Posted on 10/18/2017 4:29:54 PM PDT by NRx
The Constitution gives Congress one citizenship power....keep America the same natural kind via naturalization.
Congress never had the Constitutional power to unnaturalize the country.
The North went to war to establish UnNaturalization. That’s exactly what happened. That violated Article 1, Section 8.
Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers: “American citizens have the same kindred blood”
Wow, now that they have the new name it should be stellar in all aspects.
First, I read all those dictionary posts the first time, there was no need for you to repeat them.
Second, you are only playing word definition games, and corrupt ones at that.
That's because no law, whether constitutionally approved or not, can make two different people any more or less related biologically.
They are what they are, regardless of the law.
What constitutional law can do is declare two different people, regardless of their biological inheritances, one Nation, Americans.
bushpilot2: "Congress never had the Constitutional power to unnaturalize the country.
The North went to war to establish UnNaturalization.
That’s exactly what happened.
That violated Article 1, Section 8."
That's total rubbish since what Congress or any other governing body can declare is only a political nationality, having nothing to do with blood-relatedness.
bushpilot2: "Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers: 'American citizens have the same kindred blood' "
That was no more true in 1788 than it is today.
Even in 1788 American blood-ancestry included many different nations of Northern, Central, Eastern, Western & Southern Europe, as well as Western Asia, Central Africa and even some Native Americans.
Remember, George Washington's Revolutionary War army, by the time of Yorktown in 1781 was one-quarter black, men who'd been promised freedom in exchange for their military service.
And in some states freedmen were treated as full citizens.
Indeed, if you consider the number of half-black children born to slave-women and their white masters, then over several generations such people might well have more Northern-European blood-ancestry than, for example, recent immigrants from Southern Europe or Western Asia.
Point is: even in 1788 American citizens came from many different Nations and were only "kindred blood" in a political sense, not biological.
Wow, astonishing.
In fact, Lincoln well knew the difference between small-d democrats & small-r republicans.
Lincoln was a constitutional republican in every sense of that word.
So Northeastern is simply lying here:
It's certainly true that most Appalachian counties had few slaves and weren't for secession. And it's true that planter-dominated South Carolina drove the secession movement early on.
I was going more by the vote in the 1860 election. Delta counties in northwest Mississippi had very high black and slave populations, but went with the moderate Constitutional Union candidate, John Bell, rather than the secessionists' favored candidate, Breckenridge.
I took that as an indication that secessionist sentiment was also weak there, but it may have just been a political thing, since those counties were a Whig area. Maybe the big planters were all too willing to go from backing the moderate unionist candidate to supporting secession.
I notice that Davis, the other MS senator and one of the state's wartime governors came from outside of the Delta, but the other was from the area, and that nearby East Tennessee was heavily for secession. So I guess this is all something to rethink.
I don't get what the picture has to do with the American Civil War, but plantation owners in Trinidad, Guyana, and Surinam were all too wiling to import Muslims and Hindus from India and the East Indies as field labor after emancipation came.
Who's to say that an independent Confederacy wouldn't have done the same thing? Even in defeat, Southern planters imported Chinese indentured labor. In victory, who can say what they would have done?
So, no. You can't blame the Yankees for that.
I’d sooner attend dog school than a school named after that google.
“We are one family, race, kindred, all here in the pursuit of happiness.” Gov. William Seward, 28 Sep, 1860
How could the Founders maintain same kindred citizens and immigrants? Article 1 Section 8. “Uniform rule of naturalization”.
Eastern Tennessee was heavily Unionist, persecuted by Confederates and protected by Union troops.
Like Western Virginians, East Tennesseans considered secession from their state, but did not accomplish it.
Might that be what you meant?
There may be an interesting story there for a historian to explore. Did the big planters in those counties who favored moderation in the fall, turn around to support secession in the winter? Or were they dragging their feet during the secession convention as well?
Was the vote in the presidential election a result of the Delta planters traditionally being Whigs and Bell being a Tennessean from not so far away? Or was there a real commitment to union and moderation among the wealthy planters who had so much to lose?
Or was it that even in the Delta, big planters who opposed secession, were still outnumbered by those who were less wealthy and more enthusiastic for secession? Of course, once the war began and big slaveowners were exempted from the draft, it did a lot to encourage anti-Davis sentiment in poorer Southerners.
bushpilot2 quoting Jay: "...Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country for one united people -- a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government..."
Clearly, both quotes are a matter of political hyperbole, not biological or historical fact.
Europe in Jay's time as well as Seward's included many different nations, religions & denominations, spoke many languages and sent disparate peoples to settle the New World.
Of nations & languages we could easily name England, Scotland, Ireland, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, France, Italy, Sweden, Spain, western Asia & Africa.
Of religions & denominations: Christians, Jews, Protestants, Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Congregationalists, Quakers, Mennonites & Moravians.
As for principles of government, certainly by 1800 all were committed to the US Constitution though even by then great "factions" formed around differences of opinion in how it should be interpreted.
So your quotes have nothing to do with biological or historical reality and everything to do with the political necessity for transcendently unifying hyperbole.
They should be understood as metaphors intended most likely to raise the spirits of disheartened electorates.
Today we say in that same spirit: "One nation, under God, indivisible with liberty & justice for all."
You disagree?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.