|
This is a purely educational website. Nothing here is legal advice or creates or implies an attorney-client relationship. If you have a specific legal issue, PLEASE talk to a lawyer who practices where you live—laws vary from place to place, and how they're applied varies from courthouse to courthouse. Your local county bar association can probably refer someone who handles matters like yours.
By using this site, you agree that you are awesome. Use of this site also constitutes acceptance of its Terms of Service and Privacy Policies, which are known to medical science as a cure for insomnia.
It's best to keep all discussions in the comments. But if you really need to reach Nathan privately, go ahead and email him at n.e.burney@gmail.com. He won't mind.
THE ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO LAW and the PEEKING JUSTICE logo are pretty damn cool trademarks and should probably be registered one of these days.
© Nathaniel Burney. All rights reserved, though they really open up once you get to know them.
|
|
The more things change, right?
There is actually a black fist mixed in with the white ones. A slave would not have been able to take out a loan and thus would not be crying for debt relief. So I have to ask, how did the free blacks fit into all this hoopla?
Free blacks were about one and a half percent of the population. And they lived in every state. It might be surprising to learn that there were roughly 20% more free blacks in the southern slave states than in the north. People really did not move from state to state back then — it was almost unheard of. (My data is from the 1790 census, but because people really didn’t move around, it’s accurate for the mid-1780s as well.)
It is true that free blacks didn’t have the vote in all the states, so their voices didn’t add hugely to the populist outcry. But they did have property rights. They would have shared the same economic pressures as their white neighbors (though as you can imagine, those weren’t the only pressures they had to deal with), including stuff about to be mentioned on the next page.
French here: it’s extremely interesting to read this and make comparisons with the EU.
It is for me, too, and I’m American born and bred.
Seeing the parallels makes me wonder if, in a century or so, the EU will have a strong central government, and the densely populated “countries” pressing “reforms” on the sparsely populated “countries”, in a one size fits all manner.
I’m hoping you dodge that bullet. Either that, or SMIILE makes the whole concern academic.
And since it looks like there’s a French “smiile”, according to a quick Google check, I mean Space Migration, Intelligence Increase, Lifespan Extension.
It’s the first one I’m especially hoping for to resolve this potential issue.
We have quite a few more issues before such a development can technologically happen. I invite the class to look for “critical materials” and ponder a bit.
The idea might be the same, but there’s some huge differences in the EU’s favor. The EU, for one, is a confederation of several well established countries, not a handful of foundling ones. The goal of the EU is economic and political cooperation to help everyone thrive, the Confederation was needed because the member states couldn’t survive on their own and they needed a common defense. The EU has an operating budget. Perhaps most importantly, the EU is given the tools and authority to do it’s job, while the Confederation government was not.