donald trump is trying to kill you

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 172
#151
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL



Another, is that the ssoutherners were literally "fighting for slavery". Slavery was not going anywhere. but the political interests of the southern elite would predictably be undermined to an increasing degree.. Some confederate slave owners freed their slaves prior to the emancipation proclamation.
The idea that because some unknown number of slaves were reportedly freed has absolutely zero bearing on the fact that the Confederate states EXPLICITLY name "the institution of slavery" as "the greatest material interest of the world".

For example, in its declaration of secession, Mississippi explained, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." In its declaration of secession, South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of states to make their own laws — at least when those laws conflict with slaveholding. [LINK]

On a technical note, you are quoting a statement from the state of Mississippi.  At the time, people often identified more closely with their respective state.

I believe now, that I have said all I have to say on the matter, if you would like to expound upon your initial statement it would be much appreciated.  To reiterate, the fact of the matter is that confederates did not necessarily cause "generational disenfranchisement", and they did not necessarily base their decisions upon political ideals or the preservation of "the greatest material interest in the world". 

If the liberated slaves received 40 acres and a statue of Jefferson Davis, I think I would be cool with that, but a mule would be more useful.



*Additional note - People did not have direct control over their state's secession and southernors had to decide if they would defend just their family, invade their homeland, or defend it from invaders.  Some people were Pro-Union and still sided loyalty with their state.  Some people may have viewed their state as the only tenable representative recourse.  Some people prioritized the protection of their community.  The list goes on.  Many did not expect such a great war.  At the time, settlement was still on the table, in theory.
#152
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@3RU7AL
I am anti insurance, but we have to have it.  I am not 100% anti government.
Please explain your personal theory of small government.

Feds should concentrate mostly on military, be in charge of all facets to keep our country safe from threats.  They should regulate certain things to a point... but not impede on businesses decisions on how they pay their employees, there should be no minimum wage, just like there should be no cap, they should, however, regulate to a larger extent companies inside the US that have locations outside of the US, and any business relations with other countries, and impose tariffs to keep things competitive yet have incentives for keeping employees and manufacturing in this country.  They should investigate potential monopolies.  There should be less departments, and state governments should regulate themselves more.

There should be no overlap on oversight, currently there are too many inspectors checking the same things at businesses that have different requirements.  If anything, the government should be accountable for doing exactly the same things as any business (which they don't have to do anything that they require businesses to do if they don't want to), and it should be run with more of a business model so they understand the value of a dollar.  Right now they do not, and feel they have an endless amount of money.  It should be much easier for people to be fired for not doing their job.  Firing someone is almost impossible.

#153
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Post #145 has been edited.  Of relevance to the quotation *Southern Elite, has been changed to *Vested Elite
#154
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Snoopy
To reiterate, the fact of the matter is that confederates did not necessarily cause "generational disenfranchisement", and they did not necessarily base their decisions upon political ideals or the preservation of "the greatest material interest in the world".  
Jim Crow laws were state and local laws that enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States.[1]

The laws were enforced until 1965.[3] 

In practice, Jim Crow laws mandated racial segregation in all public facilities in the states of the former Confederate States of America, starting in the 1870s and 1880s, and were upheld in 1896, by the U.S. Supreme Court's "separate but equal" legal doctrine for facilities for African Americans, established with the court's decision in the case of Plessy vs. Ferguson. Moreover, public education had essentially been segregated since its establishment in most of the South, after the Civil War (1861–65). [LINK]

This is clearly generational disenfranchisement.

If the liberated slaves received 40 acres and a statue of Jefferson Davis, I think I would be cool with that, but a mule would be more useful.
The phrase Forty Acres and a Mule described a [false] promise many freed slaves believed the U.S. government had made at the end of the Civil War. A rumor spread throughout the South that land belonging to plantation owners would be given to former slaves so they could set up their own farms.

The rumor did have its roots in an order issued by General William Tecumseh Sherman of the U.S. Army in January 1865

Sherman, following the capture of Savannah, Georgia, ordered that abandoned plantations along the Georgia and South Carolina coasts be divided up and plots of land be given to freed blacks. However, Sherman's order did not become permanent government policy.

And when lands confiscated from former Confederates were returned to them by the administration of President Andrew Johnson, the freed slaves who had been given 40 acres of farmland were evicted. [LINK]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is your personal hypothesis regarding the primary impetus for the Confederate rebellion (besides "not slavery")?
#155
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL

To reiterate, the fact of the matter is that confederates did not necessarily cause "generational disenfranchisement", and they did not necessarily base their decisions upon political ideals or the preservation of "the greatest material interest in the world".  


Jim Crow laws were state and local laws that enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States.[1]

The laws were enforced until 1965.[3] 

In practice, Jim Crow laws mandated racial segregation in all public facilities in the states of the former Confederate States of America, starting in the 1870s and 1880s, and were upheld in 1896, by the U.S. Supreme Court's "separate but equal" legal doctrine for facilities for African Americans, established with the court's decision in the case of Plessy vs. Ferguson. Moreover, public education had essentially been segregated since its establishment in most of the South, after the Civil War (1861–65). [LINK]

This is clearly generational disenfranchisement.
1. You are clearly making whatever sort of fallacy it is that racists do, putting your current train of thought in question thereafter
2. Confederates have already surrendered in the introduced context and many have died, or moved on post civil war.
3. Jim Crow is a national movement
4. Union States had slaves, and other forms of exploitation
5. The war expedited the abolition of slavery across the nation, the first step

6. Disputing the quoted fact is futile.  Its a fact.
#156
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Snoopy
1. You are clearly making the same sort of fallacy is that racists do, putting your current train of thought in question thereafter
Please be more specific.

2. Confederates have already surrendered in the introduced context and many have died, or moved on post civil war.
But they were still alive and still hated former slaves, and they created Jim Crow specifically in order to generationally disenfranchise them.

3. Jim Crow is a national movement
In practice, Jim Crow laws mandated racial segregation in all public facilities in the states of the former Confederate States of America,

Here's a chart of the states. [LINK]

4. Union States had slaves, and other forms of exploitation
This is an irrelevant red-herring.  Just because some people get away with murder does not make murder less horrific.

5. The war expedited the abolition of slavery, the first step
NOT going to war would have "expedited the abolition of slavery" in a much faster and more humane fashion.

6. Disputing the quoted fact is futile.  Its a fact.
Please be more specific.
#157
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
1. You are clearly making the same sort of fallacy is that racists do, putting your current train of thought in question thereafter
Please be more specific.

2. Confederates have already surrendered in the introduced context and many have died, or moved on post civil war.
But they were still alive and still hated former slaves, and they created Jim Crow specifically in order to generationally disenfranchise them.
Who is they?  Be specific.
5. The war expedited the abolition of slavery, the first step
NOT going to war would have "expedited the abolition of slavery" in a much faster and more humane fashion.
Huh?
#158
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Snoopy
But they were still alive and still hated former slaves, and they created Jim Crow specifically in order to generationally disenfranchise them.
Who is they?  Be specific.
The white people in the former Confederate states.
#159
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
This video explains in detail exactly how Trump kills Americans.


#160
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DBlaze
Feds should concentrate mostly on military, be in charge of all facets to keep our country safe from threats. 
Both foreign and domestic?

They should regulate certain things to a point...
Ok, I agree with this statement.

but not impede on businesses decisions on how they pay their employees, there should be no minimum wage, just like there should be no cap,
And do you also believe that labor unions should be similarly unimpeded by government?

they should, however, regulate to a larger extent companies inside the US that have locations outside of the US, and any business relations with other countries, and impose tariffs to keep things competitive yet have incentives for keeping employees and manufacturing in this country. 
Regulate interstate and foreign trade, ok.

They should investigate potential monopolies. 
Sounds promising.  So do you have any concerns about price gouging or worker safety or environmental disasters?

There should be less departments, and state governments should regulate themselves more.
So you'd like to abolish the Supreme Court?

There should be no overlap on oversight, currently there are too many inspectors checking the same things at businesses that have different requirements. 
Have you ever heard of "military redundancy" for critical systems?

If anything, the government should be accountable for doing exactly the same things as any business (which they don't have to do anything that they require businesses to do if they don't want to), and it should be run with more of a business model so they understand the value of a dollar. 
The government literally prints money, so if they were going to "operate like a business" you'd have to compare it to some sort of business that literally prints money.

The primary motivation for a business is to generate revenue.  The primary motivation for a government should be to keep the peace.

A government who's primary motivation is to generate revenue would become a ridiculous malfunctioning contraption in short order.

Right now they do not, and feel they have an endless amount of money. 
They literally have an endless amount of money.

It should be much easier for people to be fired for not doing their job.  Firing someone is almost impossible.
Even if you work in a "right to work" state, it is still difficult and often complicated to fire workers, for this reason, many companies opt to hire temp workers on limited contracts (90 days in many cases) so they can let people go at will without having to provide "just cause" and without having to pay unemployment benefits.

This is the price we all pay for virtually abolishing labor unions.
#161
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@3RU7AL
Feds should concentrate mostly on military, be in charge of all facets to keep our country safe from threats.  
Both foreign and domestic? Yes.  

They should regulate certain things to a point... 
Ok, I agree with this statement.

but not impede on businesses decisions on how they pay their employees, there should be no minimum wage, just like there should be no cap, 
And do you also believe that labor unions should be similarly unimpeded by government? I want to abolish all unions.

they should, however, regulate to a larger extent companies inside the US that have locations outside of the US, and any business relations with other countries, and impose tariffs to keep things competitive yet have incentives for keeping employees and manufacturing in this country.  
Regulate interstate and foreign trade, ok.

They should investigate potential monopolies.  
Sounds promising.  So do you have any concerns about price gouging or worker safety?  Patents would come into play here, states would regulate worker safety, but lawsuits are already a factor to keep workers safe.  No one wants those.

There should be less departments, and state governments should regulate themselves more.
So you'd like to abolish the Supreme Court? No, that would stay.... but the Federal laws don't seem to matter now anyway, they are being broken left and right.  The only time that Federal laws are followed in the states is to not lose funding.  If they care more about what law they are breaking than losing the funding, they will do what they want.  

There should be no overlap on oversight, currently there are too many inspectors checking the same things at businesses that have different requirements.  
Have you ever heard of "military redundancy" for critical systems? Yes, in the military, not for businesses.

If anything, the government should be accountable for doing exactly the same things as any business (which they don't have to do anything that they require businesses to do if they don't want to), and it should be run with more of a business model so they understand the value of a dollar.  
The government literally prints money, so if they were going to "operate like a business" you'd have to compare it to some sort of business that literally prints money.  They can't just print money, they must have justification for it, otherwise inflation would go through the roof.  

The primary motivation for a business is to generate revenue.  The primary motivation for a government should be to keep the peace.

A government who's primary motivation is to generate revenue would become a ridiculous malfunctioning contraption in short order. I don't agree, and their primary motivation is to make money via taxes, they just don't know how to spend it correctly.  Why do you think rich people are audited all the time by the IRS, but poor people are not... because it is not worth it to them.  If you are getting a tax refund of under $20,000, you are almost guaranteed not to get audited.

Right now they do not, and feel they have an endless amount of money.  
They literally have an endless amount of money.  That is what you and them think, that needs to change, because it is not true.  That is why this endless investigation needs to stop... I don't want anymore investigations on people that are just going to be a waste of money.  Republicans are talking about investigating the investigation, I don't want that either... let's move on and work together on getting shit done.

