African American Duke University Economist Calls for $12 Trillion in Slavery Reparations

[IM2]

I think just killing off Jim Crow would be enough ...

No that's not enough because Jim Crow created economic hardships lasting to this moment that have not been fixed..

 

[IM2]

" Figuratively Reparations Have Already Been Received "

* Easy Key All Eighteen Twenty *

We will get reparations. They will be paid for American government human rights violations against blacks from either 1776 until the date the decision is made, 1865 until the the decision is made, from 1927 until the decision is made, or 1934 until the decision is made. The issue goes way past the days of slavery. That's why you racists don't want to talk about what whites did after slavery.

Argue with this well understood and ethically maintained tenet .

Bible, King James Version

quod.lib.umich.edu

[20] The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

* Individualism Equality Rule Set *

Those individuals being compelled to forfeit self ownership or self determination are entitled to self defense against such illegitimate aggression .

Each receives resources for providence in their lives and only the villainy of a covetous fool expects illegitimate aggression against self ownership or self determination of other individuals based upon an over aggrandized arrogance of self entitlement because their own inception resources were not equal with those of some other jones .

I think that we all can cherrypick bible verses. Deuteronomy chapter 15 verse 1 talks about freeing and paying slaves after they served 7 years. Blacks were slaves for 246 years without pay. So biblically we are owed 32 payments. God has punished generations after the original sin was committed. Ask Noah.

The use of biblical passages to excuse human rights violations is unethical. Your last paragraph is a bunch of white racist horse manure. You don't get to deny people equal access to resources for 200 years then talk stupid.

 

[westwall]

We can start with a base of $12 trillion.

From that we subtract all the Federal, state and local welfare given to the Negroes over the years.

Then we can subtract the inefficiency to the economy caused by Affrimative Action and EEO programs.

Then we can subtract the cost of the failure of education on the economy caused by having integrated schools.

Then we subtract the cost of keeping criminal Negroes locked up for criminal behavior.

Then we subtract the cost of Negro crime.

Then we subtract the cost of all their looting and rioting and destruction over the decades.

If the Moon Bats really believe that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves then we need to subtract the cost of the war.

They will owe us money when we get done with the real economic balance.

Don't forget to subtract the losses to the families who lost loved ones in the Civil War. That alone caused many families to be tossed into poverty for generations.

There will be no subtraction for that. Families of white Union soldiers and descendants of white confederate soldiers who did not fight in the war to save the union, got reparations. Thar war did not create generational poverty for whites. Whites did not fight to free slaves as you will shortly be shown. Furthermore if whites had died fighting slavery, you do not get reparations for fighting a war caused by YOUR human rights violations. Every way it is looked at, you racist have no case for objections. The only reason you get to argue your idiocy is white privilege.

The men who died to free the slaves didn't commit any crime, dumbass. That's the problem with you fools, you demand money from people who never benefited from slavery, and you never suffered.

And take your white privilege and shove it up your ass. I'm native American.

 

[westwall]

I think just killing off Jim Crow would be enough ...

No that's not enough because Jim Crow created economic hardships lasting to this moment that have not been fixed..

No, the problems in the black community are your own. When some gangbanger scumbag kills an innocent you assholes refuse to talk to the police.

Your problems are YOURS.

 

[westwall]

I think just killing off Jim Crow would be enough ...

There will never be enough. Appeasing these assholes would be the same as Chamberlain appeasing Germany.

 

[IM2]

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

This is the Corwin Amendment to the US Constitution. Had it been ratified, slavery would have remained a constitutionally protected right.



In December 1860, when the second session of the 36th Congress was convened, the deepening rift between slave states and free states was erupting into a secession crisis. The Senate quickly formed a "Committee of Thirteen" to investigate possible legislative measures that might solve the slavery predicament. The House formed a "Committee of Thirty-three" with the same objective. More than 200 resolutions with respect to slavery,[5] including 57 resolutions proposing constitutional amendments,[6] were introduced in Congress. Most represented compromises designed to avert military conflict. Senator Jefferson Davis proposed one that explicitly protected property rights in slaves.[6] A group of House members proposed a national convention to accomplish secession as a "dignified, peaceful, and fair separation" that could settle questions like the equitable distribution of the federal government's assets and rights to navigate the Mississippi River.[7] Senator John J. Crittenden proposed a compromise consisting of six constitutional amendments and four Congressional resolutions,[8] which were ultimately tabled on December 31.

On January 14, 1861, the House committee submitted a plan calling for an amendment to protect slavery, enforce fugitive slave laws, and repeal state personal liberty laws.[9] The proposed constitutional amendment declared:

No amendment of this Constitution, having for its object any interference within the States with the relations between their citizens and those described in second section of the first article of the Constitution as "all other persons", shall originate with any State that does not recognize that relation within its own limits, or shall be valid without the assent of every one of the States composing the Union.[10]

While the House debated the measure over the ensuing weeks, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas had joined South Carolina in seceding from the Union. The contentious atmosphere in the House during the debate was relieved by abolitionist Republican Owen Lovejoy of Illinois, who questioned the amendment's reach: "Does that include polygamy, the other twin relic of barbarism?" Missouri Democrat John S. Phelps answered: "Does the gentleman desire to know whether he shall be prohibited from committing that crime?"[6]

On February 26, Congressman Thomas Corwin, who had chaired the earlier House committee, introduced his own text as a substitute, but it was not adopted. The following day, after a series of preliminary votes, the House voted 123 to 71 in favor of the original resolution, but as this was below the required two-thirds majority, the measure was not passed.[10][11] On February 28, however, the House returned to and approved Corwin's version by a vote of 133 to 65, just barely above the two-thirds threshold.[12][13]

The Senate took up the proposed amendment on March 2, 1861, debating its merits without a recess through the pre-dawn hours on March 4. When the final vote was taken the amendment passed with exactly the needed two-thirds majority – 24-12.[13]

Soon afterward, it was sent to the states for ratification. The joint resolution containing the Corwin Amendment called for the amendment to be submitted to the state legislatures,[14] as it was believed that the amendment had a greater chance of success in the legislatures of the Southern states than would have been the case in state ratifying conventions, given that state conventions were being conducted at that time throughout the South at which votes to secede from the Union were successful.

The Corwin Amendment was the second proposed "Thirteenth Amendment" submitted to the states by Congress. The first was the similarly ill-fated Titles of Nobility Amendment in 1810.

Presidential responses
Outgoing President James Buchanan endorsed the Corwin Amendment by taking the unprecedented step of signing it.[15] His signature on the Congressional joint resolution was unnecessary, as the President has no formal role in the constitutional amendment process.[16]

Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address on March 4, said of the Corwin Amendment:[17]

I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service ... holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

Just weeks prior to the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln sent a letter to each state's governor transmitting the proposed amendment,[18] noting that Buchanan had approved it.[19]

Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

Why Lincoln Did Not Oppose the Corwin Amendment
As a member of the Whig Party, Rep. Corwin had crafted his amendment to reflect his party’s opinion that the Constitution did not grant the U.S. Congress the power to interfere with enslavement in the states where it already existed. Known at the time as the “Federal Consensus,” this opinion was shared by both radicals in favor of and abolitionists opposed to enslavement.

Like most Republicans, Abraham Lincoln (a former Whig himself) agreed that in most circumstances, the federal government lacked the power to abolish enslavement in a state. In fact, Lincoln’s 1860 Republican Party platform had endorsed this doctrine.

In a famous 1862 letter to Horace Greeley, Lincoln explained the reasons for his action and his long-held feelings on enslavement and equality.

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

“I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.”

How the Corwin Amendment of 1861 Would Have Protected Enslavement

In 1861, Congress proposed a constitutional amendment to protect enslavement. What was the Corwin Amendment and did Lincoln actually endorse it?

www.thoughtco.com

The civil war was not fought by the Union to end slavery. If the Union would have had it their way, slavery would have been a constitutional right that each state had the option of pursuing. If anybody white died for slavery it was southern whites dying for the right to continue owning slaves.

 

[IM2]

I think just killing off Jim Crow would be enough ...

No that's not enough because Jim Crow created economic hardships lasting to this moment that have not been fixed..

No, the problems in the black community are your own. When some gangbanger scumbag kills an innocent you assholes refuse to talk to the police.

Your problems are YOURS.

Nope. The root cause of the problems blacks face is white racism. This has been proven.

