The Four Wars the U.S. Fought Against Slavery: Click Here.

Strong Evidence the "North"
Was Not On the Verge of
Abolishing Slavery 1861-1864.

Re-ratify the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments Properly This Time.

The 14th Amendment is Also the Repudiation of Southern State Debt, Amendment.

There are those who claim that the additional power of "the slaver south" created by the 3/5 rule totally overruled and overpowered the naturally abolitionist "north" before the Civil War had started. But even when the war started, and most of the nominally pro-slavery Senators and Representatives were no longer present, the remaining presumably "abolitionist" Congressmen were nearly unable to successfully propose the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery for an embarrassingly long time.

Evidence the North Needs to be Reconstructed.
1. What was later to be named "West Virginia" split away from the slavery dominated eastern part of Virginia at the start of the Civil War. The government led by Gov. Francis Harrison Peirpont in charge of this process was named by the U.S., "the Restored Government of Virginia" for a few years in anticipation of victory for the "North" which should've re-unified Virginia with Peirpont as leader.

   This persistent gash on the face of the USA, the splitting of Virginia into two parts, still remains as a hint that the nominal goals of the Civil War, namely unifying the entire USA again, has perhaps never fully been achieved. Virginia is the only U. S. state that was permanently split apart by the Civil War. (Virginia had already subdivided part of its territory into most of the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.), and also the state of Kentucky.)

   But on the other hand, having two more abolitionist Senators and a few extra Reps. from West Virginia should've helped pass the proposal for the 13th Amendment in Congress more easily.

2. Contrary to myth, the legislative processes which proposed the 13th Amendment in the U.S. Congress abolishing slavery, were not proceeding very quickly toward the end of the Civil War, even after adding W. Virginia and Nevada (population about 10,000) as brand new "abolitionist" state governments.

   Although most of all rebel owned slaves had been confiscated, then freed already, there were still up to about 50,000 - 100,000 enslaved persons owned by those loyal to the USA, left to be freed on Dec. 5, 1865, about 8 months after the Civil War ended. Since owned by loyal U. S. citizens, they could not normally be lawfully confiscated for any reason, and could not be freed except by their current owners, unless slavery was ended suddenly.

   Funny how the ex-Confederate states under the earlier Lincoln and Lincoln/Johnson reconstruction plan had all already nominally abolished slavery (I assume) before Dec. 6, 1865. But was this coerced unconstitutionally? Probably not, as military occupation, the wielding of civil power in the South by the conquering Union forces, had never largely occurred under Pres. Johnson in mid-1865 very soon after the war had ended. The southerns state legislatures all consisted of both ex-Confederates and Unionists seated together. However, many more Republicans from outside the South, an un-natural number, and U. S. troops as occupiers of civil institutions in the South, were not to arrive (again) until late Summer 1867, over two full years later.

3. The Dred Scott decision, decided by a massive majority of 7 versus 2 Justices, was handed down in 1857 by the U.S. Supreme Court, protecting and strengthening the institution of slavery in the entire USA. Until the 13th Amendment was properly ratified by the states, and those states properly abolished slavery themselves, the institution of slavery was newly reinvigorated by the Dred Scott decision in the entire USA before the Civil War even started.

   And as of the year 2020, the "North" itself has still not been reconstructed.

4. It's a myth that the USA was on the verge of abolishing slavery just before and during most of the Civil War. All the previous restrictions placed on the expansion of slavery, such as those restrictions imposed by the Missouri Compromise (of 1820), and those restrictions imposed by the Compromise of 1850, had just been removed in the USA by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, shortly before the Civil War started. The Kansas-Nebraska Act also gave freedom to adopt, or to not adopt slavery to any territories seeking statehood, such as U.S. territory which later became the states of Kansas and Nebraska.

5. The secession attempt of most of the Southern states started the Civil War which wound up eventually to become a war apparently abolishing slavery, but not at first.

   Personally, I feel it should be known more widely why most of the South decided to secede despite all the pro-slavery policies and laws which had just gone into effect in the USA. Secession was unnecessary, and made no sense at all!

6. Some scholars and regular citizens both believe that the ratification of the 13th Amendment was later weakened or even annuled by the invalidation of many of those legislators who had just ratified it. Some of them were former Confederate pretenders who were unseated and thrown out of their state legislatures after having ratified the 13th Amendment. Therefore, wasn't the initial ratification of this proposed amendment also thrown out? (The expelling of the former-Confederate state legislators occurred mainly after they, excepting Tennessee's legislature, refused to ratify the 14th Amendment.)

7. The 14th Amendment, The Repudiation Amendment. (Why would the ex-Confederate, heavily indebted states not welcome the total erasing of their state-debts, which is part of the 14th Amendment which they mostly rejected at first? They should've readily accepted such "get out of debt" for free, cards sent by Uncle Sam. The southern state governments were all getting out of debt going all the way back to 1776, and were not encouraged to give reparations to ex-slaves, to protect the purse of the U.S. government. Only with depreciated paper money could the U.S. government afford such an expenditure.

