Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Freedmen" are by definition born slaves (i.e, as property).
Freeborn blacks were citizens at birth.
And the 14th Amendment fixed the former. It did not change the constitutional definition of NBC. It merely corrected a subsequent failure to conform.
Freedmen are not by definition born slaves, there were freedmen that were born to freedmen prior to 1866. Freeborn blacks were not citizens by birth, as the freedmen were not allowed to naturalize. Why do you think Dred Scott was an issue? You seem to think that all blacks were slaves, when that clearly is not the case. There were black freedmen from the time of the colonies. For claiming the moniker "historiandud" you seem to lack in the history portion of it.
Close. No cigar. The EPC says what the States are obligated to provide to individuals.
Obligated to provide? And here it clearly states No Stateshall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.
"A freedman is a former slave who has been released from slavery, usually by legal means."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns
Freeborn blacks were not citizens by birth, as the freedmen were not allowed to naturalize.
Nonsense.
Even in spite of the racism that lead many whites to attempt to reduce that citizenship to some lesser status (almost exclusively in the slave south), freeborn blacks were absolutely citizens, regardless of the status of their parents. I refer you to the congressional debates upon the admission of Missouri to Statehood, where you will get a full accounting of that issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns
Why do you think Dred Scott was an issue?
For no reason having to do with birthright citizenship. Dred Scott was born a slave.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns
You seem to think that all blacks were slaves, when that clearly is not the case.
Based on my posts above, such an assertion is insane. They directly contradict your weird attempt to put words in my mouth.
Last edited by HistorianDude; 01-21-2013 at 06:45 PM..
(Black) Freedmen were not born citizens prior to 1866. They were still considered aliens to the US. INA's come into play now. Why should I feel slimy with what you attempt to portray?
Actually that is not true, in many states free men of African descent were able to act as citizens, vote, sit on juries etc, free men of color did not lose the right to citizens until the Dred Scott Decision in 1857.
"A freedman is a former slave who has been released from slavery, usually by legal means."
Nonsense.
Even in spite of the racism that lead many whites to attempt to reduce that citizenship to some lesser status (almost exclusively in the slave south), freeborn blacks were absolutely citizens, regardless of the status of their parents. I refer you to the congressional debates upon the admission of Missouri to Statehood, where you will get a full accounting of that issue.
For no reason having to do with birthright citizenship. Dred Scott was born a slave.
Based on my posts above, such an assertion is insane. They directly contradict your weird attempt to put words in my mouth.
How about a link to that Missouri debate. And to note that the debate talks about gradual emancipation from slavery to free men at the age of 25. They fought to "protect the rights of freemen". You have yet to prove my claim incorrect and have shown yet again your incorrect usage of the word WRONG directed at me. Your Missouri claim contradicts your freemen claim.
Words in your mouth? And here I thought that was what you normally attempt to do to my comments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Actually that is not true, in many states free men of African descent were able to act as citizens, vote, sit on juries etc, free men of color did not lose the right to citizens until the Dred Scott Decision in 1857.
Can either of you show the citizenship status along with the name of any black freeman prior to 1866. How about a link to that Missouri debate.
Lets have some fun now, lets introduce Ludwig Hansding and Richard Greisser into the mix of persons born on US soil yet denied citizenship.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 01-21-2013 at 07:41 PM..
Actually that is not true, in many states free men of African descent were able to act as citizens, vote, sit on juries etc, free men of color did not lose the right to citizens until the Dred Scott Decision in 1857.
Your giving a false equivalency and claiming it true. They were freemen, not citizens, nor could their children born be citizens, they were born freemen. Even though they may have enjoyed some acts equal to citizens, it did not make them citizens nor were they looked at as citizens.
Man I hope this goes through and is signed. I doubt it,I mean we have Reid and Obama who both hate America and want it turned into Mexico so....
The law was originally made to prevent southern states from stealing citizenship from blacks after the Civil War, seems like it would therefore need an Amendment to repeal that part of the 14th Amendment.
Your giving a false equivalency and claiming it true. They were freemen, not citizens, nor could their children born be citizens, they were born freemen. Even though they may have enjoyed some acts equal to citizens, it did not make them citizens nor were they looked at as citizens.
It is a bit of a gray area. It is 100% clear that southern leaders disagreed with your position and feared that free blacks in the north were citizens. South Carolina's declaration makes a list of abuses leading to their secession and one of which is some northern states elevating some blacks to citizen status with the right to vote.
They were at the very least treated as second class citizens.
From the SC Declaration of Secession:
"This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety. "
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
