Any "legal eagles" want to clarify the Kentucky case for me?

[The Fox]

DM Beckett wrote:

People attribute to Lincoln a lot of morality and heroic ideals he really doesn't deserve. But then, so much taught about of the civil war is pretty ridiculous. It wasn't about slavery at all...

Was the Civil War About Slavery?

[BigNorseWolf]

I'm all for stream of consciousness but civil war seems to be its own thread. (if it can be handled)

[thejeff]

The Fox wrote:

DM Beckett wrote:

People attribute to Lincoln a lot of morality and heroic ideals he really doesn't deserve. But then, so much taught about of the civil war is pretty ridiculous. It wasn't about slavery at all...

Was the Civil War About Slavery?

And in so many ways, we're still fighting the same conflict.

[BigNorseWolf]

thejeff wrote:

And in so many ways, we're still fighting the same conflict.

I think most of the reason it looks that way is because there are very few genuine arguments for positions. Mostly its a matter of "i like x" or "i don't like x" and reality doesn't enter into it, but arguments that support ones likes such as states rights get thrown out IF and only IF they support ones position. If you're anti gay marriage then any argument that makes this woman look good click. If not, not.

[Krensky]

thejeff wrote:

The Fox wrote:

DM Beckett wrote:

People attribute to Lincoln a lot of morality and heroic ideals he really doesn't deserve. But then, so much taught about of the civil war is pretty ridiculous. It wasn't about slavery at all...

Was the Civil War About Slavery?

And in so many ways, we're still fighting the same conflict.

Mainly because during reconstruction the pro slavery forces switched tactics to a covert armed insurrection (the KKK, lynchings, etc) and to 'subtle' legislative bull-crap like poll taxes, reading tests, and the posse comitas law (fun fact, it was passed to stop 'tyrannical' governors in the south from using the army to ensure black folks could vote), etc to undercut the Civil Rights Act.

It worked remarkable well until the third Civil Rights Act in the 1960s and things were looking up, until recently when the Right started the same disenfranchisement games and gutted the 1960s Voting Rights Act.

[DM Beckett]

The Fox wrote:

DM Beckett wrote:

People attribute to Lincoln a lot of morality and heroic ideals he really doesn't deserve. But then, so much taught about of the civil war is pretty ridiculous. It wasn't about slavery at all...

Was the Civil War About Slavery?

And yet, we have documented accounts of the Union sending back escaped slaves to the south. A lot of them. Or the fact that the one and only right that African descended people where granted at the time was "the right to attempt to better themselves". Or the fact that the Union, and Lincoln maintained the law that owned slaves constituted a 2/5th vote. Or the fact that Lincoln is actually directly quoted more than once as not being a abolitionist, (that is not wanting to free slaves), and also very much about (even quoted in the video in an abridged version) wanting to keep the nation together. West Point's Historian seems to be trying to sell propaganda rather than actually offering any evidence, in my opinion.

Note, I am not saying that slavery is good or right. I am saying that Lincoln is not a paragon of virtue, and that a great deal of what people think the Civil War was is simply the winner's version.

[Irontruth]

DM Beckett wrote:

BigDTBone wrote:

No, it proved it could re-elect an incumbent with half the states not getting their electoral votes.

Could you imagine the turmoil if Lincoln had been defeated?

People attribute to Lincoln a lot of morality and heroic ideals he really doesn't deserve. But then, so much taught about of the civil war is pretty ridiculous. It wasn't about slavery at all, and Lincoln, while not liking slavery himself, (that is for himself) actually fought politically to keep slavery as it was. Even after the south seceded, Lincoln was still fighting to return runaway slaves to the south.

During his reign, Lincoln brought in an army to hold the entire Maryland legislation down so they could not revoke his illegal suspension of Habeas Corpus and discuss secession. He also outright ignored Supreme Court rulings against him, that it, and many other things where unconstitutional. He later had the army go in, put Maryland under martial law and threatened to destroy it rather than allow even the possibility of secession.

It wasn't until after two years of the Civil War, when the Union was starting to loose both politically and physically, did Lincoln finally emancipate the slaves and arm them. Before that point, Lincoln had continuously declined to do so. Why is that?

And how about that Emancipation Proclamation? It was a document from one government dictating terms to all other legal and sovereign governments, but namely, and I mean literally, naming all of the confederate states and countries as "rebels, and authorized all slaves, (in ONLY those other nations) to be freed (and also to be drafted). One government trying to make laws for others, and not doing a single thing for any slave not in those named locations. But, it was also a military order, not a universal one, meaning that it only applied while the Union was at war with the states and cities named in the Confederacy.

You said the Civil War wasn't about slavery, but all you talked about was Lincoln's attitude to slavery. If the war wasn't about slavery, his stance on the issue would be irrelevant.

The only way to argue that the Civil War wasn't about slavery is to pretend it didn't exist, and instead talk about a hypothetical war, but then that would be fantasy, not history.