“One of the conclusions of the Kerner Report was that white racism was at work, was the cause of the upsets and the uprisings that we had. In fact, the report stated that white society created it, perpetuates it, and sustains it.”

 

[westwall]

I think just killing off Jim Crow would be enough ...

No that's not enough because Jim Crow created economic hardships lasting to this moment that have not been fixed..

No, the problems in the black community are your own. When some gangbanger scumbag kills an innocent you assholes refuse to talk to the police.

Your problems are YOURS.

Nope. The root cause of the problems blacks face is white racism. This has been proven.

“One of the conclusions of the Kerner Report was that white racism was at work, was the cause of the upsets and the uprisings that we had. In fact, the report stated that white society created it, perpetuates it, and sustains it.”

No. Your problem is you. You could be working and making something of yourselves, for yourselves. But no. You whine like children.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Slip And Fall Con Artist "

* Owed Nothing But A Common Standard *

I think that we all can cherrypick bible verses. Deuteronomy chapter 15 verse 1 talks about freeing and paying slaves after they served 7 years. Blacks were slaves for 246 years without pay. So biblically we are owed 32 payments. God has punished generations after the original sin was committed. Ask Noah. The use of biblical passages to excuse human rights violations is unethical.

First , the torah does not apply outside of israel , just as the qurayn does not apply outside of hejaz .

The reference to ezekiel was not made with a presumption that the torah is a divine decree , rather the reference was forwarded to illustrate that there is not a justification by which to hold contemporary peoples to account for conditions which they themselves are not responsible .

* Malcontent For Opportunity *

Your last paragraph is a bunch of white racist horse manure. You don't get to deny people equal access to resources for 200 years then talk stupid.

The last paragraph defines non violence principles and places you in the category of promoting illegitimate aggression against individualism and against individuals which have nothing to do with your need for someone else to BLaMe .

 

[IM2]

In 1951 a black man named Harvey Clark and his family tried to move into the Cicero neighborhood of Chicago. A white mob vandalized his home and burned his furniture in the front yard. Aside from trying to force Clark out of his own home, the police did nothing. In first six months of 1955 there were 213 acts of violence against blacks by whites is Philadelphia. These were acts of terror committed to intimidate blacks so they would not move into white communities. In 1964 when blacks again tried renting an apartment in Cicero, their apartment was again vandalized. After the apartment was vandalized, police entered the apartment, took out the furniture and told the renters they had been evicted. At the same time in Detroit, there were over 200 acts of violence against blacks by whites to terrorize black families so they would not move to the suburbs. In Los Angeles during World War II, a entire black family was murdered when their home was bombed. For the first 5 years after WW2 in Chicago alone, there were 317 acts of terror by whites against blacks who tried living in or near majority white neighborhoods. From 1950-1965 there were over 100 bombings of black owned residences in Los Angeles. In 1987, another black family tried moving into Cicero. Whites responded with gunfire and firebombs.

This kind of terrorism has gone long ignored in understanding the brutality and long-lasting effects of such acts upon blacks in America. For decades prosperous blacks were terrorized while black communities were destroyed by mobs of angry whites who felt they were losing out because blacks had acquired the same things whites had. Ignored was the fact that blacks worked hard to get what they had, but that did not matter because blacks were to always be lesser than whites and the caste was to be created and maintained by any means necessary.

Blacks peacefully moved north to compete for same opportunities white immigrants had and this is just a small bit of what happened. White immigrants are the ones who committed the violence against blacks. White immigrants destroyed thriving black communities. The same white immigrants whose descendants will tell you today how they are not responsible because their ancestors did not own slaves.

“Again and again, African-American individuals and families have worked hard to produce wealth, but American finance, whether in the antebellum period or today, has snatched black wealth through bonds backed by asset securitization.”

Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves

The root cause of the problems blacks face is white racism.​

 

[AveryJarhman]

Suppose society at Large offers Reparations & a one-way ticket to the land of the their choice to America's HATEFUL ProBlack community so they'll STOP harassing & INTIMIDATING our peaceful, free thinking black or American neighbors of African descent?

What do you think?

