Page 6 of 70 FirstFirst ... 456781656 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 695

Thread: The irony of the New York Times’ 1619 Project...

  1. #51
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,914
    Amen (Given)
    123
    Amen (Received)
    584
    Perhaps I'm unfamiliar with a particular legal use of the word but "replace" is a synonym for "supersede" and is so used here.

    You've mixed up two arguments: the first, that the Constitution could have superseded (or replaced) state manumission laws. Second, that the 14th Amendment was used after emancipation in the pursuit of other suffrage and equality efforts (e.g., women's vote, same-sex marriage).

    You had argued, at least how Adrift and I read it, that manumission laws were a factor when crafting the Constitution. The counter-argument is that the people writing the Constitution were writing the Constitution and could have eliminated or superseded those laws. They chose not to do so.

    --Sam

    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    I'll help out here - the Fourteenth Amendment was passed AFTER the Civil War - not before. So, if you are familiar enough with the 14th, you should also know that prior to the 14th Amendment, the BoR DID NOT apply to the states! The Ninth Amendment STILL doesn't (also doesn't seem to matter). So NO, there was NO Constitutional basis to override state law prior to the Civil War.

    FYI: The Constitution replaced, not superseded, the Articles of Confederation. Superseded implies that the Articles are still 'on the books' - and they aren't.


    Adrift can tackle it if he wants, but the Constitution weakened, not strengthened, position of slavery. It does it in a backhanded way - but it does it.
    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"


  2. #52
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,914
    Amen (Given)
    123
    Amen (Received)
    584
    Checking a few legal dictionaries, the meaning of "supersede" is indeed synonymous to "replace". The usage differs between legislatures and court orders, perhaps, but since we're talking about drafting the Constitution, the former's usage holds.

    --Sam
    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"


  3. #53
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    14,527
    Amen (Given)
    8371
    Amen (Received)
    5362
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam View Post
    Perhaps I'm unfamiliar with a particular legal use of the word but "replace" is a synonym for "supersede" and is so used here.

    You've mixed up two arguments: the first, that the Constitution could have superseded (or replaced) state manumission laws. Second, that the 14th Amendment was used after emancipation in the pursuit of other suffrage and equality efforts (e.g., women's vote, same-sex marriage).

    You had argued, at least how Adrift and I read it, that manumission laws were a factor when crafting the Constitution. The counter-argument is that the people writing the Constitution were writing the Constitution and could have eliminated or superseded those laws. They chose not to do so.

    --Sam
    You are the one that is confused - I used FYI to distinguish the comment from the argument.


    The Supreme Court held that the Bill of Rights DID NOT apply to the states fairly shortly after Marbury, if memory serves. So no, there was no way to use the constitution to override manumission laws.

    No, that is NOT what anyone argued. She makes blanket statements based on the 'failure' to release slaves without noting the manumission laws. Those laws were in place when she is arguing that the Founders 'should have' released there slaves (because her argument rests on the fact that they hadn't). Washington literally could not release his slaves legally except as part of his final disposition - which he did (in part - Martha completed it under hers).

    And it's silly to argue that they 'could' have written the Constitution differently with regards to slavery - sure, that could have been done but it WOULD NOT have been ratified, would never have been the law of the land and would have been a totally pointless exercise.


    Here's what she said:

    It was common for white enslavers to keep their half-black children in slavery.
    I pointed out - and cited - that there were laws in place preventing them from doing differently. This is both before and after the Revolution. She implies that this was because these folks just didn't want to release their children when in fact, it wasn't legal to do so.

    Also, she, and you, get the use of 'enslavers' wrong - should be slave owners since she's not talking about actual slavers. <- this is a side note.

    Back to the argument - THEN you go off on the Constitutional tangent.

    'They should have written it differently' is pretty much the same thing as saying 'we should have stayed under the Articles of Confederation'.

  4. #54
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    14,527
    Amen (Given)
    8371
    Amen (Received)
    5362
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam View Post
    Checking a few legal dictionaries, the meaning of "supersede" is indeed synonymous to "replace". The usage differs between legislatures and court orders, perhaps, but since we're talking about drafting the Constitution, the former's usage holds.

    --Sam
    So what? I still disagree but fine, have a point. One that has NOTHING to do with the argument, but okay, have it.

    You keep going on tangentials and still haven't shown where I made a factual error - is this just a wild goose chase so I get sick of it and quit? She gets quit a lot factually wrong (slaves building railroads, Attucks Crispus, et al) and you're best comeback is to argue the Constitution 'could have' been written differently?

    Yeah, I noticed the second link - no, I'm not going down another rabbit hole.

  5. #55
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,914
    Amen (Given)
    123
    Amen (Received)
    584
    The entire existence of the 13th and 14th Amendments proves conclusively that the Constitution could have been written in a way that outlawed slavery, freed enslaved people, and provided them equal protection of the law.

    The founders, many who personally profited from slavery, did not write the Constitution to provide those protections.

    Hannah-Jones' argument, that the foundation of American democracy was inherently hypocritical and not achieved without the suffering and work of black slaves and their descendants, remains unscathed by appeals to the practicality of the Constitution's compromises to slavery.

