publius1787

[publius1787]

Republicans Passage of the 13th Amendment to Abolish Slavery

The Senate passed the amendment on April 8, 1864, by a vote of 38 to 6; two Democrats, Reverdy Johnson of Maryland and James Nesmith of Oregon voted "aye." However, just over two months later on June 15, the House failed to do so, with 93 in favor and 65 against, thirteen votes short of the two-thirds vote needed for passage; the vote split largely along party lines, with Republicans supporting and Democrats opposing.[25] In the 1864 presidential race, former Free Soil Party candidate John C. Frémont threatened a third-party run opposing Lincoln, this time on a platform endorsing an anti-slavery amendment. The Republican Party platform had, as yet, failed to include a similar plank, though Lincoln endorsed the amendment in a letter accepting his nomination.[26][27] Fremont withdrew from the race on September 22, 1864 and endorsed Lincoln.[28]

With no Southern states represented, few members of Congress pushed moral and religious arguments in favor of slavery. Democrats who opposed the amendment generally made arguments based on federalism and states' rights.[29] Some argued that the proposed change so violated the spirit of the Constitution that it would not be a valid "amendment" but would instead constitute "revolution."[30] Representative White, among other opponents, warned that the amendment would lead to full citizenship for blacks.[31]

Republicans portrayed slavery as uncivilized and argued for abolition as a necessary step in national progress.[32] Amendment supporters also argued that the slave system had negative effects on white people. These included the lower wages resulting from competition with forced labor, as well as repression of abolitionist whites in the South. Advocates said ending slavery would restore the First Amendment and other constitutional rights violated by censorship and intimidation in slave states.[31][33]

White, Northern Republicans and some Democrats became excited about an abolition amendment, holding meetings and issuing resolutions.[34] Many blacks though, particularly in the South, focused more on land ownership and education as the key to liberation.[35] As slavery began to seem politically untenable, an array of Northern Democrats successively announced their support for the amendment, including Representative James Brooks,[36] Senator Reverdy Johnson,[37] and Tammany Hall, a powerful New York political machine.[38]

Celebration erupts after the amendment is passed by the House of Representatives.

President Lincoln had had concerns that the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 might be reversed or found invalid by the judiciary after the war.[39] He saw constitutional amendment as a more permanent solution.[40][41] He had remained outwardly neutral on the amendment because he considered it politically too dangerous.[42] Nonetheless, Lincoln's 1864 party platform resolved to abolish slavery by constitutional amendment.[43][44] After winning reelection in the election of 1864, Lincoln made the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment his top legislative priority, beginning with his efforts in Congress during its "lame duck" session.[45][46] Popular support for the amendment mounted and Lincoln urged Congress on in his December 6, 1864 State of the Union Address: "there is only a question of time as to when the proposed amendment will go to the States for their action. And as it is to so go, at all events, may we not agree that the sooner the better?"[47]

Lincoln instructed Secretary of State William H. Seward, Representative John B. Alley and others to procure votes by any means necessary, and they promised government posts and campaign contributions to outgoing Democrats willing to switch sides.[48][49] Seward had a large fund for direct bribes. Ashley, who reintroduced the measure into the House, also lobbied several Democrats to vote in favor of the measure.[50] Representative Thaddeus Stevens later commented that "the greatest measure of the nineteenth century was passed by corruption aided and abetted by the purest man in America"; however, Lincoln's precise role in making deals for votes remains unknown.[51]

Republicans in Congress claimed a mandate for abolition, having gained in the elections for Senate and House.[52] The 1864 Democratic vice-presidential nominee, Representative George H. Pendleton, led opposition to the measure.[53] Republicans toned down their language of radical equality in order to broaden the amendment's coalition of supporters.[54] In order to reassure critics worried that the amendment would tear apart the social fabric, some Republicans explicitly promised that the amendment would leave patriarchy intact.[55]