[DM Beckett]

Irontruth wrote:

DM Beckett wrote:

BigDTBone wrote:

No, it proved it could re-elect an incumbent with half the states not getting their electoral votes.

Could you imagine the turmoil if Lincoln had been defeated?

People attribute to Lincoln a lot of morality and heroic ideals he really doesn't deserve. But then, so much taught about of the civil war is pretty ridiculous. It wasn't about slavery at all, and Lincoln, while not liking slavery himself, (that is for himself) actually fought politically to keep slavery as it was. Even after the south seceded, Lincoln was still fighting to return runaway slaves to the south.

During his reign, Lincoln brought in an army to hold the entire Maryland legislation down so they could not revoke his illegal suspension of Habeas Corpus and discuss secession. He also outright ignored Supreme Court rulings against him, that it, and many other things where unconstitutional. He later had the army go in, put Maryland under martial law and threatened to destroy it rather than allow even the possibility of secession.

It wasn't until after two years of the Civil War, when the Union was starting to loose both politically and physically, did Lincoln finally emancipate the slaves and arm them. Before that point, Lincoln had continuously declined to do so. Why is that?

And how about that Emancipation Proclamation? It was a document from one government dictating terms to all other legal and sovereign governments, but namely, and I mean literally, naming all of the confederate states and countries as "rebels, and authorized all slaves, (in ONLY those other nations) to be freed (and also to be drafted). One government trying to make laws for others, and not doing a single thing for any slave not in those named locations. But, it was also a military order, not a universal one, meaning that it only applied while the Union was at war with the states and cities named in the Confederacy.

You said the Civil War wasn't about slavery, but all you talked about was...

Actually I just gave a lot of factual evidence, (feel free to fact check), the Lincoln didn't care about slavery (at least nearly to the degree we often attribute to him), something he was quoted on more than once. It's also worth noting that Lincoln was also known for preventing the press from printing stories that harmed his caused or put him in a negative light, so these quotes are not from his detractors in the south, but from his Union contemporaries who where abolitionists and tried to push him to that. He refused.

[MrTsFloatinghead]

DM Beckett wrote:

People attribute to Lincoln a lot of morality and heroic ideals he really doesn't deserve. But then, so much taught about of the civil war is pretty ridiculous....

I'm sorry - this is going to be a long post with only one connection to the Davis affair (a pretty powerful one, though), but I think it's important to respond to this. Put bluntly, this understanding of the Civil War is deeply flawed, and has gained far too much traction in our culture.

Let's start with the central assertion that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, but rather economics and the limitations on states rights. This is a common fallacy that comes about (in my experience) largely because of attempt by people to be "fair-minded" and "objective" about what the war was about. Sure, we can agree that slavery was distasteful, but shouldn't we acknowledge that the slave-holding states had a legitimate gripe? I mean, certainly they were looking at a situation where a wealthier and more populous north was going to increasingly dominate national politics, to the detriment of the economic and political interests of the southern states, right? So, really, slavery was just one minor part of that, and not that big a deal - the civil war would have happened regardless of the existence of slavery, and thus discussing slavery is a sideshow that muddies the water with irrelevant moralizing.

There's a key problem with the above line of reasoning, though. Here is a link that allows you to read the text of the declarations of the causes of succession for Georgia, Texas, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia.

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcause s.html

As a fun exercise, how many of those documents explicitly list hostility in the north against the institution of slavery as a primary motivator for succession? I'll give you a hint - all of them. So, yes, the Civil War was about state's rights - but the specific right in question was slavery. Yes, the Civil War was about economics, but the economic system at the heart of the dispute was chattel slavery. This, by the way, is the great connection to the whole Kim Davis debacle - it's all about branding. "Religious Freedom" is a great cause to fight for, despite being an utterly inaccurate assessment of the situation. It's much easier to get people to rally behind a general cause or an abstract ideal like state's rights or freedom of religion than it is to get them to defend the ugly specifics, like a woman seeking the right to violate the law so she can continue to exercise what she sees as her religious freedom to use her government office to condemn and scorn people she disagrees with.

Second, this understanding of Lincoln's actions in the context of the war is incomplete, at best. Yes, Lincoln instituted martial law, and yes, there were controversial decisions and serious disagreements in the north about the course of the war - shockingly, none of this is unusual when you are dealing with a civil war, and in fact there has never been any disagreement that the President has vast powers to preserve the nation in the face of a rebellion. The disagreements that continue to the present are generally along the lines of "Did Lincoln have the right to do what everyone after the fact recognized was necessary, without the Congressional approval of said actions which he eventually got anyway?" The fact that this question remains unanswered to this day demonstrates how unsettled much of the case law on civil liberties in wartime actually is, which is scary, but not germane to the fact that virtually everyone agrees that what Lincoln did was at least justifiable, if questionable.

Moreover the central implication of this yarn is that Lincoln didn't much care about this issue - this dovetails nicely with that other chestnut that Lincoln was actually just as virulent a racist as any plantation owner, making him a feckless hypocrite too.

Of course the truth is more complicated - It is true that Lincoln "delayed" the Emancipation Proclamation, and that it was a fairly limited document in scope in that it didn't address the issue of slavery in the loyal states, all of which is above and beyond the question of whether it was even legal to begin with. On the later point, Lincoln was at least somewhat shrewd, however, because he was able to turn the central idea of chattel slavery (that people can be property) against the institution of slavery itself. There is no doubt that war (or open rebellion) gives the government broad powers to seize or otherwise destroy property which is being used by the other side to prosecute the war, and it's difficult to argue with Lincoln's justification of the Proclamation on those grounds (that it was an act of war which attacked the war-making ability of the south).

As for the delay, and the fact that it targeted only the states in the Confederacy, well, here we see Lincoln the great pragmatist and statesman. First, there is unquestionably the idea that Lincoln did not want to antagonize the slaveholding border states which had not seceded, as those states were seen (probably correctly) as being vital to the eventual outcome of the war. Moreover, it would be much harder for Lincoln to justify the Emancipation Proclamation as an act of war if it was also directed at loyal states and citizens. Finally, Lincoln recognized what most people of the day did - the writing was on the wall for slavery in any case in those states, and seeing which way the wind was blowing all the loyal slave states except Kentucky and Delaware had abolished slavery before the Thirteenth Amendment (which made the debate moot in any case).

It would, therefore, have been politically costly and foolish for Lincoln to have taken a more sweeping approach, given that the more limited one got the same result, and with less (but certainly not zero) controversy. It's true that Lincoln favored a more gradual approach to abolition than the southern states gave him credit for (having painted him as a radical abolitionist for their own propaganda purposes), but when given the opportunity to chart a path towards national abolition, it's probably fair to say that Lincoln charted the course that was maybe less ideologically pure, but much more likely to succeed in accomplishing the end goal.

This, then, leaves the question of Lincoln's personal beliefs. Let's not mince words here - the man was a racist (as was the vast majority of the population of the north, including the majority of abolitionists). He did not, ultimately, truly believe that a black man was the equal of a white man in terms of actual ability or quality. That said, what makes him truly remarkable is that he recognized two great truths beyond that - first, that regardless of his personal feelings on the matter, equality before the law was an ideal which deserved to be fought for, and second (and I think even more heroically), he was able to recognize that his racist beliefs diminished HIM as a person, and that he could do what he knew was right, even if he didn't personally agree with it.

Bringing this back around to Kim Davis, this is why it is so important to make it clear that there is, in fact, no issue of religious freedom here, unless you are willing to defend the very specific freedom which Mrs. Davis is fighting for - namely the right to break (or at least ignore) the law in order to use her government office to condemn and marginalize people she whose lifestyle she doesn't agree with.

[thejeff]

DM Beckett wrote:

The Fox wrote:

DM Beckett wrote:

People attribute to Lincoln a lot of morality and heroic ideals he really doesn't deserve. But then, so much taught about of the civil war is pretty ridiculous. It wasn't about slavery at all...

Was the Civil War About Slavery?

And yet, we have documented accounts of the Union sending back escaped slaves to the south. A lot of them. Or the fact that the one and only right that African descended people where granted at the time was "the right to attempt to better themselves". Or the fact that the Union, and Lincoln maintained the law that owned slaves constituted a 2/5th vote. Or the fact that Lincoln is actually directly quoted more than once as not being a abolitionist, (that is not wanting to free slaves), and also very much about (even quoted in the video in an abridged version) wanting to keep the nation together. West Point's Historian seems to be trying to sell propaganda rather than actually offering any evidence, in my opinion.

Note, I am not saying that slavery is good or right. I am saying that Lincoln is not a paragon of virtue, and that a great deal of what people think the Civil War was is simply the winner's version.

If you want to be honest about it, the Civil War was about slavery. Lincoln and the Republican party weren't trying to end it, at least not in the short run, but they were trying to prevent it's expansion into the new territories and both they and the South knew that would mean its inevitable end, since it would lead to a majority of non-slave states. Lincoln was fighting the war to keep the Union together, not to end slavery, but the South seceded because they felt slavery was threatened. That's quite clear from all their founding documents.

Make of that what you will. If you want to say it wasn't about slavery because Lincoln wasn't initially trying to end slavery, I suppose you can. But you really have to admit the entire point of the Confederacy was slavery. Which makes the war about slavery, whatever Lincoln intended.

[Krensky]

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:

*stuff*

You forgot to drop the mic.

[Grey Lensman]

thejeff wrote:

DM Beckett wrote:

The Fox wrote:

DM Beckett wrote:

People attribute to Lincoln a lot of morality and heroic ideals he really doesn't deserve. But then, so much taught about of the civil war is pretty ridiculous. It wasn't about slavery at all...

Was the Civil War About Slavery?

And yet, we have documented accounts of the Union sending back escaped slaves to the south. A lot of them. Or the fact that the one and only right that African descended people where granted at the time was "the right to attempt to better themselves". Or the fact that the Union, and Lincoln maintained the law that owned slaves constituted a 2/5th vote. Or the fact that Lincoln is actually directly quoted more than once as not being a abolitionist, (that is not wanting to free slaves), and also very much about (even quoted in the video in an abridged version) wanting to keep the nation together. West Point's Historian seems to be trying to sell propaganda rather than actually offering any evidence, in my opinion.

Note, I am not saying that slavery is good or right. I am saying that Lincoln is not a paragon of virtue, and that a great deal of what people think the Civil War was is simply the winner's version.

If you want to be honest about it, the Civil War was about slavery. Lincoln and the Republican party weren't trying to end it, at least not in the short run, but they were trying to prevent it's expansion into the new territories and both they and the South knew that would mean its inevitable end, since it would lead to a majority of non-slave states. Lincoln was fighting the war to keep the Union together, not to end slavery, but the South seceded because they felt slavery was threatened. That's quite clear from all their founding documents.

Make of that what you will. If you want to say it wasn't about slavery because Lincoln wasn't initially trying to end slavery, I suppose you can. But you really have to admit the entire...

I'll go further and say that anyone who thinks the American Civil War was NOT about slavery really needs to hit Google (or Bing or whatever search engine you prefer) and type is 'Articles of Secession". Reading them should dispel any notion that the war started over anything else.

And it seems I was beaten to the punch....that's what I get for skipping to the last few posts I guess.

But to expand, the South was NOT for States rights AT ALL (except their own). The concept of Northern states exercising their State's Rights to not support slavery wasn't something they wanted to consider, and made illegal by a certain SCOTUS decision (guess how many of the justices came from the South?) anyways.

[Samnell]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

I'm all for stream of consciousness but civil war seems to be its own thread. (if it can be handled)

As requested, so given. I covered some of the same ground as the other posts in this thread, but opted to go further and deal with the full pile of wrong.

I'm sure there'll be more for as long as white supremacy remains popular. I expect that to be the norm in the United States for the foreseeable future.

[Samnell]

Grey Lensman wrote:

But to expand, the South was NOT for States rights AT ALL (except their own). The concept of Northern states exercising their State's Rights to not support slavery wasn't something they wanted to consider, and made illegal by a certain SCOTUS decision (guess how many of the justices came from the South?) anyways.

You might be thinking of Dred Scott, but that's not really a slavery-in-states case as such. (It's a slavery-in-territories and reciprocal state obligations case.) The one where Taney outright said that states could not claim state sovereignty to ignore federal law was Ableman v. Booth. In this decision, at least, he made no major innovations in constitutional law.

[LazarX]

Krensky wrote:

Considering Lincoln only served one month of his second term and that McClellan was a War Democrat, probably not much.

Actually it was three months.. from January to April. Just long enough to see the end of the war.

[Krensky]

LazarX wrote:

Krensky wrote:

Considering Lincoln only served one month of his second term and that McClellan was a War Democrat, probably not much.

Actually it was three months.. from January to April. Just long enough to see the end of the war.

No, it was one month. His second inauguration was March 4, 1865

[LazarX]

Krensky wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Krensky wrote:

Considering Lincoln only served one month of his second term and that McClellan was a War Democrat, probably not much.

Actually it was three months.. from January to April. Just long enough to see the end of the war.

No, it was one month. His second inauguration was March 4, 1865

Better than who was it... Warren Harding? The one who insisted on staying out in the rain for two hours and died of pneumonia two weeks later.

Extra credit question. Who was the last President to wear a top hat for a Presidential inaguration. (It's a trick question btw)

[LazarX]

Grey Lensman wrote:

I'll go further and say that anyone who thinks the American Civil War was NOT about slavery really needs to hit Google (or Bing or whatever search engine you prefer) and type is 'Articles of Secession". Reading them should dispel any notion that the war started over anything else.

There's also room for argument that it was the inpetus for the American Revolution as well. The main push for Independence was from the landed southern plantation owners. As Britain was already going to implement a ban on chattel slavery.

[Grey Lensman]

LazarX wrote:

Grey Lensman wrote:

I'll go further and say that anyone who thinks the American Civil War was NOT about slavery really needs to hit Google (or Bing or whatever search engine you prefer) and type is 'Articles of Secession". Reading them should dispel any notion that the war started over anything else.

There's also room for argument that it was the inpetus for the American Revolution as well. The main push for Independence was from the landed southern plantation owners. As Britain was already going to implement a ban on chattel slavery.

That conclusion seems a little bit iffier to me given how much the seeds were sown in New England and Philadelphia, but it certainly did help the revolt transition away from a New England centered issue into one involving ALL the colonies. One of the big pushes for independence came from Thomas Paine, and he was NO friend at all to slavery.