 

[Flash]

In 1951 a black man named Harvey Clark and his family tried to move into the Cicero neighborhood of Chicago. A white mob vandalized his home and burned his furniture in the front yard. Aside from trying to force Clark out of his own home, the police did nothing. In first six months of 1955 there were 213 acts of violence against blacks by whites is Philadelphia. These were acts of terror committed to intimidate blacks so they would not move into white communities. In 1964 when blacks again tried renting an apartment in Cicero, their apartment was again vandalized. After the apartment was vandalized, police entered the apartment, took out the furniture and told the renters they had been evicted. At the same time in Detroit, there were over 200 acts of violence against blacks by whites to terrorize black families so they would not move to the suburbs. In Los Angeles during World War II, a entire black family was murdered when their home was bombed. For the first 5 years after WW2 in Chicago alone, there were 317 acts of terror by whites against blacks who tried living in or near majority white neighborhoods. From 1950-1965 there were over 100 bombings of black owned residences in Los Angeles. In 1987, another black family tried moving into Cicero. Whites responded with gunfire and firebombs.

This kind of terrorism has gone long ignored in understanding the brutality and long-lasting effects of such acts upon blacks in America. For decades prosperous blacks were terrorized while black communities were destroyed by mobs of angry whites who felt they were losing out because blacks had acquired the same things whites had. Ignored was the fact that blacks worked hard to get what they had, but that did not matter because blacks were to always be lesser than whites and the caste was to be created and maintained by any means necessary.

Blacks peacefully moved north to compete for same opportunities white immigrants had and this is just a small bit of what happened. White immigrants are the ones who committed the violence against blacks. White immigrants destroyed thriving black communities. The same white immigrants whose descendants will tell you today how they are not responsible because their ancestors did not own slaves.

“Again and again, African-American individuals and families have worked hard to produce wealth, but American finance, whether in the antebellum period or today, has snatched black wealth through bonds backed by asset securitization.”

Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves

The root cause of the problems blacks face is white racism.​

Why didn't they immigrate to Africa if they were so oppressed by White people?

No they stayed here and signed up for welfare, committed crimes, got drunk on Colt Malt Liquor, abandoned their families and then, especially in Chicago, started killing one another.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Opportunities Knowingly Ill Afforded "


* Formidable Compelling Inquiry *

Why didn't they immigrate to Africa if they were so oppressed by White people?

No they stayed here and signed up for welfare, committed crimes, got drunk on Colt Malt Liquor, abandoned their families and then, especially in Chicago, started killing one another.

Back-to-Africa movement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Back-to-Africa movement took the view in the 19th century that Americans of African ancestry should return to the continent of Africa. In general, the movement was an overwhelming failure; very few free slaves wanted to move to Africa. The small number of freed slaves that had—some under duress—initially faced brutal conditions. As the failure became known in the United States in the 1820s, it spawned and energized the abolitionist movement. Liberia and Sierra Leone became independent black countries following Haiti on January 1, 1804, becoming the second and third of only three countries founded by former slaves. United States Ambassador to Liberia was a coveted position. In the 20th century, Marcus Garvey, Rastafarians and some other African Americans espoused this concept, but few actually left the United States.


* Suffering Ritualized Surrender Of Self Determination Inn Gauge Piercings *

Bible Gateway passage: Deuteronomy 15 - New International Version

The Year for Canceling Debts - At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel any loan they have made to a fellow Israelite. They shall not require payment from anyone among their own people, because the LORD’s time for canceling...

www.biblegateway.com

16 But if your servant says to you, “I do not want to leave you,” because he loves you and your family and is well off with you,
17 then take an awl and push it through his earlobe into the door, and he will become your servant for life. Do the same for your female servant.

 

[IM2]

In 1951 a black man named Harvey Clark and his family tried to move into the Cicero neighborhood of Chicago. A white mob vandalized his home and burned his furniture in the front yard. Aside from trying to force Clark out of his own home, the police did nothing. In first six months of 1955 there were 213 acts of violence against blacks by whites is Philadelphia. These were acts of terror committed to intimidate blacks so they would not move into white communities. In 1964 when blacks again tried renting an apartment in Cicero, their apartment was again vandalized. After the apartment was vandalized, police entered the apartment, took out the furniture and told the renters they had been evicted. At the same time in Detroit, there were over 200 acts of violence against blacks by whites to terrorize black families so they would not move to the suburbs. In Los Angeles during World War II, a entire black family was murdered when their home was bombed. For the first 5 years after WW2 in Chicago alone, there were 317 acts of terror by whites against blacks who tried living in or near majority white neighborhoods. From 1950-1965 there were over 100 bombings of black owned residences in Los Angeles. In 1987, another black family tried moving into Cicero. Whites responded with gunfire and firebombs.

This kind of terrorism has gone long ignored in understanding the brutality and long-lasting effects of such acts upon blacks in America. For decades prosperous blacks were terrorized while black communities were destroyed by mobs of angry whites who felt they were losing out because blacks had acquired the same things whites had. Ignored was the fact that blacks worked hard to get what they had, but that did not matter because blacks were to always be lesser than whites and the caste was to be created and maintained by any means necessary.

Blacks peacefully moved north to compete for same opportunities white immigrants had and this is just a small bit of what happened. White immigrants are the ones who committed the violence against blacks. White immigrants destroyed thriving black communities. The same white immigrants whose descendants will tell you today how they are not responsible because their ancestors did not own slaves.

“Again and again, African-American individuals and families have worked hard to produce wealth, but American finance, whether in the antebellum period or today, has snatched black wealth through bonds backed by asset securitization.”

Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves

The root cause of the problems blacks face is white racism.​

Why didn't they immigrate to Africa if they were so oppressed by White people?

No they stayed here and signed up for welfare, committed crimes, got drunk on Colt Malt Liquor, abandoned their families and then, especially in Chicago, started killing one another.

Shut the fuck up racist son of a bitch.

“I can say for sure that happens because I did it. Before retirement I was an Engineer. The last 20 years of my career I was a Manager and Director and I hired hundreds of people. I reviewed well over a thousand resumes for all kinds of positions. Everything from Secretaries to Engineering Managers. Both Salary and Hourly. I always culled out the resumes with Black Ethnic names. Never short listed anybody with a Black Ethnic name. Never hired them.”

“Since the Fortune 50 company I worked for had a stupid "affirmative action" hiring policies I never mentioned it to anybody and I always got away with it. A couple of times I was instructed to improve my departmental "diversity" demographics but I always ignored it and never got into any trouble. My stereotype is that anybody with a stupid ghetto Black ethnic name is probably worthless. I could have been wrong a couple of times but I was also probably right 99% of the time.

Glad I did it. I would do it again.”​

 

[Monk-Eye]

* Whites Bending Over Backwards To Mitigate Problems Of The Black American Condition "

* White Flight And Self Interest May Not Be Preferable To Social Engineers But It Does Not Equate With Illegitimate Aggression Against Blacks *

Nope. The root cause of the problems blacks face is white racism. This has been proven.
“One of the conclusions of the Kerner Report was that white racism was at work, was the cause of the upsets and the uprisings that we had. In fact, the report stated that white society created it, perpetuates it, and sustains it.”

These are other conclusions of the kerner report -- http://www.eisenhowerfoundation.org/docs/kerner.pdf .

* Highly Significant Deleterious Condition Known As Breeding Into Poverty *

By 1985, the Negro population in central cities is expected to increase by 72 percent to approximately 20.8 million. Coupled with the continued exodus of white families to the suburbs, this growth will produce majority Negro populations in many of the nation's largest cities.

Even if violence does not occur, the consequences are unacceptable. Development of a racially integrated society, extraordinarily difficult today, will be virtually impossible when the present black ghetto population of 12.5 million has grown to almost 21 million.

* European Societies Collaborate For Social Direction And Trade Economic Favors For Political Votes *

* Cultural Factors: Coming from societies with a low standard of living and at a time when job aspirations were low, the immigrants sensed little deprivation in being forced to take the less desirable and poorer-paying jobs. Their large and cohesive families contributed to total income. Their vision of the future--one that led to a life outside of the ghetto--provided the incentive necessary to endure the present.

Today, whites tend to exaggerate how well and quickly they escaped from poverty. The fact is that immigrants who came from rural backgrounds, as many Negroes do, are only now, after three generations, finally beginning to move into the middle class.