In mid-January 1865, Speaker of the House Schuyler Colfax estimated the amendment to be five votes short of passage. Ashley postponed the vote.[56] At this point, Lincoln intensified his push for the amendment, making direct emotional appeals to particular members of Congress.[57] On January 31, 1865, the House called another vote on the amendment, with neither side being certain of the outcome. With 183 House members present, 122 would have to vote "aye" to secure passage of the resolution; however eight Democrats abstained, reducing the number to 117. Every Republican (84), Independent Republican (2) and Unconditional Unionist (16) supported the measure, as well as 14 Democrats, almost all of them lame ducks, and 3 Unionists. The amendment finally passed by a vote of 119 to 56,[58] narrowly reaching the required two-thirds majority.[59] The House exploded into celebration, with some members openly weeping.[60] Black onlookers, who had only been allowed to attend Congressional sessions since the previous year, cheered from the galleries.[61]

While the Constitution does not provide the President any formal role in the amendment process, the joint resolution was sent to Lincoln for his signature.[62] Under the usual signatures of the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate, President Lincoln wrote the word "Approved" and added his signature to the joint resolution on February 1, 1865.[63] On February 7, Congress passed a resolution affirming that the Presidential signature was unnecessary.[64] The Thirteenth Amendment is the only ratified amendment signed by a President, although James Buchanan had signed the Corwin Amendment that the 36th Congress had adopted and sent to the states in March 1861.

[publius1787]

Did the Democrats & Republicans Switch Sides?

If racists made a grand switch in parties from Democrat to Republicans we would certainly have many political leaders we could point to who made the change. But bottom line is that there is not a big list of individuals in the 60’s and 70’s who switched parties. Certainly not enough to shift control from racist Democrats to Republicans. Of the known Dixiecrats (Southern Democrats), only three switched parties becoming Republicans: Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Mills E. Godwin, Jr. 

The States' Rights Democratic Party (usually called the Dixiecrats) was a short-lived segregationist political party in the United States. Founded in 1948, dissolved in 1948. The party did not run local or state candidates, and after the 1948 election its leaders generally returned to the Democratic Party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat

[publius1787]

Compromise of 1877

Immediately after the presidential election of 1876, it became clear that the outcome of the race hinged largely on disputed returns from Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina–the only three states in the South with Reconstruction-era Republican governments still in power. As a bipartisan congressional commission debated over the outcome early in 1877, allies of the Republican Party candidate Rutherford Hayes met in secret with moderate southern Democrats in order to negotiate acceptance of Hayes’ election. The Democrats agreed not to block Hayes’ victory on the condition that Republicans withdraw all federal troops from the South, thus consolidating Democratic control over the region. As a result of the so-called Compromise of 1877 (or Compromise of 1876), Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina became Democratic once again, effectively marking the end of the Reconstruction era.

Compromise of 1877: The 1876 Election

By the 1870s, support was waning for the racially egalitarian policies of Reconstruction, as many southern whites had resorted to intimidation and violence to keep blacks from voting and restore white supremacy in the region. Beginning in 1873, a series of Supreme Court decisions limited the scope of Reconstruction-era laws and federal support for the so-called Reconstruction Amendments, particularly the 14th and 15th, which gave African Americans the status of citizenship and the protection of the Constitution, including the all-important right to vote.

Did you know? After the most disputed election in American history, the Compromise of 1877 put Rutherford Hayes into office as the nation's 19th president; outraged northern Democrats derided Hayes as "His Fraudulency."

In addition, accusations of corruption within the administration of Ulysses S. Grant and an economic depression had heightened discontent with the Republican Party, in the White House since 1861. As the 1876 presidential election approached, the Democrats chose as their candidate Governor Samuel B. Tilden of New York, while the Republicans nominated Rutherford B. Hayes, governor of Ohio. In his acceptance of the nomination, Hayes wrote that if elected, he would bring “the blessings of honest and capable local self government” to the South–in other words, restrict federal enforcement of unpopular Reconstruction-era policies.

Compromise of 1877: Election Results

On Election Day that November, the Democrats appeared to come out on top, winning the swing states of Connecticut, Indiana, New York and New Jersey. By midnight, Tilden had 184 of the 185 electoral votes he needed to win, and was leading the popular vote by 250,000. The Republicans refused to accept defeat, however, and accused Democratic supporters of intimidating and bribing African-American voters to prevent them from voting in three southern states–Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina. As of 1876, these were the only remaining states in the South with Republican governments.

In South Carolina, the election had been marred by bloodshed on both sides of the party line. Supporters of the Democratic gubernatorial candidate Wade Hampton, a former Confederate general, had used violence and intimidation to confront the African-American voting majority. A clash between black militia and armed whites in Hamburg in July ended in the death of five militia men after their surrender, while at Camboy (near Charleston) six white men were killed when armed blacks opened fire in a political meeting. With both sides accusing each other of electoral fraud, South Carolina, along with Florida and Louisiana, submitted two sets of election returns with different results. Meanwhile, in Oregon, the state’s Democratic governor replaced a Republican elector with a Democrat (alleging that the Republican had been ineligible), thus throwing Hayes’ victory in that state into question as well.

Compromise of 1877: Congress Steps In

To resolve the dispute, Congress set up an electoral commission in January 1877, consisting of five U.S. representatives, five senators and five Supreme Court justices. The commission’s members included seven Democrats, seven Republicans and one independent, Justice David Davis. When Davis refused to serve, the moderate Republican Justice Joseph Bradley was chosen to replace him.

During the commission’s deliberations, Hayes’ Republican allies met in secret with moderate southern Democrats in hopes of convincing them not to block the official counting of votes through filibuster and effectively allow Hayes’ election. In February, at a meeting held in Washington’s Wormley Hotel, the Democrats agreed to accept a Hayes victory, and to respect the civil and political rights of African Americans, on the condition that Republicans withdraw all federal troops from South, thus consolidating Democratic control in the region. Hayes would also have to agree to name a leading southerner to his cabinet and to support federal aid for the Texas and Pacific Railroad, a planned transcontinental line via a southern route. On March 2, the congressional commission voted 8-7 along party lines to award all the disputed electoral votes to Hayes, giving him 185 votes to Tilden’s 184.

Compromise of 1877: The End of Reconstruction

Hayes appointed Tennessee’s David Key as postmaster general, but never followed through on the promised land grant for the Texas and Pacific. Within two months, however, Hayes had ordered federal troops from their posts guarding Louisiana and South Carolina statehouses, allowing Democrats to seize control in both those states. As Florida’s Supreme Court had earlier declared a Democratic victory in the 1876 gubernatorial election, Democrats had been restored to power all across the South.

The Compromise of 1876 effectively ended the Reconstruction era. Southern Democrats’ promises to protect civil and political rights of blacks were not kept, and the end of federal interference in southern affairs led to widespread disenfranchisement of blacks voters. From the late 1870s onward, southern legislatures passed a series of laws requiring the separation of whites from “persons of color” on public transportation, in schools, parks, restaurants, theaters and other locations. Known as the “Jim Crow laws” (after a popular minstrel act developed in the antebellum years), these segregationist statutes governed life in the South through the middle of the next century, ending only after the hard-won successes of the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

[publius1787]

A History of Violence in the Democratic Party

From the mid-1870s onward, violence rose as insurgent paramilitary groups in the Deep South worked to suppress black voting and turn Republicans out of office. In Louisiana, the Carolinas, and Florida especially, the Democratic Party relied on paramilitary "White Line" groups, such as the White Camelia, White League and Red Shirts to terrorize, intimidate and assassinate African-American and white Republicans in an organized drive to regain power. In Mississippi and the Carolinas, paramilitary chapters of Red Shirts conducted overt violence and disruption of elections. In Louisiana, the White League had numerous chapters; they carried out goals of the Democratic Party to suppress black voting. Grant's desire to keep Ohio in the Republican aisle and his attorney general's maneuvers led to a failure to support the Mississippi governor with Federal troops. The campaign of terror worked. In Yazoo County, Mississippi, for instance, with an African-American population of 12,000, only seven votes were cast for Republicans in 1874. In 1875, Democrats swept into power in the Mississippi state legislature. Once Democrats regained power in Mississippi, Democrats in other states adopted the Mississippi Plan to control the election of 1876, using informal armed militias to assassinate political leaders, hunt down community members, intimidate and turn away voters, and effectively suppress African-American suffrage and civil rights. In state after state, Democrats swept back to power and from 1868 to 1876, there were 50–100 lynchings annually.

Read more here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States 

[publius1787]

Is it fair that congressional members & staff receive a large healthcare subsidy AND free healthcare from the Office of Attending Physician (OAP)?

Federalist Paper 57

The House of Representatives Must Live Under the Laws They Pass!  

In the third place, those ties which bind the representative to his constituents are strengthened by motives of a more selfish nature. His pride and vanity attach him to a form of government which favors his pretensions and gives him a share in its honors and distinctions. Whatever hopes or projects might be entertained by a few aspiring characters, it must generally happen that a great proportion of the men deriving their advancement from their influence with the people, would have more to hope from a preservation of the favor, than from innovations in the government subversive of the authority of the people.

All these securities, however, would be found very insufficient without the restraint of frequent elections. Hence, in the fourth place, the House of Representatives is so constituted as to support in the members an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people. Before the sentiments impressed on their minds by the mode of their elevation can be effaced by the exercise of power, they will be compelled to anticipate the moment when their power is to cease, when their exercise of it is to be reviewed, and when they must descend to the level from which they were raised; there forever to remain unless a faithful discharge of their trust shall have established their title to a renewal of it.

I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny.

If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America, a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it. If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate any thing but liberty.

Such will be the relation between the House of Representatives and their constituents. Duty, gratitude, interest, ambition itself, are the chords by which they will be bound to fidelity and sympathy with the great mass of the people.

The Federalist Papers # 57. Written by Alexander Hamilton or James Madison and published on Tuesday, February 19, 1788. The Alleged Tendency of the New Plan to Elevate the Few at the Expense of the Many Considered in Connection with Representation.��From the New York Packet. 

[publius1787]

Frequent Elections

”The House of Representatives is designed to habitually remind members of their dependence on the people.

Before their exercise of power causes them to completely forget how they became elevated to high office, they will be forced to think about the moment when their power will cease, when their exercise of it will be reviewed, and when they must descend to levels from which they were raised.”

Written by Alexander Hamilton & James Madison, February 19, 1788. From the New York Packet

[publius1787]

Wise and Virtuous Representation

The third charge against the House of Representatives is that members will come from that class of citizens with least in common with the mass of people and who would be most likely to aim at the ambitious sacrifices of the many to aggrandisement of the few.

Of all the objections against the Federal Constitution, this is perhaps the most extraordinary. While the objection itself is leveled against an imagined oligarchy, the principle strikes at the very root of republican government.

The first aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, to find men for rulers who possess the most wisdom to discern and the most virtue to pursue the common good of the society. Next, it needs the most effective precautions for keeping them virtuous while they continue to hold their public trust.

Republican governments elect rulers. Numerous and various means are relied on to prevent their degeneracy. The most effective is limiting the term in office to maintain a proper responsibility to the people.  

Written by Alexander Hamilton & James Madison, February 19, 1788. From the New York Packet

[publius1787]

Is it Legal or Right for our House of Representatives to have better Healthcare than us?

Federalist Paper #57

If it is asked what restrains the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a specific class of society? I answer: the genius of the whole system, the nature of just and constitutional laws, and, above all, the vigililant and manly spirit actuating the people of America, a spirit which nourishes freedom and, in return, is nourished by it.