It should be much easier for people to be fired for not doing their job.  Firing someone is almost impossible.
Even if you work in a "right to work" state, it is still difficult and often complicated to fire workers, for this reason, many companies opt to hire temp workers on limited contracts (90 days in many cases) so they can let people go at will without having to provide "just cause" and without having to pay unemployment benefits.

There is nothing wrong with this, if the Temp is good at their job, they usually get hired because there is a clause with the Temp agency that they can only work there for so long before they must pay them off for a full time employee.  The government does this by hiring contractors, but they have to pay them an exhorbanant amount of money, so they can get rid of them anytime they want, but it just defeats the purpose because they spend more money than they would on a regular employee that they cannot fire.  

This is the price we all pay for virtually abolishing labor unions.  Labor unions were good at one point, and there are definitely some benefits, but the benefits don't outweigh the problems these days.  They are making some people lazy.

#162
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Even if you work in a "right to work" state, it is still difficult and often complicated to fire workers, for this reason, many companies opt to hire temp workers on limited contracts (90 days in many cases) so they can let people go at will without having to provide "just cause" and without having to pay unemployment benefits.
I'm not sure I agree with all that, a "right to work" state means you can work there and not join the union, people think it gives you the right to work but it's not like that at all.  Anyway why do you say it's complicated or difficult to fire workers?  The company I work for just fired a bunch for H.I.P.A.A. violations.  Afaik they don't look to fire people, they actually try to retain them because of training cost and staffing shortages.  The places I have worked have carefully crafted policies which you will violate and can be fired for if they so choose, so it's not really complicated at all.  Usually these are attendance policies.  But again why would they want to fire someone?  As I said the expense of training etc makes it counter productive to arbitrarily fire an employee especially if they are a good one.
Temp workers come with contracts and they are more trouble then they are worth and expensive imo, for healthcare anyway.  But that would be a lengthy discussion.
I've never heard of an instance where the company I work for has fired anyone without just cause.  In fact over the years coworkers have been fired whom i thought they should have fired long before they did.  always late to work etc etc  they were far more lenient than most imo.
#163
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DBlaze
Why do you think rich people are audited all the time by the IRS, but poor people are not...
This is another Republican myth.

The overwhelming majority of IRS audits are conducted specifically for the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is not available for "rich people".
#164
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The company I work for just fired a bunch for H.I.P.A.A. violations.
For cause.  Documented violations are easily provable.  Things like "insubordination" or "unprofessional demeanor" are a little harder to get rubber-stamped by HR.
#165
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
I think one of the best job protections is low unemployment, but there is a fine balance.  I was a union rep long ago for a while, until the company went bankrupt.  Employees shouldn't be fired because they can be replaced by someone younger and cheaper or any other non good cause reason, but that's just my opinion.  While I dislike government controls in this case business shouldn't be allowed to abuse and potentially destroy people's lives by having the ability to fire them at their whim.  Unemployment and COBRA insurance is joke, but I guess that's another topic.
#166
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL

6. Disputing the quoted fact is futile.  Its a fact.
Please be more specific.
"The fact of the matter is Confederates did not necessarily cause "generational disenfranchisement", and they did not necessarily base their decisions upon political ideals or the preservation of "the greatest material interest in the world".  "

2. Confederates have already surrendered in the introduced context and many have died, or moved on post civil war.
But they were still alive and still hated former slaves, and they created Jim Crow specifically in order to generationally disenfranchise them.
Who is they?  Be specific.
The white people in the former Confederate states.
1. You are clearly making the same sort of fallacy is that racists do, putting your current train of thought in question thereafter

Something appears to be leading to your responding as though you aren't reading what is wrote and to make gross generalizations in error.  For example, White Southerner =/= Confederate.  Maybe I am wrong, like you could just hate statues and your mind is already made up so you would be fine with any justification rather than taking in the facts in context.  Really, if its just a stupid statue, people can make whatever they want of it.  I am interested in what you are making of it. 