* Disintegration Of Cultural Stupor *

Three choices are open to the nation:
* We can maintain present policies, continuing both the proportion of the nation's resources now allocated to programs for the unemployed and the disadvantaged, and the inadequate and failing effort to achieve an integrated society.
* We can adopt a policy of "enrichment" aimed at improving dramatically the quality of ghetto life while abandoning integration as a goal.
* We can pursue integration by combining ghetto "enrichment" with policies which will encourage Negro movement out of central city areas

We believe that the only possible choice for America is the third-a policy which combines ghetto enrichment with programs designed to encourage integration of substantial numbers of Negroes into the society outside the ghetto. Enrichment must be an important adjunct to integration, for no matter how ambitious or energetic the program, few Negroes now living in central cities can be quickly integrated. In the meantime, large-scale improvement in the quality of ghetto life is essential.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

...and just in time for the launching of my new etsy store "Dogmaphobe's House of Bling", too!

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Clarifications Of Ethical Dilemma Transitioning Over Time "

* Pandering For Credit In A Capability To Abolish Slavery And Failing To Account Payments In Blood *

The civil war was not fought by the Union to end slavery. If the Union would have had it their way, slavery would have been a constitutional right that each state had the option of pursuing. If anybody white died for slavery it was southern whites dying for the right to continue owning slaves.

That statement makes it appear that the south fought the war to ensure a union where slavery would be legal in all states , which would be to reject us tenth amendment that would be absurd .

Issue is that whites literally fell on their own swords , shedding blood , to successfully and correctly resolve the ethical dilemma of slavery in the americas ; alternatively , blacks pandering for recompense lack any semblance of fortitude to exclaim that they would have been capable of facilitating the same outcomes .

In deed , hamitic peoples pandering to fictional ishmaelism and its institutionalization of enslavement are bereft to present a challenge that fictional ishmaeism institutions could have succeeded on its own in emancipating hue mammon from enslavement as a social norm .


* Terminology Rigor Of Useful Trammel "

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

This is the Corwin Amendment to the US Constitution. Had it been ratified, slavery would have remained a constitutionally protected right.

My perspective is one rejecting that an individual is capable of surrendering self ownership ( free roam , free association , progeny ) to satisfy a debt of self ownership ( private property , willful intents - contracts ) , whereby even voluntary enslavement is rejected as invalid in individualism .

That is , by definition , violence is illegitimate aggression , where self defense against violence is legitimate aggression .

A proposed definition for illegitimate aggression is any valid threat for , or act of , physical aggression that illegitimately deprives an individual of self ownership ( free roam , free association , progeny ) , or that illegitimately deprives an individual of self determination ( private property , willful intents - contracts ) , where self ownership and self determination represent basis elements of individualism and non violence principles .


* Referencing High Lights *

..."Does that include polygamy, the other twin relic of barbarism?"

No amendment of this Constitution, having for its object any interference within the States with the relations between their citizens and those described in second section of the first article of the Constitution as "all other persons", shall originate with any State that does not recognize that relation within its own limits, or shall be valid without the assent of every one of the States composing the Union.[10]

Why Lincoln Did Not Oppose the Corwin Amendment
As a member of the Whig Party, Rep. Corwin had crafted his amendment to reflect his party’s opinion that the Constitution did not grant the U.S. Congress the power to interfere with enslavement in the states where it already existed. Known at the time as the “Federal Consensus,” this opinion was shared by both radicals in favor of and abolitionists opposed to enslavement.

Like most Republicans, Abraham Lincoln (a former Whig himself) agreed that in most circumstances, the federal government lacked the power to abolish enslavement in a state. In fact, Lincoln’s 1860 Republican Party platform had endorsed this doctrine.

Thus , the south believed it was fighting to preserve a union that allowed states to determine whether slavery was allowed as an institution , whereas the north chose a position of martyrdom as an abolitionist .

 

[fncceo]

 

[Quasar44]

sounds very reasonable!

Duke University Economist Calls for $12 Trillion in Slavery Reparations

Economist William Darity Jr. and his wife Kirsten Mullen have co-authored a report proposing $12 trillion in slavery reparations.

www.breitbart.com

These losers of society already had tens of trillions in welfare and they still are at the bottom in everything

 

[Quasar44]

Jews had zero welfare and came into USA with zero and quickly reached the top