   For one thing, many former Confederate officers would've been a large group that had heavily invested in state bonds issued by southern states which had seceded. If the bonds issued by the fomer confederate states were now to be honored or even financially backed by the U.S. government, this would've been just fine with this group, some of whom were now serving as state legislators.

   There were two groups of bonds related to the Confederate States of America: those issued by the central government of the CSA, and those bonds issued by individual states. Within the first two years after the war ended, and even before that, the CSA bonds were already considered worthless probably, but under the Johnson/Lincoln rapid re-admittance plan for the former CSA states, the individual southern states were now already considered a part of the USA again. Without the 14th Amendment's repudiation section, the bonds issued by those southern states might have been considered debts of the USA now.

   So the new Radical Republican plan conceived about one or two years after the Civil War had ended, and which required the 14th Amendment in order to work, was to again sever the states of the former-Confederacy apart from the USA again, mostly to protect the USA from any former-Confederate financial liabilities, such as reparations paid to ex-slaves. This is what actually occurred about the time that Pres. Johnson was "deactivated", sidelined, and impeached in favor of Republican Party and partisan rule. The order to militarily occupy the ex-Confederate states, over Johnson's repeated vetoes, and pack the occupied legislatures with only Republicans, did not begin until Fall 1867. Johnson departed the White House in March 1868 when Grant took office as President.

   Also, the Republicans, through using the 14th Amendment to repudiate most former CSA state bonds, created a nearly "clean financial slate" in the occupied South, ruling over many states that were nearly free of debt. For the next 10 years or so, reparations were paid to some ex-slaves in some southern states, mostly with real estate seized from ex-Confederates, but increasingly, the KKK, similar gorups, and Democrats put a stop to most of that using terrorism.

   Note that Francis Peirpont (Pierpont), the initial Reconstruction Governor of Virginia, and former founding Governor of West Virginia, was one of the Lincoln-Johnson-Republicans who mysteriously lost his position as Reconstruction Governor of Virginia when the more radical Republicans took over in 1867-1868.)

Likewise, the processes which resulted in the initial "successful" ratification of the 14th Amendment except for Tennessee, are even more irregular and strange, and do not correspond to what is today accepted as "normal behavior" in our seats of government. (Yet, Tennessee is the current home for country music and the Confederate battle flag, and the original home of the "first-Klu Klux Klan". Tennessee also was never re-occupied and reconstructed after the Civil War, either.)

Many citizens today have noticed that everyone is not treated equally in the USA even in the year 2020, many years after the Civil War. They have noticed violations of the rights of many people of color, and others.

The fact that Biden proposed "decriminalization" of marijuana for just black people, is another hint that these three Amendments are generally ignored all over the USA in the year 2020. Even V. P. Elect Kamala Harris is advocating "decrim." for black people. NOTE: it is nominally unconstituitonal under the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to treat blacks any differently than any other citizens.

The abolishment of slavery and associated ending of racial discrimination under the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments in the USA do not seem to have been successfully implemented as of yet, in late 2020.

Therefore, many, including myself, feel that the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments are very weak, and should be further ratified properly to ensure that these constitutional amendments are actually respected and followed by the states, and other institutions such as the U.S. Government, rather than ignored.

It's already happening, but very slowly. Some states have already "nominally unnecessarily" further ratified the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, and other amendments to the U. S. Constitution. Mississippi "unnecessarily" ratified the 13th Amendment in 1995. States can lead the United States.

NOTE: the ratification of the 13th Amendment by any state nominally enabled the abolition of slavery at the Federal level, but did not abolish slavery for the ratifying state; the state had to abolish slavery itself at the state legislative level for that to happen since slavery issues were all already state regulated and controlled. But abolishing slavery at the state level and ratifying the 13th amendment were already prerequisites for former Confederate states to be re-admitted to the U.S. under the latter-day Lincoln and Lincoln/Johnson plan. The earlier period of Lincoln reconstruction only required the former rebel state to abolish slavery, and mandated 10 percent of the citizens to swear loyalty, to be re-admitted, as the 13th and 14th Amendments did not yet exist. The 14th Amendment was not even proposed in Congress until about one year after the Civil War ended. The ideas that went into the 14th Amendment were already circulating in some places, but never made it into the 13th Amendment for some unknown reason.

This indicates that the 14th Amendment was more radical and actually revolutionary, and was not a normal or run-of-the-mill amendment idea.

Pres. Andrew Johnson felt, and expressed in his veto messages, that some or most of the ideas in the 14th Amendment were radically unconstitutional in nature. For one thing, this amendment enabled the criminalization and punishment in various ways of past behaviors (such as practicing slavery) that was not criminal in the past, which made this an ex-post-facto law or rule, which is unconstitutional as a mere law.