3. Jim Crow is a national movement
In practice, Jim Crow laws mandated racial segregation in all public facilities in the states of the former Confederate States of America,

Here's a chart of the states. [LINK]

The linked article confirms that 23 states, twice that of the secessional states had Jim Crow.  Your statement is redundant.

4. Union States had slaves, and other forms of exploitation
This is an irrelevant red-herring.  Just because some people get away with murder does not make murder less horrific.
Okay, Jim Crow.  Are we sticking with the murder explanation?

5. The war expedited the abolition of slavery, the first step
NOT going to war would have "expedited the abolition of slavery" in a much faster and more humane fashion.
Why did you write this?


#167
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
It isn't complicated to fire people, especially if they are white.  You can always find a reason to get rid of someone if you think it is to the benefit of the company, it takes a little bit of work, but it definitely can be done if you want it to.  What is harder to do is fire a person of color (minority), because the race card is pulled quite a bit, even if the person is horrible at their job, or if you have to meet objectives of having a certain percentage of minorities to keep your company status for contracts.  You have to make sure that every i is dotted and every t is crossed, otherwise it is not worth it for the lawsuits, even if the cost of training someone else is worth it.  They have to really do something wrong, like steal something, or getting in a physical altercation. 

There is a girl at my work that is horrible, just horrible, and they just won't get rid of her because she is black, and she is the only black person that works in the office, we have a lot of people in the field that are black.  I would put a thousand dollars on it, that if she were white, she would have been gone a long time ago.  And it doesn't matter who takes her place, black, white, whatever, as long as they can do the job right.  That is the way it should be.  You should not be scared to fire someone if you think someone else can do a better job.  Just my opinion.
#168
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
agreed, the only caveat is firing people to replace them with someone who will work for a lot less.  Here's what I mean.  At one time there was a fairly common practice to fire long term, older employees.  After many years of service they got raises etc.  To save money these people would be fired just before retirement.  Now who is going to hire someone who has 10 years or less to work before retirement age?  Not a lot of openings for people in that position really.  While I detest government and it's control, meddling in our lives people need protections as well.  Where those cost/benefit lines are drawn I can't really say.  But this is part of the reason for anti age discrimination laws.
Good economy and low unemployment rates help with this issue.  In some sectors there is more demand than supply of workers.  I guess some think "Trump is trying to kill you" by not giving people excuses to stay on welfare because they can't find work.
#169
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Snoopy
"The fact of the matter is Confederates did not necessarily cause "generational disenfranchisement", and they did not necessarily base their decisions upon political ideals or the preservation of "the greatest material interest in the world".  "
You don't seem to understand the definition of "fact".

Please explain your alternative hypothesis regarding why the Confederate states seceded from the Union.

Something appears to be leading to your responding as though you aren't reading what is wrote and to make gross generalizations in error.  For example, White Southerner =/= Confederate.  Maybe I am wrong, like you could just hate statues and your mind is already made up so you would be fine with any justification rather than taking in the facts in context.  Really, if its just a stupid statue, people can make whatever they want of it.  I am interested in what you are making of it.  
The same people and the children of the same people who fought the Union in order to protect their livelihood (through the practice of slavery) were the same people who lobbied for Jim Crow.

The linked article confirms that 23 states, twice that of the secessional states had Jim Crow.  Your statement is redundant.
Certainly many states supported Jim Crow who were not part of the Confederacy.  However this is irrelevant.  The same attitudes that led to the Confederacy were manifest in Jim Crow.  The statues in question honor the men who represented those values.

5. The war expedited the abolition of slavery, the first step
NOT going to war would have "expedited the abolition of slavery" in a much faster and more humane fashion.
Why did you write this?
It's pretty simple.  If the Confederate states had abolished slavery, like the Union states did, THEN THERE WOULD BE NO SLAVERY AND NO CIVIL WAR.
#170
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Unemployment and COBRA insurance is joke, but I guess that's another topic.
Well stated.
#171
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
"The fact of the matter is Confederates did not necessarily cause "generational disenfranchisement", and they did not necessarily base their decisions upon political ideals or the preservation of "the greatest material interest in the world".  "
You don't seem to understand the definition of "fact".