    Slave owners are, by definition, slavers/enslavers.

    --Sam

    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    You are the one that is confused - I used FYI to distinguish the comment from the argument.


    The Supreme Court held that the Bill of Rights DID NOT apply to the states fairly shortly after Marbury, if memory serves. So no, there was no way to use the constitution to override manumission laws.

    No, that is NOT what anyone argued. She makes blanket statements based on the 'failure' to release slaves without noting the manumission laws. Those laws were in place when she is arguing that the Founders 'should have' released there slaves (because her argument rests on the fact that they hadn't). Washington literally could not release his slaves legally except as part of his final disposition - which he did (in part - Martha completed it under hers).

    And it's silly to argue that they 'could' have written the Constitution differently with regards to slavery - sure, that could have been done but it WOULD NOT have been ratified, would never have been the law of the land and would have been a totally pointless exercise.


    Here's what she said:



    I pointed out - and cited - that there were laws in place preventing them from doing differently. This is both before and after the Revolution. She implies that this was because these folks just didn't want to release their children when in fact, it wasn't legal to do so.

    Also, she, and you, get the use of 'enslavers' wrong - should be slave owners since she's not talking about actual slavers. <- this is a side note.

    Back to the argument - THEN you go off on the Constitutional tangent.

    'They should have written it differently' is pretty much the same thing as saying 'we should have stayed under the Articles of Confederation'.
    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"


  6. #56
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,914
    Amen (Given)
    123
    Amen (Received)
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    So what? I still disagree but fine, have a point. One that has NOTHING to do with the argument, but okay, have it.

    You keep going on tangentials and still haven't shown where I made a factual error - is this just a wild goose chase so I get sick of it and quit? She gets quit a lot factually wrong (slaves building railroads, Attucks Crispus, et al) and you're best comeback is to argue the Constitution 'could have' been written differently?

    Yeah, I noticed the second link - no, I'm not going down another rabbit hole.
    I have pointed out numerous factual errors you've made, in fact, ranging from matters of history (1807/1833, Samuel Johnson) and errors of comprehension (e.g., Hannah-Jones' father seeing lynchings vs. the account of his home county).

    Railroads in the South being mostly built by poor white citizens is another error of history: ~75% of the railroads in the South were, by some estimates, built by black slaves. Railroad companies in the South dealt in the slave trade and had extensive "holdings" of their own, also renting slave labor from surrounding plantations.

    I haven't seen anything that directly refutes Hannah-Jones' thesis regarding the perfection of democracy (in the 'more perfect Union' sense) flowing through black liberation and effort.

    --Sam

    ETA: I did not bring up the quibble about "supersede" vs. "replace" but only responded to it. If it was unimportant, I'm not sure why it was introduced but, regardless, I took the complaint seriously enough to make sure I wasn't using the word in a legally incorrect way.
    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"


  7. #57
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    24,722
    Amen (Given)
    1667
    Amen (Received)
    4995
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam View Post
    It was only last year, I believe, that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found that white North Carolina politicians had targeted black voters "with almost surgical precision" in an effort to disenfranchise them. If you don't see anyone preventing black Americans from doing anything, I suggest adopting a clearer perspective.

    --Sam

    Sam that is called Gerrymandering. And both sides do it, the Republicans have just gotten better at it of late. Of course up here in New England the Dems are better. And it is not about race, but politics since blacks overwhelming vote Democrat. So do you have a real example?
    Last edited by seer; 08-22-2019 at 03:26 PM.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

  8. #58
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,816
    Amen (Given)
    5640
    Amen (Received)
    5887
    In other news, another racist and anti-Semitic Times editor has been outed.

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ng-next-steps/
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  9. #59
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,914
    Amen (Given)
    123
    Amen (Received)
    584
    "Democrats and Republicans alike have disenfranchised black Americans for political advantage" does not refute the central thesis or complaint of Hannah-Jones' essay.

    And if NC Republicans commissioning a study on photo ID use and then explicitly only including the forms that black residents were least likely to have doesn't qualify as a "real example" then I'm afraid your situation is quite dire.

    --Sam

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Sam that is called Gerrymandering. And both sides do it, the Republicans have just gotten better at it of late. Of course up here in New England the Dems are better. And it is not about race, but politics since blacks overwhelming vote Democrat. So do you have a real example?
    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"


  10. Amen oxmixmudd amen'd this post.
  11. #60
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    24,722
    Amen (Given)
    1667
    Amen (Received)
    4995
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam View Post
    "Democrats and Republicans alike have disenfranchised black Americans for political advantage" does not refute the central thesis or complaint of Hannah-Jones' essay.

    And if NC Republicans commissioning a study on photo ID use and then explicitly only including the forms that black residents were least likely to have doesn't qualify as a "real example" then I'm afraid your situation is quite dire.

    --Sam
    Sam answer me this - if blacks voted overwhelmingly republican would the NC Republicans have done this? Of course not, so it doesn't have to do with race but political affiliation. Now give me a real example based on race.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •