Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Brion McClanahan
MemberKevin: That was no doubt the intent of the move. The whole process of military reconstruction was the tyranny of the Republican Party and most importantly an attempt to permanently, through precedence, emasculate both the exec. and judicial branches. The leaders of that group truly mirrored the Mountain during the FR.
MemberJB: Sorry I missed your question in this forum.
The 14th simply codified the 1st Reconstruction Act and subsequent state laws on the issue of disfranchisement through the 2nd and 3rd provisions of the Amendment. The text of the 14th Amendment can be found on Wikipedia here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
As for specific laws on the issue, read pages 431-435 in this volume:
It depends on who you read as to the effect of disfranchisement in the South. Everyone admits it happened, though many progressive historians place the number artificially low. It certainly helped swing the 1868 election in favor of Grant, that along with voter fraud in favor of Republicans in States under military reconstruction. Grant never would have carried NC, SC, AL, TN, FL, or AR without disfranchisement and fraud, and of course TX, VA, and MS did not qualify for the election. It is safe to say that the strict voting provisions in many States during the Reconstruction period–for example requiring the “iron-clad oath”–curtailed white Southern participation in elections, particularly from the old political class.
MemberDrBob: I talk about that all the time in my courses, but you are correct, most never focus on this aspect of Reconstruction.
MemberTate:
Not everyone was sold that the Articles needed to be scrapped. Certainly a small faction of persistent men believed so, Madison and Hamilton foremost among them, but also people like John Dickinson of DE, Roger Sherman of CT, Francis Dana of MA, and other leading men were of the opinion that at least a revision was necessary due to 1) financial problems arising under the monetary structure of the central government, 2) the difficulty of doing business (many States simply chose not to send delegates to the Congress at times) and 3) internal strife (Shay’s Rebellion).
Patrick Henry, for example, denied that the Articles did not function well, as did other opponents of the Constitution from PA, NC, MA, and NY. The Constitution was a great coup for its proponents and was only ratified because they swore that the document would not fundamentally alter the existing federal nature of the government.
Hope that helps.
MemberThere were a variety of reasons for opposition to the 14th, but the most interesting and valid is that it was unconstitutionally “ratified” and a violation of free government.
http://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htmNot sure about TN. Good place to start would be the state archives. I am sure they could point you in the right direction.
MemberNYC was a cosmopolitan place, with influence from the Dutch, commercial minded English (a solid mix of a variety of interests) and later Germans, Irish, etc. In 1861, there was even talk of NYC seceding from the Union as a “sister city” of the South. Southerners felt betrayed that it did not happen.
Hope that helps.
MemberWhy scrap it when you can simply do an end around the ignore it? And no, not to my knowledge. They did amend it three times, and that was believed enough to alter the nature of government significantly.
MemberYou’re welcome.
MemberFinn: do you have a time frame? I am sure Kevin, Tom, or I could help narrow it down with a bit more information.
MemberBritt: It is generally accepted that about 25 to 33 percent of American colonists favored separation in 1775, about the same were against and the rest were in the middle. Paine helped swing that middle half to third in favor of separation.
January 15, 2013 at 9:22 pm in reply to: 10 facts about slavery you won't learn watching "Django" #15049Memberenron: I have never seen anything about that. Most histories on the period cite a “soft” ideological approach to the conflict in the South (including from the best colonial South Carolina historian, Robert Weir), though I think there is some merit to the position that Southerners did fear impending slave insurrection in 1775. The British had done it before in the Caribbean. I would have to see more concrete evidence to believe it, and as Matt said, I don’t know how much exists. I am more than skeptical.
MemberHere, Page 33:
Some have said this cannot be considered an accurate source and that the quote was made up by his political opponents, but every other bit of information in that book is well sourced. I think it is legitimate.
MemberThe “traditional” Southern accent depended on place. Do not look to current Hollywood.
Here are a couple of good videos with traditional southern accents:
(Not Clete, but the interviewees): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbZ3XzT-WGM
Memberblacklab and Smart Muffin:
Yes, 1492 was the end of the Reconquista. It was not official policy of the Spanish crown that the Moors would be expelled until later, but the process of winning back control of the Iberian peninsula ended in 1492.
January 4, 2013 at 12:09 pm in reply to: Saw the movie Lincoln…2 questions related to the passage of the 13th amendment #14987MemberEnron:
Question 1: Yes, that happened. The scoundrel and corrupt Colfax voted yea, breaking precedent.
Question 2: I am not sure. The one biography I have on hand does not mention it, but it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
-
AuthorPosts