Please explain your alternative hypothesis regarding why the Confederate states seceded from the Union.
With due respect, it is not worth my time to converse on this matter with a revisionary expressly ignoring previous content.  That is actually a rather deep subject.  If I have time and inclination to present a historical analysis, I will do it in a manner that I find appropriate to that end.  Confederates =/= Confederate States, so I would suggest to your own interest, you may question your reasoning in that respect.

Fact: Verifiable Truth, a thing that is provably known to be true
Something appears to be leading to your responding as though you aren't reading what is wrote and to make gross generations in error.  For example, White Southerner =/= Confederate.  Maybe I am wrong, like you could just hate statues and your mind is already made up so you would be fine with any justification rather than taking in the facts in context.  Really, if its just a stupid statue, people can make whatever they want of it.  I am interested in what you are making of it.  
The same people and the children of the same people who fought the Union in order to protect their livelihood (through the practice of slavery) were the same people who lobbied for Jim Crow.

The linked article confirms that 23 states, twice that of the secessional states had Jim Crow.  Your statement is redundant.
Certainly many states supported Jim Crow who were not part of the Confederacy.  However this is irrelevant.  The same attitudes that led to the Confederacy were manifest in Jim Crow.  The statues in question honor the men who represented those values.

5. The war expedited the abolition of slavery, the first step
NOT going to war would have "expedited the abolition of slavery" in a much faster and more humane fashion.
Why did you write this?
It's pretty simple.  If the Confederate states had abolished slavery, like the Union states did, THEN THERE WOULD BE NO SLAVERY AND NO CIVIL WAR.

Thank you.  I should point out the inaccuracy here, because the Emancipation Proclamation was an executive decision made by Abraham Lincoln and the 13th amendment to the constitution was not ratified until after the war.  At that point, there was no real dispute as to which states remained in the union. I think that's all the questions I have for now.  I'm not positive that a "state" abolishes something like that, but I am satisfied in my understanding of what you mean.

#172
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
 13th Amendment
Section 1.
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.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.



        Original Ratification   
  1. Illinois — February 1, 1865
  2. Rhode Island — February 2, 1865
  3. Michigan — February 3, 1865
  4. Maryland — February 3, 1865
  5. New York — February 3, 1865
  6. Pennsylvania — February 3, 1865
  7. West Virginia — February 3, 1865
  8. Missouri — February 6, 1865
  9. Maine — February 7, 1865
  10. Kansas — February 7, 1865
  11. Massachusetts — February 7, 1865
  12. Virginia — February 9, 1865
  13. Ohio — February 10, 1865
  14. Indiana — February 13, 1865
  15. Nevada — February 16, 1865
  16. Louisiana — February 17, 1865
  17. Minnesota — February 23, 1865
  18. Wisconsin — February 24, 1865
  19. Vermont — March 9, 1865
  20. Tennessee — April 7, 1865
  21. Arkansas — April 14, 1865
  22. Connecticut — May 4, 1865
  23. New Hampshire — July 1, 1865
  24. South Carolina — November 13, 1865
  25. Alabama — December 2, 1865
  26. North Carolina — December 4, 1865
  27. Georgia — December 6, 1865
          Later Ratification     
  1. Oregon — December 8, 1865
  2. California — December 19, 1865
  3. Florida — December 28, 1865 
  4. Iowa — January 15, 1866
  5. New Jersey — January 23, 1866 (after rejection – March 16, 1865)
  6. Texas — February 18, 1870
  7. Delaware — February 12, 1901 (after rejection – February 8, 1865)
  8. Kentucky — March 18, 1976 (after rejection – February 24, 1865)
  9. Mississippi — March 16, 1995 (after rejection – December 5, 1865)


27 out of 36 states were needed for the 3/4ths majority adding the 13th amendment to the constitution in 1865.  Mississippi was the 50th state to ratify the 13th amendment.