Catnlion's Open Salon Blog

The 1st 13th Amendment - a reply to Runaway Serfer

Sat, 7 Nov 2009 09:11:06 -0500

I was just reading American Public High School Stories: A Microcosm by amittiaz. I got to the reply by Runaway Serfer which said ;“This is why I think Lincoln made a huge mistake. If he had declared victory, and told them, "go ahead and have your Confederate States, only build it with your own sweat and tears and not those of your slaves," the United States would have been much better off - and Lincoln would likely not have been assasinated. “ and I'm thinking to myself “do what?”. Well, let's look at a part of American history that is often untaught in our schools. The 2, 13th Amendments to the Constitution.

We all are familiar with the current and 2nd 13th amendment to our Constitution. The amendment, which formally abolished slavery in the United States, passed the Senate on April 8, 1864, and the House on January 31, 1865. On February 1, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln approved the Joint Resolution of Congress submitting the proposed amendment to the state legislatures. The necessary number of states ratified it by December 6, 1865. The 13th amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

The 1st 13th Amendment was passed by the House on February 28, 1861 and the Senate on March 2, 1861 and sent to the state for the required majority for ratification. This amendment read “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of such State”.

Shortly after the passage of the 1st 13th Amendment President Lincoln supported this 1st 13th Amendment a couple times. First during his first inaugural address quoting what he told the New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley; “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Later during the speech he said “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution -- which amendment, however, I have not seen -- has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

(Speech viewable at http://www.nationalcenter.org/LincolnFirstInaugural.html )

To back up what he said, on August 22, 1861 Lincoln explained himself by saying “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps save the Union.”

So Runaway Serfer's wish that Lincoln would have abolished slavery, not fight the Civil War, and let the South go, is not based on history. Lincoln was not the great savior of the slaves. While he may not have personally liked the idea of slaves he was content with the practice of slavery being constitutional, and supported the amendment that would have made it so. Revisionist history says the Civil War was fought over slavery. It was not. Slavery was an issue but the the cause.

Cartoon From 1948 Prophetically Says It ALL

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:10:31 -0400

You know that always say what goes around comes around. This is older than most of the people on OS who will view it but after the last few months of Congress doing it's stuff, it still makes a point.

Public Option and Vending Machines

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:10:03 -0400

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi earlier today rolled out the House's version of health care reform. The bill is a 1,990 page whopper, downloadable here. I've been able to poke through it a bit and, beginning at page 1,510, I encountered something that will embiggen the hearts of public health advocates (and frankly the whole bill is a gigantic wet kiss to the public health crowd) and make haters of the Nanny State say, "Told you so."

The House bill mandates for calorie counts of almost any item served at a restaurant (or similar food establishment) owned by a company with 20 or more restaurants in the US as well as on drive-thru menu boards. Currently, only a few cities and counties require such information in the US, notably New York City and King County (Seattle), Washington. So America is about to go from Nanny State cities to the Nanny State nation.

And the trouble with calorie counts is that they seem to have a fairly limited impact on what people eat, according to this New York Times account of a recent study of the calorie count law in NYC. (I have no idea how this is playing out in Seattle so far.) It perplexes me beyond belief that we have a government that doesn't get that people already know a Big Mac is fattening and people are going to order one anyway, calorie count information be damned, because they like Big Macs. This calorie count thing nationally is going to be expensive to implement and will likely not change human behavior much. I cannot wait to see how the food industry responds.

Beginning on page 1515, the bill also mandates calories counts for items in a vending machine operated by anyone who operates 20 or more vending machines. And the nutritional information that's already on the majority of food (chips, cookies, etc.) you can buy from a vending machine isn't sufficient under the House bill. Instead, vending machine operators would be required to post a prominent sign next to each item, readable before a consumer makes a purchase. That is going to be a very expensive hassle for vending machine operators across the country, especially smaller operators.

I'm a bit lost on what American over the age of 14, say, doesn't know that chips from a vending machine are high-calorie items, so why this provision exists in the bill is beyond me--except that I know it's there to serve the true believers in the Nanny State.

I abuse my dog

Tue, 8 Sep 2009 06:09:02 -0400

I'm sorry. I just read LadyMiko's post about PETA and watched the Penn and Teller's video and I have to make amends for abusing my dog.

Warning, these photos are graphic in nature.

Here is Neena, named after that bitch at Petsmart who gave her a bath, the day I found her. She was so covered with fleas who were doing what they should be doing. Sucking the blood out of her. Yes, I killed all those 1000's of fleas.

I know I should turn her out on the street. Keeping her hostage in my truck is such a cruel thing. I hope she will forgive me.

I do let her out of the truck when we go home. But I live on a farm. What could a puppy find to do? Maybe she should do us both a favor and run off and save herself.

And with grandkids at home. They just chase her and are so mean, I think maybe somebody should call her a lawyer. Don't animals have rights now?

And now she is getting bigger and there is just nothing for her to do.

Shouldn't she be running wild and free? I mean her mother was running wild and free when she left her baby laying beside my truck to fend for herself at 3 weeks of age. Shouldn't she be sleeping under the stars or something?

Who would want to just lay around all day and do nothing?

My kids got to bring their toys to bed and they had snuggley blankets to lay in. Maybe that is what she needs.

She doesn't even have her own bed. Look, here she is sleeping with my 16 year old son. You know how boys are with their dogs. Their best friend. The one they tell all their secrets to.

PETA is right. Tomorrow when I hit the road, I'm just going to leave her in this parking lot. When she chases my truck down the street, I'm not even going to look back at her. She will understand it's for her own good.

Open letter to Obama from P&G exec

Sun, 9 Aug 2009 03:08:58 -0400

This is a letter from a respected exec of P&G. He sent it to the NY Times who did nothing with it. Maybe we should listen to one of the exec who helped make this country great.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/youscareme.asp

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett