Oregon’s Lash Law
Dreams of a better life, gold, game, and land were the draw for pioneers to brave the peril on the trail to Oregon, risking their lives and the lives of their families for the promise of a better life. People of all colors and ethnic backgrounds chose to take the trail in search of a better life for themselves and family. The Treaty of 1844 brought Government and exclusion to the new territories of Oregon.
Prior to 1840, the Northwest frontier at Fort Vancouver boasted a multicultural cacophony of people from England, France, Native Americans and Canadians Indians, and Hawaiians; a “Frontier of Inclusion”. (Faragher 398). The 1840’s brought Oregon fever and Midwestern settlers vying for a chance of free land and a better life. These settlers also brought their slaves and families. The 1849 treaty conclusion between England and the US brought the “frontier of exclusion” to Oregon and the West. White males were offered 320 acres to settle Oregon and nothing was offered to non-whites.
Lash Law and Exclusion
“In June, 1844, the Provisional Government of Oregon enacted its first laws regarding the status of slaves, and therefore blacks, in the Oregon Country. Slavery was declared to be illegal, and settlers who currently owned slaves were required to free them within three years. Any free blacks age 18 or older had to leave the area, men within two years and women within three. Black children were permitted to stay in the Oregon Country until they reached age 18”. (Oregon Trial) This law was made not only to not allow slavery in Oregon, but to exclude Blacks from living there permanently. The penalty for violating this new law was the lash, no less then 20 and no more than 39 were given to Blacks who didn’t leave Oregon, this was to be repeated every 6 months until that person left the territory. There is no record that this law was enacted on any person.
Exclusion laws were seen as a “fix” to the question of if slavery should be allowed in the new territory, instead of facing the Pro-Slavery proponents in Congress, the Legislators took the cowardly way out. . Oregon is the only State admitted into the Union with exclusion in its Constitution. In 1926, Oregon’s Constitution was amended to remove the exclusion from the State’s Bill of Rights.
End of the Oregon Trail. http://www.endoftheoregontrail.org/slavery.html
Faragher.J.M., Buhle, M.J., Czitrom, D. and Armitage, S.H. Out of Many: A History of the American People. 5th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2007.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Sunday, July 13, 2008
No Such Clause
The supposed “Separation of Church and State” clause in the First Amendment is false and is not written anywhere in the Constitution. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing an official religion (Farager 216), ie, a “Church of the United States”. English citizens were required to be members of the Church of England and King George was the “Defender of the (Christian) Faith”. Most proponents of the "Separation" clause claim the First Amendment contains the idea of a "Wall between Church and State", but not the wording as such.
Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state."(Cornell Law)
Where does the Constitution state a separation, there is no “Separation of and State Clause”. This is an interpretation, a wrong interpretation, from the ACLU and others who want to take religion out of the American institution. Our founders were believers of God and the bible, they also knew that for us to be free, we should be able to interpret the bible as individuals, not have the government to tell us what the bible writes. In addition, as free men and women, we are to be free to practice any religion or no religion at all. This was the intention of the Framers, not to have the State tell us what religion to practice.
We have a national holiday of Christmas; we have a National Christmas tree, most cities have a Nativity scene on public property. Public funds are used to support some programs in parochial schools. We have “In God We Trust” on our money; we have the Star of David and the Islamic Crescent on some of our war dead gravestones, along with Christian crosses. Those who are “offended” when they are subjected to the above “atrocities” are both insulting and ridiculous, if a Christmas tree offends them, then they shouldn’t look at it.
We are guaranteed the rights to worship any religion we choose or no religion. I was “subjected” to school prayer as a grade school student. We were given time to go to the Protestant or Catholic service every Thursday or to recess; we were given a choice. It seems that when we had prayer time in classes, corporal punishment in school, mandatory dress codes, and parental participation, our schools were safer and kids respected teachers and each other alike. Without those tools, we have guns and killings and rampant crime in schools, thanks to the Radical Leftists who want religion out of their (and our) daily lives. However, shouldn’t that be “Our Choice” as the Framers wanted?
A transcript of the letter sent to Danbury Baptist from Jefferson in which the phrase “Separation of Church and State” comes from:
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
First Amendment Overview. Cornel Law. http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/First_amendment
Faragher.J.M., Buhle, M.J., Czitrom, D. and Armitage, S.H. Out of Many: A History of the American People. 5th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2007.
Jefferson's letter to Danbury Baptists. Library of Congress. http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state."(Cornell Law)
Where does the Constitution state a separation, there is no “Separation of and State Clause”. This is an interpretation, a wrong interpretation, from the ACLU and others who want to take religion out of the American institution. Our founders were believers of God and the bible, they also knew that for us to be free, we should be able to interpret the bible as individuals, not have the government to tell us what the bible writes. In addition, as free men and women, we are to be free to practice any religion or no religion at all. This was the intention of the Framers, not to have the State tell us what religion to practice.
We have a national holiday of Christmas; we have a National Christmas tree, most cities have a Nativity scene on public property. Public funds are used to support some programs in parochial schools. We have “In God We Trust” on our money; we have the Star of David and the Islamic Crescent on some of our war dead gravestones, along with Christian crosses. Those who are “offended” when they are subjected to the above “atrocities” are both insulting and ridiculous, if a Christmas tree offends them, then they shouldn’t look at it.
We are guaranteed the rights to worship any religion we choose or no religion. I was “subjected” to school prayer as a grade school student. We were given time to go to the Protestant or Catholic service every Thursday or to recess; we were given a choice. It seems that when we had prayer time in classes, corporal punishment in school, mandatory dress codes, and parental participation, our schools were safer and kids respected teachers and each other alike. Without those tools, we have guns and killings and rampant crime in schools, thanks to the Radical Leftists who want religion out of their (and our) daily lives. However, shouldn’t that be “Our Choice” as the Framers wanted?
A transcript of the letter sent to Danbury Baptist from Jefferson in which the phrase “Separation of Church and State” comes from:
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
First Amendment Overview. Cornel Law. http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/First_amendment
Faragher.J.M., Buhle, M.J., Czitrom, D. and Armitage, S.H. Out of Many: A History of the American People. 5th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2007.
Jefferson's letter to Danbury Baptists. Library of Congress. http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Who were the Ruling Elite?
Zinn argues that the American Revolutionary War "was making the ruling elite more secure against internal trouble"
Who were the “ruling elite”? Zinn points at those who were the rich, white landowners and merchants. By designing a war against England, who were to be the biggest losers if the Americans lost? Was it the poor or the landless, slaves or the freedmen, or women? An English win would certainly mean death to the Continental Congress and to those who fought against England. “The revolutionary leadership distrusted the mobs of the poor. But they knew the revolution had no appeal to slaves and Indians. They would have to woo the armed white population”. (Zinn 61) If they so distrusted the poor, why did they recruit and arm them? The militia was the civilian armed population, defending their towns and communities against the British. Continental Regulars were the actual Congress funded and formally trained military.
Its true George Washington, himself a slave owner; and then Congress, banned Blacks from enlisting. Before the Congress mandated ban, George allowed blacks who served already in the army to re-enlist. Blacks were promised freedom in return for their service, the British held the same promise, but broke it when they lost; sending blacks back to slavery or back to Africa. Why did the Blacks fight? Not for money or gain, but for freedom and a chance to be landowners.
I think Zinn’s view on the Revolution was one of class warfare and wrong; all who fought had something to lose, not just the rich whites who orchestrated it all. The conclusion of the Seven Years’ War had left most colonists proud of their place in the British empire. The soldiers began to shock and Americans with lewd, profane, and violent behavior. “Those who witnessed such savage punishments found it easy to believe in the threat of British enslavement.” (Farager 154) Fear of increased British rule and unfair taxation was a major factor for the "poor" to embrace and support the revolution and self government.
The “war was making the ruling elite more secure” argument doesn’t make sense when all who were involved had something to lose, and all who fought were from all different walks of life. The war wasn’t fought just by the poor, but the freed slaves, the women who were at the camps tending to wounded and supporting the men, and the people who wanted the freedom promised by God and natural law.
Faragher.J.M., Buhle, M.J., Czitrom, D. and Armitage, S.H. Out of Many: A History of the American People. 5th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2007.
Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States. The New Press. New York, NY. 2003
Who were the “ruling elite”? Zinn points at those who were the rich, white landowners and merchants. By designing a war against England, who were to be the biggest losers if the Americans lost? Was it the poor or the landless, slaves or the freedmen, or women? An English win would certainly mean death to the Continental Congress and to those who fought against England. “The revolutionary leadership distrusted the mobs of the poor. But they knew the revolution had no appeal to slaves and Indians. They would have to woo the armed white population”. (Zinn 61) If they so distrusted the poor, why did they recruit and arm them? The militia was the civilian armed population, defending their towns and communities against the British. Continental Regulars were the actual Congress funded and formally trained military.
Its true George Washington, himself a slave owner; and then Congress, banned Blacks from enlisting. Before the Congress mandated ban, George allowed blacks who served already in the army to re-enlist. Blacks were promised freedom in return for their service, the British held the same promise, but broke it when they lost; sending blacks back to slavery or back to Africa. Why did the Blacks fight? Not for money or gain, but for freedom and a chance to be landowners.
I think Zinn’s view on the Revolution was one of class warfare and wrong; all who fought had something to lose, not just the rich whites who orchestrated it all. The conclusion of the Seven Years’ War had left most colonists proud of their place in the British empire. The soldiers began to shock and Americans with lewd, profane, and violent behavior. “Those who witnessed such savage punishments found it easy to believe in the threat of British enslavement.” (Farager 154) Fear of increased British rule and unfair taxation was a major factor for the "poor" to embrace and support the revolution and self government.
The “war was making the ruling elite more secure” argument doesn’t make sense when all who were involved had something to lose, and all who fought were from all different walks of life. The war wasn’t fought just by the poor, but the freed slaves, the women who were at the camps tending to wounded and supporting the men, and the people who wanted the freedom promised by God and natural law.
Faragher.J.M., Buhle, M.J., Czitrom, D. and Armitage, S.H. Out of Many: A History of the American People. 5th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2007.
Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States. The New Press. New York, NY. 2003
Friday, July 4, 2008
Funny picture from the People's Cube and it goes with a Howard Zinn essay written bout the celebration of America's Independence Day. Without further ado, in the spirit of the 4th and that one of my history textbooks was written by him, an essay by Howard Zinn on why we shouldn't celebrate the 4th of July in America.
Put Away the Flags
by Howard Zinn
On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.
Is not nationalism -- that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder -- one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?
These ways of thinking -- cultivated, nurtured, indoctrinated from childhood on -- have been useful to those in power, and deadly for those out of power.
National spirit can be benign in a country that is small and lacking both in military power and a hunger for expansion (Switzerland, Norway, Costa Rica and many more). But in a nation like ours -- huge, possessing thousands of weapons of mass destruction -- what might have been harmless pride becomes an arrogant nationalism dangerous to others and to ourselves.
Our citizenry has been brought up to see our nation as different from others, an exception in the world, uniquely moral, expanding into other lands in order to bring civilization, liberty, democracy.
That self-deception started early.
When the first English settlers moved into Indian land in Massachusetts Bay and were resisted, the violence escalated into war with the Pequot Indians. The killing of Indians was seen as approved by God, the taking of land as commanded by the Bible. The Puritans cited one of the Psalms, which says: "Ask of me, and I shall give thee, the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the Earth for thy possession."
When the English set fire to a Pequot village and massacred men, women and children, the Puritan theologian Cotton Mather said: "It was supposed that no less than 600 Pequot souls were brought down to hell that day."
On the eve of the Mexican War, an American journalist declared it our "Manifest Destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence." After the invasion of Mexico began, The New York Herald announced: "We believe it is a part of our destiny to civilize that beautiful country."
It was always supposedly for benign purposes that our country went to
war.
We invaded Cuba in 1898 to liberate the Cubans, and went to war in the Philippines shortly after, as President McKinley put it, "to civilize and Christianize" the Filipino people.
As our armies were committing massacres in the Philippines (at least 600,000 Filipinos died in a few years of conflict), Elihu Root, our secretary of war, was saying: "The American soldier is different from all other soldiers of all other countries since the war began. He is the advance guard of liberty and justice, of law and order, and of peace and happiness."
We see in Iraq that our soldiers are not different. They have, perhaps against their better nature, killed thousands of Iraq civilians. And some soldiers have shown themselves capable of brutality, of torture.
Yet they are victims, too, of our government's lies.
How many times have we heard President Bush tell the troops that if they die, if they return without arms or legs, or blinded, it is for "liberty," for "democracy"?
One of the effects of nationalist thinking is a loss of a sense of proportion. The killing of 2,300 people at Pearl Harbor becomes the justification for killing 240,000 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The killing of 3,000 people on Sept. 11 becomes the justification for killing tens of thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq.
And nationalism is given a special virulence when it is said to be blessed by Providence. Today we have a president, invading two countries in four years, who announced on the campaign trail in 2004 that God speaks through him.
We need to refute the idea that our nation is different from, morally superior to, the other imperial powers of world history.
We need to assert our allegiance to the human race, and not to any one nation.
Howard Zinn, a World War II bombardier, is the author of the best-
selling "A People's History of the United States" (Perennial Classics, 2003, latest edition). This piece was distributed by the Progressive Media Project in 2006.
I'm sorry Mr. Zinn (actually I'm not), but I'm proud of my Country, I will not apologize for it, and I wholeheartedly disagree with your essay. Our nation is different. Our nation lets individuals go as far as they want with their talents. Our Nation is the one people risk their lives and wait years to emigrate to. Our Nation is looked upon for guidance and hope when nature strikes and turns civilizations and governments into chaos. Our Nation isn't perfect but we as a people are kind and generous. We are not a "warmonger" or "racist" nation Mr. Zinn, nor are we Imperialistic.
In the words of Colin Powell: "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."
I've seen evil and tyranny Mr. Zinn: In the former East Germany were a wall was constructed to keep people in. On the DMZ in Korea, where a million plus strong army is posed to invade and destroy a democracy. In Iraq, and occupied Kuwait, where a brutal dictator told his Officers upon retreating to kill everyone and leave nothing, meaning treasures and gold. I've seen it Mr. Zinn, I've seen soldiers killed and wounded to liberate people who were being raped and murdered for being of a different nationality.
We live in the greatest nation on Earth. We, as a people, have struggled to keep the American ideal alive. I'm putting my Flag out, and I'm going to throw some Nathan's hot dogs on my grill and get goose bumps at when our National Anthem is played while fireworks light up the sky. I love my Country, Mr. Zinn, without conditions or apologies. Maybe you should look beyond political ideals Mr. Zinn, you might just find out that you love America too.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Alabama Slave Code of 1833
This evening’s blog is analyzing Alabama
Some quick facts:
- Slaves could only be a witness to a crime if the crime was more severe than petty larceny and then only witness against another slave
- Killing or dismembering a Slave would bring the same punishment afforded as if he crime was against a white person, unless the killing or dismembering was in response to insurrection.
- Most of the punishments for whites or free mulettos socializing or attending meetings with slaves were cash forfeit, for the slaves, it was “stripes” or lashes from a whip.
- Slaves couldn’t own dogs or horses.
