The fraudulent 14th amendment?

[A18]

No, the idea was to give blacks rights in the South, so that they wouldn't move North.

And there was no rebellion. One branch of government tried to dissolve another and failed, but that's not rebellion.

[J. J.]

No, the idea was to give blacks rights in the South, so that they wouldn't move North.

And there was no rebellion. One branch of government tried to dissolve another and failed, but that's not rebellion.

I disagree with either of these as a factual statement.  The 14th Amendment applied to all states.  Further, the idea that there would be a sudden mass migration was never discussed, so far as I know.  When it did happen, it took generations and had as some of its impetus the industrialization of southern farming.  Machines, not people, began to pick cotton. 

Second, one banch of government did not "tried to dissolve another and fail."  parts of one branch tried to use force to dissolve its relationship with another.  "Rebellion" and "revolution" were the appropriate terms.

[A18]

Of course the 14th amendment applied to all States, but it was no big deal to the Northerners to give black people rights, because they were less racist, there were less black people there anyway, and because they controlled the federal government which would be enforcing the amendment.

I was taught that the Northerners didn't want the African Americans to move North; but that's the public school system, so who knows? All I know is, if I was an African American in the 1860s, and the 14th amendment wasn't passed, I'd move North.

As to the second statement, what I mean is, the Southern States tried to dissolve the federal branch inside the Southern States. I don't see how that is rebellion. Who were they rebelling against, the North?

[J. J.]

Of course the 14th amendment applied to all States, but it was no big deal to the Northerners to give black people rights, because they were less racist, there were less black people there anyway, and because they controlled the federal government which would be enforcing the amendment.

I was taught that the Northerners didn't want the African Americans to move North; but that's the public school system, so who knows? All I know is, if I was an African American in the 1860s, and the 14th amendment wasn't passed, I'd move North.

As to the second statement, what I mean is, the Southern States tried to dissolve the federal branch inside the Southern States. I don't see how that is rebellion. Who were they rebelling against, the North?

The rebellion was against the national government. 

You have to remember that population, at the time, was not as mobile as it is today.  It wasn't impossible to move, but it was very hard.  Think about this, after Reconstruction ended in 1877, you really didn't have the northern migration start for about a quarter of a century (about 1900).  It took more than half a century.

[opebo]

No, the idea was to give blacks rights in the South, so that they wouldn't move North.

And there was no rebellion. One branch of government tried to dissolve another and failed, but that's not rebellion.

Thanks for the glimpse into the Fantasyland of the typical Southerner. 

[A18]

Your reply is extremely childish. Try making a real point.

[jaichind]

14th Amendment is a complete fraud.  For an admendment to pass 3/4 of the State Legislatures must pass it.  In mid 1867 there were 37 states in the Union so that is 28 states needed for ratification.  The Federal Secretery of State got official documents from the states by mid 1867 on the response to the proposed 14th Admendment.  22 states voted yes 12 voted no and 3 did not vote.  Mississippi's rejection did not reach DC in time and was counted as not voting.  So with 13 states opposed the 14th admendment should be dead on arrival. 

I am afraid not.  For the US congress then voted to 1) Declare the Southern States outside of the erstwhile indivisible Union 2) Deny majority rule in the Southern states by the disfranchisement of large numbers of the white population 3) Require the Southern states to ratify the 14th admendment as the price of getting back into the union from which heretofore they had been denied the right to secede.

Southern states were not the only ones that was opposed to the 14th admendment.  New Jersey, Ohio and Oregon all repealed their ratification of the 14th admendment.  To headoff a defeat of the 14th admendment even after cheating tactics with expelling Southern States from voting, more tricks had to be applied. 

Right after the election 1868 state legislative elections of Oregon it passed the 14th Admendment.  But it was done with fraud.  Two anti-14th admendment representitives from Grant County were refused their seats and two imposters filled their seats and voted for the 14th admendment which won by a margin of one vote.  Three days after the vote, and after it is too late, the real representitives were seated and the imposters expelled.

Such is the history of how the 14th admendment was passed.  Bad law, bad tactics.

[A18]

Thanks for posting the information! :-)

I remember reading that Southern States had to ratify to 14th amendment to "re-enter" the Union - which makes no sense, because it is in-dissolvable in the first place!

If the amendment was rejected by 13 States, then it was clearly dead.

So the 14th is fraudulent and there are only 26 amendments to the Constitution.

[??????????]

Why did the states have to be re-admitted? According to Lincoln and his nazi administration the states never left the union.

[A18]

Why did the states have to be re-admitted? According to Lincoln and his nazi administration the states never left the union.

Exactly. Well, except the part about the Lincoln administration being nazi-esque.

[Schmitz in 1972]

Lastly, when two thirds of both chambers approved this amendment, did the South have representation?

No. All confederate states except Tennessee were unrepresented. Speaking of Tennessee, when the state tried to ratify the amendment, they found that they were two members short of a quorum. Two anti-14th amendment legislators who were staying away on purpose were then tied up, kidnapped, and brought into the chamber to allow for passage.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I have mentioned before there is a lot of question about eh ratification of the 16th. Claimed to be ratified by 38 states, we know that at least one ratification (Kentucky) is clearly fraudulent. The validity of the other 37 ratifications depends on your interpretation of the 5th article, but in any case only two more states would need to be demonstrated as not having ratified it in order for it not to be an amendment. Claims have also been made against the validity of the 17th and 15th amendments.

I had the privelage of speaking with someone who did research in the Library of Congress on the subject during the push for the ERA. He said that they have the ratification papers going back to the 14th amendment and after examining them found that just about every amendment had a plethora of problems in their supposed ratifications. He concluded by saying that while it might be nice to remove the 14th and 16th amendments, he wouldn't want it if it meant losing all the rest.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The only thing fraudulent about the 14th amendment is the Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific SCOTUS case that claims that the 14th amendment applies to corporations.

[A18]

The people that own corporations are protected in their property and liberty under the due process clauses.

[Emsworth]

Congress proposed the Fourteenth Amendment in June 1866. The Northern states, as one might expect, ratified it very quickly. However, by February 1867, the amendment had been rejected by ten southern states, rendering ultimate ratification of the amendment impracticable.

In March of the same year, the Radical Republican Congress passed the Reconstruction Act of 1867. The act divided the South into military districts, reorganized state governments, and compelled the states to adopt new state constitutions (which were subject to congressional approval). Moreover, it denied southern states representation in either House of Congress until they ratified the Fourteenth Amendment.

In January 1868, Ohio (presumably appalled by the actions of the Radical Republicans) "withdrew" its ratification; New Jersey did the same in February. Nevertheless, the reconstituted legislatures of the South began to ratify the amendment, although the pre-Reconstruction Act legislatures had rejected it.

There were 37 states in the Union at the time; a three-fourths majority was 28. With Louisiana's ratification on July 9, 1868, a total of either 29 or 27 states had agreed to the Fourteenth Amendment, depending on whether the Ohio and New Jersey withdrawals were effective. Secretary of State William Seward then certified that the amendment had been ratified, on the presumption that the withdrawals were ineffective. The next day, Congress passed a joint resolution declaring that the withdrawals were indeed null and void. Seward subsequently certified the ratification absolutely without reservation.

To make matters somewhat more confusing, two additional states--Alabama and Georgia--also ratified the amendment in July 1868, after Louisiana. Thus, whether the New Jersey and Ohio withdrawals count is immaterial; they would have been replaced by Alabama and Georgia in any event.

The real crux of the controversy is not whether the withdrawals were effective. It is, firstly, whether the southern states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment voluntarily, and secondly, whether a state that has rejected an amendment may thereafter ratify it. The second question is not a difficult one at all; it is quite clear that a state may change its mind, and ratify an amendment despite having previously rejected it. The more difficult issue is whether the ratifications were voluntary, but I would say that they were.