[Grey Lensman]

But returning to something a little more on topic, what do you think the chances are that Davis attempts to mess with licenses again?

[TOZ]

Signs point to yes.

[Samnell]

LazarX wrote:

Better than who was it... Warren Harding? The one who insisted on staying out in the rain for two hours and died of pneumonia two weeks later.

William Henry Harrison, who in past adventures lobbied to get the Northwest Ordinance's slavery ban suspended. He was the Whigs' first president, pretty long in the tooth by the time he took office, and died thirty-two days into his term.

Incidentally, this footnote ended up being a huge deal. His VP was John Tyler, a fairly radical proslavery man from Virginia. Tyler positioned himself as a states rights Whig, which put him in a fairly marginal place in the party. He'd been a Democrat until quite recently before. As president, His Accidency was hated by everyone. He was too much an old school Democrat for the Whigs and too much a traitor for the Democrats. The Whigs actually expelled him from the party.

Tyler decided that he'd like to have a term of his own and figured the best way to do that was prove he was a southern, proslavery Democrat from way back. Thus he campaigned hard to get Texas stalled annexation attempt through Congress. He got a treaty to do things properly, but then could not get the 2/3 of the Senate to sign on. Also his term was running out.

So he ended up cheating. Treaties required 2/3 majorities, but a joint resolution worked on a simple majority. This was extremely irregular and greeted with great controversy, but he got his majority and Texas took the offer. This, technically at least, means that Texas didn't so much negotiate as an equal to get into the United States as accept some shady charity on its behalf.

There's also some really convoluted stuff with how Sam Houston was playing the British and Americans against each other in a kind of heads-I-win, tails-you-lose double bluff with the somewhat, but not entirely, aware cooperation of the American state department under Abel Upshur (another proslavery Virginian of the Tyler school) and then John C. Calhoun when Upshur got blown up. Yes, literally blown up.

Of course Texas had a dispute with Mexico over its independence and where its border ran if it was independent. This was one reason that Americans opposed annexation, though there was also the partisan element (Whigs tended to oppose, Democrats favor) and the slavery angle, as well as the huge honkin' size and the fears that a state that big might destabilize things badly. To settle the border dispute, a US Army under Zachary Taylor (Yes, we have to talk about Taylor and Tyler together. Blame the dead people for having similar names and being prominent at similar times.) into the disputed territory, where it promptly clashed with Mexican troops. Everything worked as designed and we had the Mexican War, bringing with it more land to argue about slavery over.

Harrison might have done something similar anyway, but he wouldn't have had the personal need to do it to save his political career like Tyler did.

Two random things:
1) Harrison's grandson Benjamin also became president. He's the one Grover Cleveland straddled.
2) Tyler still has a living grandson. As of a few years ago, he had two but the other was in poor health.

[Kalindlara]

Samnell wrote:

Harrison's grandson Benjamin also became president. He's the one Grover Cleveland straddled.

Um... phrasing? :D

[Samnell]

Kalindlara wrote:

Samnell wrote:

Harrison's grandson Benjamin also became president. He's the one Grover Cleveland straddled.

Um... phrasing? :D

I regret nothing. Also we're not doing phrasing anymore.

[Krensky]

Samnell wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

Samnell wrote:

Harrison's grandson Benjamin also became president. He's the one Grover Cleveland straddled.

Um... phrasing? :D

I regret nothing. Also we're not doing phrasing anymore.

Wait... What? We're not doing phrasing now?

That's cool, I guess, but if we're doing something new now and no one told me that's not cool at all.

[Scott Betts]

Ejrik the Norseman wrote:

I, for one, actually like the fact that there is a group whose purpose is to ultimately make the government accountable to the People and the Constitution. After all, who REALLY has kept the government in check? The People?

Yes. And, frankly, we, The People, have done a pretty decent job of it. Almost none of our safeguarding of rights was accomplished by threatening our own government with violence, however. It's irresponsible, counterproductive, immature, and, frankly, delusional to believe that is a worthwhile tactic.

The problem these people (Oathkeepers, and other self-styled champions of the Constitution) almost uniformly have is that they imagine themselves as being opposed to the government. That isn't how a democratic government works, nor is it how a democracy is maintained. It is, however, exactly how one might imagine themselves if their primary concern was feeling important.

So while a bunch of arsenal-toting crazies have been pretending at relevance, the rest of us are actually maintaining our democracy.

[CBDunkerson]

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:

*stuff*

Another, even more direct, link to Kim Davis... the confederate flag wavers at the 'Kim Davis freedom rally'.

Funny how that 'noble' symbol invariably shows up for ugly causes.

[thejeff]

Apparently, Kim Davis has shown signs of sanity and declined the Oath Keeper's offer.

[Orfamay Quest]

thejeff wrote:

Apparently, Kim Davis has shown signs of sanity and declined the Oath Keeper's offer.

That's good.

