RUTHFULLY YOURS

From: Beto O’Rourke

Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2019, 9:22:19 PM EDT
Subject: Rose and Eliza

I was recently given documents showing that both Amy and I are descended from people who owned slaves. Along with other possessions listed in their property log were two human beings, Rose and Eliza.

A paternal great-great-great grandfather of mine, Andrew Cowan Jasper, owned these two women in the 1850s. There are also records showing that a maternal great-great-great grandfather, Frederick Williams, most likely owned slaves in the 1860s (“most likely,” because we are not certain that the Frederick Williams who is my ancestor and the Frederick Williams who owned slaves are the same person, but there’s enough circumstantial data to lead me to conclude that it’s likely).

Records also showed that Amy had an ancestor who owned slaves and another who was a member of the Confederate Army.

Something that we’ve been thinking about and talking about in town hall meetings and out on the campaign — the legacy of slavery in the United States — now has a much more personal connection.

Ownership of other human beings conferred advantages not just to Andrew Jasper and Frederick Williams, but to Jasper’s and Williams’ descendants as well. They were able to build wealth on the backs and off the sweat of others, wealth that they would then be able to pass down to their children and their children’s children. In some way, and in some form, that advantage would pass through to me and my children.

That those enslaved Americans owned by my ancestors were denied their freedom, denied the ability to amass wealth, denied full civil rights in America after slavery also had long term repercussions for them and their descendants.

http://swtotd.blogspot.com/

“The most important thing to keep in mind about reparations is that it is never going to happen.No Congress is going to pass, and no President is going to sign, a bill that takes money from the great majority of American voters to pay a debt they don’t feel they owe.” Thomas Sowell “Risks of Slave Reparations Campaign” aUGUST 4, 2001                                                                                     

Periodically, the issue of reparations resurfaces, brought on not by those who might stand to gain, but by politicians who see political advantage in issues that never come to fruition, like immigration or climate, neither of which they would like to resolve, as long as they serve a higher purpose – their re-election.

Slavery was the blemish on our founding. Most of the Founding Fathers understood that. Nevertheless, the decision made was to proceed with unification of thirteen separate states under a Constitution and Bill of Rights to which all attendees agreed. Was it perfect? No, because it allowed the practice of slavery to continue. But liberty was the essence of our founding. It was understood by the Founders that at some point a Civil War would have to be fought, but they wanted to delay that inevitability until the Union had solidified into a unified and respected country. They knew it would have to be able to withstand the rending of its heart, which a civil war would cause. As the first half of the 19thCentury advanced, it became obvious that the cancer that was slavery did not fit a country whose values were based on individual freedom. The abolitionist movement grew stronger and advocates of slavery more isolated. It was felt that if the curse of slavery persisted it would mean dissolution of the union. But if it were abolished the union would be preserved, even though the cost would be high and the time for healing long.

In 1775, slavery was to be found in most of the northern states. As late as 1820, there were still an estimated 20,000 slaves in New York. But by 1860, slavery had been abolished in the north. Virginia had fewer slaves in that year than they did in 1820. It was not that they had been freed but were sold to cotton plantations in the deep south. And, while northerners railed against slavery, some were conflicted. For example, cotton brokers in New York became wealthy selling the slave-produced commodity to buyers in England.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/15/john-roberts-citizenship-decision-legally-politically-corrupt/

Are we a nation of laws or a nation of men? Previously, the most radically leftist federal judges had failed this test on cases pertaining to the Trump administration. Now the highest court in the land has joined them.

The fight over whether the simple question, “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” could appear on the 2020 U.S. census already implicated major issues of public policy, including immigration, national sovereignty, and voting rights. But the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the matter has now transcended these issues to challenge the rule of law itself, once again raising the question: Who is really “violating norms,” “undermining institutions” and creating “constitutional crises”—President Trump, or his Resisters?

The majority opinion in Department of Commerce v. New York, delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts, reads like former FBI director James Comey’s infamous statement regarding former secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s email server. It presents a methodical, compelling case that should result in a just decision, only to undo the case on the most baseless of grounds.

It’s Constitutional, But We Don’t Care

Roberts’ opinion affirms that including a question about citizenship in the decennial census is constitutional, writing that the “Enumeration Clause…permits Congress, and by extension the Secretary [of Commerce], to inquire about citizenship on the census questionnaire.” It affirms that the process by which it was to be reinstated was “reasonable, and reasonably explained,” consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). That should have been the end of it.

As Justice Clarence Thomas put it in a separate opinion: “Our only role in this case is to decide whether the Secretary complied with the law and gave a reasoned explanation for his decision. The Court correctly answers these questions in the affirmative…That ought to end our inquiry.”

But just as Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s finding of “no collusion” did not end his inquiry into obstruction, in the case of the census citizenship question, the Supreme Court soldiered on in its farcical quest. Stealing defeat from the jaws of victory for the Constitution and the country, Roberts said that in spite of the census citizenship question’s lawfulness, the Trump administration could not ask it.