[publius1787]

The House of Representatives MUST live Under the Laws they Pass

Our Representatives voted to approve ObamaCare insurance that gives them the highest Gold standard plan, subsidized by us taxpayers. We get terrible insurance at skyrocketing cost and they get the Gold package and receive a subsidy to offset their cost. Yet they don’t feel the need to fix it for the constituents who are paying their subsidy?

 I guess if they were on the bad side of this insurance debacle they would find the time to fix it. As I read Federalist Paper 57 I’m reminded of the passage that reads; “The House of Representatives will make no law that will not have its operation upon themselves”. Quite simply put; The House of Representatives MUST live Under the Laws they Pass.  James Madison 1788 Federalist Paper 57

 The Federalist Papers (1787-1788) were written to support the new Constitution and are the single most important source for Constitutional interpretation

[publius1787]

Insurrection or Rebellion

When Democrats such as Maxine Waters (D-Calif) call for impeaching the President, when no impeachable offense exists, she should be reminded of the United States Constitution 14th Amendment Section 3 that reads:

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

 Definition of “Insurrection or Rebellion”: is the refusal of obedience or order. It refers to the open resistance against the orders of an established authority. 

 Protesting is one thing but inciting resistance against established authority, creating a toxic atmosphere that sets off events such as the shooting of United States Congressmen, is crossing the line. Call it what it is; “Insurrection and Rebellion”.

 It’s time to invoke the Insurrection or Rebellion clause.

[publius1787]

Trump’s 3,084 to Hillary’s 57

Whether the precise numbers from the circulated email below are correct or incorrect they do not distract from the premise of the story. The facts stand that Trump won the Electoral College vote count (306-232) and this is how presidents have been elected for 240 years now. The Electoral College vote count is nothing new. Our Founding Fathers designed it this way to give every state in the Union fair representation. If the election to the highest office were to be determined by one or two populous states, the rest of the country would not be represented. Our Founders completely understood that every state in the union not only need but required fair representation. Remember they had just fought AND WON the Revolutionary War with Great Britain, because they were not fairly represented.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Sent: Monday, December 9, 2016 8:52 AM Subject: 3,084 to 57

When you look at the figures, it is pretty clear who the people wanted as president.

They say because Hillary won the popular vote that she should be president.

Well, our founders decided it was fair to give EVERY region a representation in choosing our leaders and not just allowing the densely populated states to do so.

The following list of statistics should put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense.

Share this with as many whiners as you can.

·        There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

·        Trump won 3,084 of them.

·        Clinton won a mere 57.

·        There are 62 counties in New York State.

·        Trump won 46 of them.

·        Clinton won 16.

·        Clinton won the popular vote by approximately 1.5 million votes

·        In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)

·        Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

·        These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.

·        The United States is comprised of 3, 797,000 square miles.

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country!

[publius1787]

Jan, 20, 1981

“We are a nation that has a government, not the other way around.” Ronald Reagan Jan. 20, 1981 Inaugural Address http://goo.gl/AXDFUl

[publius1787]

Remember this.....

“All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Govt did not create the States; the States created the Federal Govt”. Ronald Reagan Inaugural Speech Jan. 20, 1981

[publius1787]

Do endorsements help candidates?

How do you feel about celebrities endorsing candidates? I personally don’t feel any effect one way or the other. Recently Obama came out to attack Trump then Colin Powell came out to attack Trump. Will it persuade you to make a decision one way or the other? For me, it’s a no, even if I think positively of the person making the endorsement or the attack. But what about you?

[publius1787]

Federalist Papers

The Federalist Papers written between 1787-1788 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. Written to support the new Constitution & is the single most important source for Constitutional interpretation. The old Articles of Confederation had many faults that didn’t give the new Nation a way to fully function so three esteemed men wrote 85 essays that were circulated throughout the colonies promoting the new constitution. This was their last chance to get it right.