The Repudiation Amendment: More than 14 Dollars. Also, in opposition to the extant U. S. Constitution, the 14th Amendment presumed that all the U. S. states were now suddenly in need of detailed regulation and control by the central government of (some of) their own internal affairs, which was a novel idea at the time that seemed to be in opposition not only to the existing U. S. constitution, but also to U. S. tradition in terms of specific areas of interest, such as requiring that pre-Civil War and Civil War debt of all former rebel states of the Confederacy, but going all the way back to 1776, were now all invalid, even the state debt contracted well before the Civil War.

This only pertains to some of the Confederacy, and a few other non-CSA states that repudiated some of their bonds. A section of the 14th Amendment refuses the U. S. Goveernment the right to assume or pay these debts. There are organizations in Europe still today trying to obtain compensation for these "bad bonds". This is the real plum, however, for the South. Giving many states of the South and a few others outside the south, a total blank check all the way back to 1776 for their own financial bankruptcy, was actually a very pro-Southern and extreme financial aspect that protected the purses of not only the Southerners, but the Federal wallet as well.

This part of the 14th Amendment pretty much shouts that "the South" (and some other states), were bankrupt even before the Civil War, and that this bankruptcy was due to having practiced slavery, and that we who run the USA as a whole will not be dragged into this financial abyss.

But abolishing slavery, and many other changes, by constitutional amendment is not unconstitutional, since anything can be proposed and ratified if we wish to change the constitution. But is this ex post facto quality, a fatal flaw of the 14th Amendment? (Categorically, probably not. Ending slavery is always a good idea.)

Is it normal, sane, and stable U.S. policy to make any and all legal acts today, illegal tomorrow? (No. The 14th Amendment only pertained to certain very narrow issues, such as slavery.)

Do the states of the USA now have the ability under the provisions of the 14th Amendment, to unilaterally cancel their debts? (Well..... no one talks about this aspect of the 14th Amendment. In order to have their debt canceled, a state must first be in rebellion against the Federal government. I think the Rad. Republicans were drinking too much back in 1866 and 1867...... This makes no sense at all! This aspect of the 14th Amendment seems to show that the slaver-South in rebellion won a lottery prize for seceding!)

(Back to the 13th Amendment.) However, sufficient loyal U. S. states which had fought the CSA ratified the 13th Amendment before some of the former Confederate states could do so, finishing that process unless those optional states wished to further ratify and rubber-stamp the 13th Amendment unnecessarily. (Only 3/4 of the states had to ratify a proposed amendment to put that amendment into effect for the entire USA.)

For the suspect 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, if we subtract the original ratifications of "coerced" states (except Tennessee, which was never coerced in the context of our discussion) during and just after the Civil War ended, but before 1877, in that suspect process, some of whose sponsors were invalidated and unseated later for being ex-Confederates, and the suspect occupying Republican sponsors who took their seats by force as long as the U.S. Army was protecting them, or local "Republican" militias, etc., we should have that quantity of new ratifications newly added in order to have a widely multi-party accepted and respected ratification. That's the constitutional rule.

That's why the amendments are apparently not respected in 2020 - it was fake (too partisan and/or coerced) for some actor-states before 1877. Both of these suspect groups (Radical Republican Carpetbaggers and KKK associated Democrats) should both, perhaps, in the name of reconciliation, be removed from the list of valid legislators.

These ratifications, to be widely respected, should be under normal civil, multi-party, and constitutional order (uncoerced).

That process has already begun after 1877. (I realize this statement contradicts my previous statement of belief above, that the ratifications of the 13th Amendment by ex-Confederate legislators were probably all valid, uncoerced, and sincere, since those ratifications were conducted well prior to Unionist (Republican) military occupation and control, which didn't start until late Summer of 1867.)

For the 13th Amendment, we currently only have 27 valid uncoerced ratifications before 1877, and 3 valid uncoerced ratifications after 1877 for a total of 30, meaning we need 8 more uncoerced ratifications in 2020. (In the spirit of reconciliation and reconstruction, concerning these lists of ratifications prior to 1877, all former-CSA-pretending state legislators except those of Tennessee, are to be considered "coerced", whether having consisted of Republicans or Democrats or any other party, regardless.)

For the 14th and 15th Amendments, we also probably need to throw out all ratifications by ex-Confederate states that occurred before 1877, regardless, except those of Tennessee.

For the 14th Amendment, that means we only have 27 valid ratifications of uncoerced states. We need 11 more in 2020.

For the 15th Amendment, we also currently only have 27 uncoerced ratifying states on record, so we also need 11 more in 2020 to do the 15th Amendment constitutionally correctly.

Regardless of whether or not we respect the Lincoln, Johnson, or Grant administrations, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments are NOT widely respected in the year 2020 for some unknown reason. Ratifying these three proposed Amendments correctly under normal civil and uncoerced constitutional conditions might actually help create that missing respect finally.