Well, from my personal perspective, I would love to see her commit a blatant violation of Federal criminal law so that she spends the next five years in the can.

But from a public policy perspective, I think it's much better if this issue gets resolved quickly, peacefully, and with minimal disruption to everyone's normal life.

[BigNorseWolf]

thejeff wrote:

Apparently, Kim Davis has shown signs of sanity ....

Whats next, frogs, plague, or locusts? I always forget the order...

[Krensky]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Apparently, Kim Davis has shown signs of sanity ....

Whats next, frogs, plague, or locusts? I always forget the order...

Hipsters, I think.

[Ambrosia Slaad]

thejeff wrote:

Apparently, Kim Davis has shown signs of sanity ....

Apparently, she got over it (sanity, that is):

Associated Press wrote:

Attorneys for Kim Davis, who objects to gay marriage on religious grounds, argued in their motion to the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that all the same-sex couples who sued Davis for a license received one from her deputies while she was in jail. Therefore, they said, her office should not be required to issue them to any more couples once she returns to work.

...If the court does not respond before Davis returns to work on Monday, she will have to choose whether to allow her office to continue issuing licenses or again disobey the judge who already sent her to jail.

[thejeff]

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Apparently, Kim Davis has shown signs of sanity ....

Apparently, she got over it (sanity, that is):

Associated Press wrote:

Attorneys for Kim Davis, who objects to gay marriage on religious grounds, argued in their motion to the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that all the same-sex couples who sued Davis for a license received one from her deputies while she was in jail. Therefore, they said, her office should not be required to issue them to any more couples once she returns to work.

It was a minor sign. Unlike the Oath Keepers, she doesn't think that having an armed gang to protect her from the US Marshals is a good plan.

There's no indication she's changed her basic stance.

[LazarX]

Samnell wrote:

So he ended up cheating. Treaties required 2/3 majorities, but a joint resolution worked on a simple majority. This was extremely irregular and greeted with great controversy, but he got his majority and Texas took the offer. This, technically at least, means that Texas didn't so much negotiate as an equal to get into the United States as accept some shady charity on its behalf.

Not surprising. Texas spent it's entire period as an independent country, on the verge of bankruptcy. Before annexation, in fact it sold large chunks of it's territory to the United States to get cash into it's coffers.

There was heavy opposition to including slave state Texas into the union as the slavery issue was already volatile. Anti-slavery politicians were afraid that Texas would be admitted as several slave states. Upon admitting Texas into the Union, the United States also assumed it's $10 million dollar debt. Part of the compromise involved in keeping slavery below the Mason Dixon line was shaving the top most head of Texas'remaining territory, and attaching it as a panhandle to Oklahoma.

[Orfamay Quest]

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Apparently, Kim Davis has shown signs of sanity ....

Apparently, she got over it (sanity, that is):

Associated Press wrote:

Attorneys for Kim Davis, who objects to gay marriage on religious grounds, argued in their motion to the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that all the same-sex couples who sued Davis for a license received one from her deputies while she was in jail. Therefore, they said, her office should not be required to issue them to any more couples once she returns to work.

...If the court does not respond before Davis returns to work on Monday, she will have to choose whether to allow her office to continue issuing licenses or again disobey the judge who already sent her to jail.

Actually, that's what a sane person would do. She's under a court order that she doesn't like, but there's someone she can ask to set the order aside,..... so she did. Totally legal, by-the-book, and sensible.

[Samnell]

LazarX wrote:

Not surprising. Texas spent it's entire period as an independent country, on the verge of bankruptcy. Before annexation, in fact it sold large chunks of it's territory to the United States to get cash into it's coffers.

It's sort of the other way around, actually. Texas claimed these mammoth borders, all the way up to modern Colorado, halfway across modern New Mexico. The vast majority of this land was not then settled by whites or home to isolated groups of Spanish-speakers who were generally not keen on Texas and its pretensions. The Texans launched an expedition to find Santa Fe and establish authority over it which, if I remember right, ended up in a Santa Fe jail for a bit before being allowed to go home. This extended even to El Paso, which Texas asserted authority over only in 1850.

That's when the sale sort of took place. It was really of the claims rather than actual control. Texas was by this point already within the United States, which had declined to assume its debts on annexation.

LazarX wrote:

There was heavy opposition to including slave state Texas into the union as the slavery issue was already volatile. Anti-slavery politicians were afraid that Texas would be admitted as several slave states. Upon admitting Texas into the Union, the United States also assumed it's $10 million dollar debt. Part of the compromise involved in keeping slavery below the Mason Dixon line was shaving the top most head of Texas'remaining territory, and attaching it as a panhandle to Oklahoma.

The annexation joint resolution specified that with its consent (Not unilaterally by Texas as is often claimed, nor is this right of consent unique to Texas. Rather it's characteristic of all states.) Texas might be divided into up to five states. Any of those states north of the Missouri Compromise Line (the Mason-Dixon Line is the border between Pennsylvania and Maryland, a bit further north) would have to exclude slavery. Those below could do whatever they liked, which everyone understood meant slavery.

