8FqXU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2Tiar8FqXU&feature=related[/video]

I guess after you watch this video, you could understand the connection of the Lees and virginia and why robert e lee fought on the side of the confederacy when virginia joined it.

 

[Solidarity413]

Re: what would you do

Yeah pickup, sounds about right. I studied the sociology of race,ethnicity, and work while in college. Noel in later in the book then builds the argument that the Irish had to do horrible things to be accepted as 'white'. Like when the Irish were given the jobs of basically slave herders so that a hierarchy could be set up. But it is very true that the treatment of the Irish was horrible and in some cases worse then that of the Africans. But the Irish got freedom and some sold out.

 

[bellesotico]

Re: what would you do

When you say that no where in the Constitution does it say that states can tell whether or not that their state is fit for slavery I think that it does say that. We are guaranteed things by the constitution as human beings and when those things are denied it is then within the power of the Constitution to step in and stop it.

You are correct. Amendments 10 and 14 of the Bill of Rights.

The issue of States Rights controversy heated up with the 'tariff of abominations', a congressional action that ordered an increase of rates on raw goods. John C. Calhoun responded by anonymously penning the Southern Exposition. From this the Southern States adopted the Nullification Ordinance which said the Union was a compact between states and they had the power to repeal power to nullify a federal law that exceeded powers given to Congress in the constitution. Calhoun tried making his case using the arguments laid out in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions.
The counter argument made was that the States entered into a CONTRACT not a compact upon the ratification of the Constitution. It was also the contention that the Supreme Court was the final arbitrator of the law. This was supported by Marbury v Madison, the case that sets the precedent for judicial review.

 

[pickup]

Re: what would you do

You are correct. Amendments 10 and 14 of the Bill of Rights.

The issue of States Rights controversy heated up with the 'tariff of abominations', a congressional action that ordered an increase of rates on raw goods. John C. Calhoun responded by anonymously penning the Southern Exposition. From this the Southern States adopted the Nullification Ordinance which said the Union was a compact between states and they had the power to repeal power to nullify a federal law that exceeded powers given to Congress in the constitution. Calhoun tried making his case using the arguments laid out in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions.
The counter argument made was that the States entered into a CONTRACT not a compact upon the ratification of the Constitution. It was also the contention that the Supreme Court was the final arbitrator of the law. This was supported by Marbury v Madison, the case that sets the precedent for judicial review.

ahh but what about the constitutionality of judicial review itself.? Nowhere is it explicitly written in the constitution that this power is the power of the judiciary branch. I think that there wasn't strong opposition to the ramnifications of Marbury vs. Madison because both sides (the federalists and nonfederalist or democratic republicans if you will) . The administration now in power , led by Jefferson, no longer had to seat the "midnight judges" appointed by the federalists and so would take the results of the decision. Of course, it might have irked Jefferson to know that implied powers were being invoked by the supreme court to give him his victory but like so many times in his life, the practical Jefferson contradicted and conquered the ideals of Jefferson.

The federalists , while pissed off about nothaving their judges seated, loved the idea of implied powers being used to establish this power of the supreme court. Implied powers only increases the strength of federal government and that what was their goal, so they took their victory as well out of this case

As a result, this precedent of the supreme court was faced with no real effort to challenge it and the precedent was left standing and then built upon throughout the years. Now, state laws can get quashed in the supreme court where they eventually sometimes do. Essentially the supreme court is deciding many times what laws states can have and not have based on this power. Either they crush these laws eventually or the states won't make many laws in the first place because they know the supreme court will crush them when the associated cases eventually arrives at the supreme court
short story, with marbury vs madison, federal government grows stronger at the expense of the rights of the states.

Now on a tangent , implied rights are great for advocates of a stronger federal government and bankers as now one can argue a central bank is impied in the powers of the treasury. Look at us today, with a federal reserve ,privately owned by the way by many member banks that got bailouts from the federal government with money that was authorized by Henry Paulson (former ceo of goldman saks: a bank that is one of these private owners of the federal). The bailout funds were authorized by congress and the money was thus loaned by the federal reserve at interest
to the federal government to be given back to many of these member banks.
What a scam. But without implied powers, the federal reserve would never have come into existence. Once the federal reserve was created, the federal government needed extra money to pay the interest on the money created or lent by the federal reserve. Is it any coincidence that federal income tax was created in the same year that the federal reserve was created?