- “Cruel or unusual punishment” was prohibited on slaves
Let’s take this last line for sure. What exactly is “cruel and unusual” punishment? Whipping someone’s bare back with a whip not to exceed 39 times isn’t cruel? This shows a “non-human” mindset of those in favor of slavery, and it’s ok to whip your animals. That line was sarcastic to say the least. If slaves were the Master’s property, then why couldn’t they kill their slaves? There are many contradictions in the code as to what exactly they think of slave, are they human therefore equal? They bypass this question in paragraph 1.
The second paragraph was number 31, stating no person will teach a slave to read, spell, or write. Why would Master not want an educated Slave of whom could make better decisions? Probably because the slave would end up smarter than Master and outwit him. They were actually afraid of slaves education themselves, talking in more than 5 male slaves in a group (#37).
Deep down, I believe the proponents of slavery knew slavery was wrong and against what God taught in the bible. Many of the Southern plantation owners were “God-fearing” and knew the difference between right and wrong.
Monday, June 23, 2008
On Zinn
"He is perhaps best known for A People's History of the United States, which presents American history through the eyes of those he feels are outside of the political and economic establishment." -(http://www.howardzinn.org)
"Of whom are outside the political and economic Establishment"
I don't think there is anyone outside of these two groups. We all are rounded up and corraled into one group or another, sometimes both.
"Objectivity is impossible, and it is also undesirable. That is, if it were possible it would be undesirable, because if you have any kind of a social aim, if you think history should serve society in some way; should serve the progress of the human race; should serve justice in some way, then it requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity.” (http://hnn.us/articles/1493.html)
In plain English, write history to make it conform to your beliefs and political ideology.
While Zinn's efforts are exemplary, he fails on the bias test. Addressing the fact all history is from one point of view or another, I respect Zinn's view from the "other side" even though he thinks that his writing is neutral politically. The side of the Native Americans that they were robbed of land and wealth. The side of the Slaves that were captured and sold by their own countrymen to the Portuguese for transport to the New World, and more sides that I haven't read yet. By contrasting Zinn's view with some others on History, I hope to get to the truth of it; or a better idea of the biased view, instead the political truth which furthers one's ideology.
"Of whom are outside the political and economic Establishment"
I don't think there is anyone outside of these two groups. We all are rounded up and corraled into one group or another, sometimes both.
"Objectivity is impossible, and it is also undesirable. That is, if it were possible it would be undesirable, because if you have any kind of a social aim, if you think history should serve society in some way; should serve the progress of the human race; should serve justice in some way, then it requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity.” (http://hnn.us/articles/1493.html)
In plain English, write history to make it conform to your beliefs and political ideology.
While Zinn's efforts are exemplary, he fails on the bias test. Addressing the fact all history is from one point of view or another, I respect Zinn's view from the "other side" even though he thinks that his writing is neutral politically. The side of the Native Americans that they were robbed of land and wealth. The side of the Slaves that were captured and sold by their own countrymen to the Portuguese for transport to the New World, and more sides that I haven't read yet. By contrasting Zinn's view with some others on History, I hope to get to the truth of it; or a better idea of the biased view, instead the political truth which furthers one's ideology.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Hello Everyone,
A little about me, I'm a middle aged male, I still don't know what I want to do when I grow up. I will probably major in History at CSU. I am a single parent of a new High School grad of whom I'm very proud of. I work for a major transportation company here in the San Francisco Bay Area, I love my job and I think it's the second best I've ever had. The best job I had was in the Army as a Flight Engineer on a Chinook Helicopter. I wish everyone good luck and I'm looking forward to reading your posts in this class.
A little about me, I'm a middle aged male, I still don't know what I want to do when I grow up. I will probably major in History at CSU. I am a single parent of a new High School grad of whom I'm very proud of. I work for a major transportation company here in the San Francisco Bay Area, I love my job and I think it's the second best I've ever had. The best job I had was in the Army as a Flight Engineer on a Chinook Helicopter. I wish everyone good luck and I'm looking forward to reading your posts in this class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