That said, splitting up Texas was seen as a viable option by many southerners throughout the 1850s. If they couldn't get new slave states by committing grand theft, real estate, they could do it by making them from Texas. The idea was that the original Texas would remain as a rump, continuing on as-is within reduced borders. It would retain the territory that otherwise would have went to freedom.

The territory Texas surrendered claims to did include the Oklahoma panhandle, but also the aforementioned half of New Mexico and a strip of Colorado. Further bit of irony here: Texas came in as a state, no territorial phase. This was irregular, just like the joint resolution. However, territories were generally drawn big and cut down when it came time for statehood. In another technical sense, Texas was treated something like a territory in its border revisions. Of course it had the power to say no which a territory in principle did not, but often a bit of negotiation would go on about these things. Missouri has its little tail weeing on Arkansas and Montana extends rather farther into the mountains than it was originally going to because of lobbying on the part of various groups. California got the boundaries it wanted by carefully drawing its line well clear of the Texas claim and others that might protest, even though as the successor to Mexican Alta California it could have plausibly claimed a bit more. The others that might protest thing didn't quite work out because the more Spanish-speaking southern part of the state wasn't entirely on board with the Yankees and their gold rush government up north. A proposal to divide California into two states was pending before Congress in 1860, at which point things got a bit busy.

[Samnell]

thejeff wrote:

It was a minor sign. Unlike the Oath Keepers, she doesn't think that having an armed gang to protect her from the US Marshals is a good plan.

There's no indication she's changed her basic stance.

Social conservatives like to claim the standard of the antislavery movement, but it actually did end up killing a Deputy US Marshal. James Batchelder was defending a courthouse in Boston that held Anthony Burns against an interracial mob of abolitionists* trying to bust him loose and get him to freedom. They failed, but a few years later someone recognized Burns and they took up a collection to buy him. They offered** when Burns was still in Boston, but his then-owner wouldn't take them up on it and subsequently sold Burns in Virginia for a lower price.

*One of the white ringleaders went on to lead a United States Colored Troops unit.
**This was somewhat controversial since it recognized property in slaves. Plus how long could Boston pay for slaves before the coffers ran dry? William and Ellen Craft had purchase offered to them and refused on those grounds, opting instead to sail from Boston to England for their freedom.

[Orfamay Quest]

Breaking news via CNN.

"Kentucky clerk Kim Davis vows to defy court order, says no marriage licenses "will be authorized by me.""

No more details at this time, but check back in an hour.

[Krensky]

Apparently she's allowing them, but without her name and bearing a disclaimer that they are being issued under protest pursuant to a court order. At least that's what she said in the recorded statement NPR news played.

I guess she's betting the judge won't slap her down over that note.

[Orfamay Quest]

Some day those notes will be valuable as a legacy of the civil rights movement.

[CaptainGemini]

Scott Betts wrote:

Ejrik the Norseman wrote:

I, for one, actually like the fact that there is a group whose purpose is to ultimately make the government accountable to the People and the Constitution. After all, who REALLY has kept the government in check? The People?

Yes. And, frankly, we, The People, have done a pretty decent job of it. Almost none of our safeguarding of rights was accomplished by threatening our own government with violence, however. It's irresponsible, counterproductive, immature, and, frankly, delusional to believe that is a worthwhile tactic.

The problem these people (Oathkeepers, and other self-styled champions of the Constitution) almost uniformly have is that they imagine themselves as being opposed to the government. That isn't how a democratic government works, nor is it how a democracy is maintained. It is, however, exactly how one might imagine themselves if their primary concern was feeling important.

So while a bunch of arsenal-toting crazies have been pretending at relevance, the rest of us are actually maintaining our democracy.

I've been busy in real-life, so I missed most of what was said.

But, there is a problem with what you say: Some of the very people who founded this nation believed very much that the people should be always threatening the government with violence to safeguard their rights. They thought the government should be terrified of the people. That's why some of them fought so hard for the Second Amendment.

Of course, those were typically the same ones that also hated the idea of a democracy and had to use word games to convince themselves a republic is not a democracy. To their minds, the fact that threats of violence is not how a democratic government works would be a bonus.

Then again, it was gun-toting crazies who ticked off the British to the point the American Revolution was forced to happen. So they pretend at relevance because they're why America exists in the first place. Naturally, their descendants would think the same tactics still work.

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Breaking news via CNN.

"Kentucky clerk Kim Davis vows to defy court order, says no marriage licenses "will be authorized by me.""

No more details at this time, but check back in an hour.

My money is on her trying to use this to build a case for her being persecuted.

I have to agree with the sentiment given earlier: We may have crossed the line of no return on this nation continuing. Too many fires related to oppression, and the same old nuts are trying to use the flames to light a new one.