In the same vein, once the federal government crushed the south and established itself as the law of the land. , is it any wonder how all these robber barons popped up soon after the civil war ended. Very simple, pay off the federal lawmakers to pass laws and legislation that create demand for your products and also grant you essentially monopolies : legislation that the states have to accept. Hence the rockefellers of the world then and the world now. And you will see the rockerfellers are also very much a part of the federal reserve system if you look just a tad deeper than what we get in the media.
We could have developed real alternative energy sources along time ago but big oil pays the lawmakers for it not to happen and we could make our own money without paying the federal reserve interest on it . Indeed the last guy who tried it was a certain John friend. Kennedy who signed , I believe executive order 111110 authorizing the government to do make some of their own money without the federal reserve being involved. Kennedy was shot within a year of signing this executive order and it was back to business as usual. This executive order was never depowered and any current president can take advantage of it .But I don't think any president would dare after seeing the files on what and why happened to kennedy.

So what we have now today, for better or worse is a result of the marbury vs madison case .

I see I might have made a good case for my opinion but I unfortunately touched upon the third rail of conspiracy theories being the kennedy assasination.

 

[bellesotico]

Re: what would you do

Pickup-

Article lll addresses the power vested in the Supreme Court. The defeat of Adams and the issue with 'midnight judges' gave Chief Justice Marshall the opportunity to better define the power of the Supreme Court. Madison v Marbury set the precedent that the Supreme Court could declare Acts of Congress unconstitutional. This decision solidifies "checks and balances".

I understand what you are trying to say..but you do realize you are making the same case Calhoun did...The issue of states rights was argued long before the Civil War..remember the Alien and Sedition Acts?
IMHO questioning the constitutionality of judicial review undermines and could potentially undue ANY case that has gone before the SC.

Implied power was written into the Constitution and vested to Congress. I'm not sure how Marbury v. Madison plays into the conception.

Enlighten me please. =)

 

[pickup]

Re: what would you do

pickup - I see I might have made a good case for my opinion but I unfortunately touched upon the third rail of conspiracy theories being the kennedy assasination.



thus labelling me a kook!

 

[bellesotico]

Re: what would you do

Also- I would just like to note that without implied powers there would have been no Louisiana Purchase.

 

[pickup]

Re: what would you do

Also- I would just like to note that without implied powers there would have been no Louisiana Purchase.

i tackle this one first because in a sense I already have, if you go to my post (#177) in this thread, I mentioned the lousiana purchase.(please read it if you missed it) I also stated that Jefferson was a strong advocate for states rights which also implied and it is indeed true, that Jefferson was a strong advocate for the explicit reading of the constitution which meant that the powers not expressly attributed to the federal government by the constitution would be assumed to be those of the states.

 

[pickup]

Re: what would you do

Pickup-

Article lll addresses the power vested in the Supreme Court. The defeat of Adams and the issue with 'midnight judges' gave Chief Justice Marshall the opportunity to better define the power of the Supreme Court. Madison v Marbury set the precedent that the Supreme Court could declare Acts of Congress unconstitutional. This decision solidifies "checks and balances".

I understand what you are trying to say..but you do realize you are making the same case Calhoun did...The issue of states rights was argued long before the Civil War..remember the Alien and Sedition Acts?
IMHO questioning the constitutionality of judicial review undermines and could potentially undue ANY case that has gone before the SC.

Implied power was written into the Constitution and vested to Congress. I'm not sure how Marbury v. Madison plays into the conception.

Enlighten me please. =)

It would be hard to enlighten you as I can see that your candle clearly outshines mine in this area. To determine that the foundation that I laid my case upon was indeed not built of sand ,in responding to this post , I snuck over to wikipedia and saw that I wasn't shooting from the hip as much as I thought I was. This is from the marbury vs. madison section of wikipedia and please read and pay particular attention to the last paragraph. Here it is:

A minority of legal scholars have raised questions about the logic Marshall used in determining the Judiciary Act unconstitutional, and hence the legitimacy of judicial review. They reason that Marshall selectively quoted the Judiciary Act, interpreting it to grant the Supreme Court the power to hear writs of mandamus on original jurisdiction.[23] These scholars argue that there is little connection between the notion of original jurisdiction and the Supreme Court, and note that the Act seems to affirm the Court's power to exercise only appellate jurisdiction.[24] Furthermore, it has been argued that the Supreme Court should have been able to issue the writ on original jurisdiction based on the fact that Article III of the Constitution granted it the right to review on original jurisdiction "all cases affecting . . . public ministers and consuls," and that James Madison, Secretary of State at the time and defendant of the suit, should have fallen into that category of a "public minister [or] consul."[25]
Questions have also frequently been raised about the logic of Marshall's argument for judicial review, for example by Alexander Bickel in his book The Least Dangerous Branch. Bickel argues that Marshall's argument implies an unrealistically mechanical view of jurisprudence, one which suggests that the Court has an absolute duty to strike down every law it finds violative of the Constitution. Under Marshall's conception of the judicial process in Marbury, judges themselves have no independent agency and can never take into account the consequences of their actions when deciding cases—a notion that has been attacked by Richard Posner. More generally, Marshall's argument for the notion of a judicial obligation to strike down laws "repugnant to the constitution" presupposes some sort of underlying meaning to the text of the U.S. Constitution which judges can divine, a notion contested by scholars Paul Brest and Duncan Kennedy, among others, as well as Posner.[citation needed]
Marbury can also be criticized on grounds that it was improper for the Court to consider any issues beyond jurisdiction. After concluding that the Court lacked jurisdiction in the case, the further review regarding the substantive issues presented was arguably improper.[26] Also, it has been argued that Justice Marshall should have recused himself on the grounds that he was still acting Secretary of State at the time the commissions were to be delivered and it was his brother, James Marshall, who was charged with delivering a number of the commissions.[27]
Because the Constitution lacks a clear statement authorizing the Federal courts to nullify the acts of coequal branches, critics contend that the argument for judicial review must rely on a significant gloss on the Constitution's terms. Despite such criticisms of Marbury v. Madison, judicial review has been accepted in the American legal community.

 

[pickup]

Re: what would you do

so bellestotico, you can throw me into the minority camp of legal scholars.

 

[pickup]

Re: what would you do

bellesotico, I also clipped this from the same wikipedia article:

Reaction

Jefferson disagreed with Marshall's reasoning in this case, saying that if this view of judicial power became accepted, it would be "placing us under the despotism of an oligarchy."[22]

 

[pickup]

Re: what would you do

Also- I would just like to note that without implied powers there would have been no Louisiana Purchase.

also taken from a wikipedia article on the Louisiana Purchase:


Jefferson disliked the idea of purchasing Louisiana from France as that could imply that France had a right to be in Louisiana. A strict constructionist, Jefferson also believed that a U.S. president did not have the authority to engage in such a deal because it was not specified in the constitution, and that to do so would moreover erode states' rights by increasing federal executive power. On the other hand, he was aware of the potential threat that a neighbor like France would be for the young nation, and was prepared to go to war to prevent a strong French presence in the region. Meanwhile, Napoleon's foreign minister, Charles Maurice de Talleyrand, was vehemently opposed to selling Louisiana since it would mean an end to France's secret plans for a North American empire.[citation needed].

 

[pickup]

Re: what would you do

to bring the question of a national bank into the better perspective , here is the link to what Jefferson's thoughts were of such an institution. I guess it was in opposition to what Hamilton(federalist) was trying to push at the time.

http://www.oneradionetwork.com/mone...tral_bank,_(the_federal_reserve)_20080925486/


A superficial reading will allow to see his views of how the constitution should be interpreted. A more thorough reading will show that how he viewed this creation of a central bank usurping the rights of the states.

By the way, I supported Ron Paul in his candidacy for the republican slot

and I was a member of We the People organization when Ross Perot was running. (did we get 19 or 9 percent of the vote?, I forget)

 

[Mike23]

You know, I came across a kind of disturbing but interesting website awhile back. I won't post it for fear of being banned (although it is very educational). It's a list of something like 2500 racial slurs and the history behind them. One that I found really interesting, was 'cracker' was invented by wealthy brits to describe the downtrodden in society who ate mostly crackers.

Sorry, a little random fact that popped into my head and thought this might be the only time I could ever use it in life

 

[over9five]

You know, I came across a kind of disturbing but interesting website awhile back. I won't post it for fear of being banned (although it is very educational). It's a list of something like 2500 racial slurs and the history behind them. One that I found really interesting, was 'cracker' was invented by wealthy brits to describe the downtrodden in society who ate mostly crackers.

Sorry, a little random fact that popped into my head and thought this might be the only time I could ever use it in life

Jeez, Mike just post the link. If it's that bad, we'll post a parental warning, we won't ban you!!!

 

[diesel96]

You know, I came across a kind of disturbing but interesting website awhile back. I won't post it for fear of being banned (although it is very educational). It's a list of something like 2500 racial slurs and the history behind them. One that I found really interesting, was 'cracker' was invented by wealthy brits to describe the downtrodden in society who ate mostly crackers.

Sorry, a little random fact that popped into my head and thought this might be the only time I could ever use it in life

I don't need a website for racial slurs, just a family reunion around Thanksgiving time...
Seriously....Crackers a term originated in the South, especially in Florida when the Spaniards call the english speaking settlers “Quáqueros,” slang for white quakers.....
.....Then, the term cracker was handed down to the Florida cowboy who didnt use ropes and lasso's to herd cattle but rather dogs and bull whips...hence the sound of a crackling whip...
.....Modern usage, "Florida Cracker" is used informally by some Floridians to indicate that their family has lived there for many generations; and/or that they were born and raised in Florida.
......I always thought for the longest time it meant Po folks who added cracker meal to add substance to what little food they had to eat....but thats just an old wives tale....

 

[moreluck]

cracker = Ritz