[CBDunkerson]

Ok, so Davis is apparently letting licenses be issued with a 'the feds did it' disclaimer. However, there is now a significant question of validity. In KY, licenses are supposed to be issued by a county clerk's office. The federal court can't issue a marriage license in KY. Davis is attempting to say that these licenses AREN'T issued by her office... so it isn't clear that the licenses are valid.

Eventually this will almost certainly be adjudicated in court... but when. It might not come to a head for years if courts don't accept a case until one of the parties is disputing the validity of a marriage (e.g. as part of divorce or inheritance proceedings or in a family fight over who makes medical decisions).

Hopefully, it won't come to that. If one or more of the couples sues Davis for suggesting that their licenses are invalid/refusing to issue them in a valid way, they should be able to get a ruling on whether the licenses really are valid or not NOW rather than having to wait until that issue is material to another case.

[Krensky]

That's a pleasant myth, but the actual debate on the Second Ammendment is pretty clear it has to due with the North's desire to avoid a standing army and the South's desire to have an armed force handy to keep the slaves in line.

[CaptainGemini]

Krensky wrote:

That's a pleasant myth, but the actual debate on the Second Ammendment is pretty clear it has to due with the North's desire to avoid a standing army and the South's desire to have an armed force handy to keep the slaves in line.

Which is why it is I can find quotes from Washington, Jefferson, Samuel Adams, George Mason, Patrick Henry, Alexander Hamilton, and so on stating that they wanted people to be armed and the entirety of the public to be armed or that they considered all citizens to be part of the militia when it comes to the Second Amendment. And Jefferson outright calling for the populace to overthrow the government if it starts to ignore the Constitution.

Seriously, where's your evidence for this?

You missed my point too. I was commenting on how out-of-touch those groups are, not trying to start a gun debate.

[Orfamay Quest]

CBDunkerson wrote:

Ok, so Davis is apparently letting licenses be issued with a 'the feds did it' disclaimer. However, there is now a significant question of validity. In KY, licenses are supposed to be issued by a county clerk's office.

My understanding is that validity is a non-issue. If someone approaches her in good faith to get a license, and she presents an invalid license to them in bad faith, the license is still valid.

Case law on this goes back a loooong way to questions like "if the priest who married me had been defrocked, but he didn't tell me, are my children illegitimate?" from the Middle Ages.

[CBDunkerson]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

My understanding is that validity is a non-issue. If someone approaches her in good faith to get a license, and she presents an invalid license to them in bad faith, the license is still valid.

Case law on this goes back a loooong way to questions like "if the priest who married me had been defrocked, but he didn't tell me, are my children illegitimate?" from the Middle Ages.

Not sure that analogy is all that analogous. Here the priest would be telling them that he WON'T marry them and that the ceremony performed by his acolyte, under orders from the King, is invalid.

There is also a difference between a minister/officiant performing the marriage and a government official authorizing the license... basically a civil contract.

Davis isn't pretending to issue valid licenses... rather the opposite. She's saying that she ISN'T issuing licenses and that the ones being issued by those other people over there are invalid.

Mind you, I agree that these licenses are likely to be upheld... but when the person responsible for issuing them says they aren't valid that certainly opens the door for other parties to later make the same argument in court. For example, if a member of one of these couples were later to become brain dead their family might contest a partner's decision to terminate life support... arguing that they knew all along that the marriage was invalid because the clerk said so. Very different from the whole 'did NOT know the priest had been defrocked' bit... because they DO know.

Also note, even Judge Bunning has said, "I, too, have great doubts whether the licenses issued under these conditions are even valid."

[Yuugasa]

*sigh* I respect this woman's right to her beliefs but would she stop mucking things up for other people based on them? If you have religious objections to what your job requires you to do then quit, it really isn't that difficult.

[Krensky]

CaptainGemini wrote:

Krensky wrote:

That's a pleasant myth, but the actual debate on the Second Ammendment is pretty clear it has to due with the North's desire to avoid a standing army and the South's desire to have an armed force handy to keep the slaves in line.

Seriously, where's your evidence for this?

The Congressional Record.

[CaptainGemini]

Krensky wrote:

CaptainGemini wrote:

Krensky wrote:

That's a pleasant myth, but the actual debate on the Second Ammendment is pretty clear it has to due with the North's desire to avoid a standing army and the South's desire to have an armed force handy to keep the slaves in line.

Seriously, where's your evidence for this?

The Congressional Record.

And I got mine from the speeches of the people I cited, as well as their private records and the Congressional Record.

Your statement about I said is still bunk.

[CBDunkerson]

Yuugasa wrote:

*sigh* I respect this woman's right to her beliefs but would she stop mucking things up for other people based on them?

Just imagine the glories of the brave new world of stupid these people are trying to build!

How wonderful it will be when a doctor can refuse to provide any kind of medical treatment because it violates their religious beliefs... and hospitals can't discriminate against them in hiring decisions because that would be religious intolerance.

Yes indeed, the day is coming brothers and sisters! Amen!