The Course of Human Events

[Herr Frage]

Indeed, it was bound to happen at some point.

On that vein the Albish seem to be due for some jackassery as befits a Great Power of this era. Their native policy has turned out far better than OTL as well as their handling of Mexico.

What will it be then? Perhaps a Hawk Chancellor striving to turn the Caribbean into a de facto Albish Lake?

[Lord Grattan]

A brief fast forward to November 2008 –

A record number of voters (65.4% of registered voters) cast ballots on October 28 in the 2008 General Election. Patriotic enthusiasm as the nation turned from mourning the death of King Edward III this past February to celebrating King Michael’s ascension to the Albish throne, continuing concerns about the political situation in Southeast Asia and the Middle East plus a desire to see that Albion’s economic recovery continue spurred people to turn out on election day and to vote as they did.

67 of 126 Senate seats (including both seats in Pembina and North Carolina) were up for election this year. Despite an upset victory in the Michigan Senate race by Progressive Party candidate Carl Blanchard over 3-term Senator Burnet Peters, the Commerce Party held on to hotly contested seats in Kentucky, California, North Carolina and Mississippi, where Senator Norm Howery squeaked by Progressive Party Candidate Vince Franklin by a mere 1,062 votes (out of 2.5 million cast). The party also picked up an additional 5 seats to come within 5 votes of attaining a majority in the Senate. The Commerce Party will hold 58 seats, the Progressive Party 40 seats and the Social Reform Party 28 seats in the Senate when the 56th Congress convenes in January.

Senate results:
Commerce 37
Progressive 21
Social Reform 9

All 580 seats in the House of Representatives were up for election this year. Commerce padded the size of its plurality in the House by 24 seats by winning 19 open seats and defeating 9 Progressive and Social Reform incumbents while only losing 4 of its seats: Waponahki (District 2), Pennsylvania (District 11), Manitoba (At Large) and California (District 22).

House results:
Commerce 273 (47%)
Progressive 192 (33%)
Social Reform 115 (20%)

On November 4, King Michael selected Jason Coleman (Commerce – Wasatch) to serve a 2nd term as
Albion’s 35th Chancellor. Coleman will be sworn into office at the Capitol in the Federal City of Americus on January 6, 2009.

[Herr Frage]

Interesting, I notice you included your own state.

Any parallels to the recent American Congressionals?

[Lord Grattan]

Originally Posted by Herr Frage

Interesting, I notice you included your own state.

Any parallels to the recent American Congressionals?

Only a few (the tight races in Kentucky & Mississippi, which is Minnesota on our maps and featured incumbant Norm Coleman-republican against Al Frankin-Democrat, an election still undecided even now pending an automatic recount), as the 2008 political & economic landscape in Albion is much different then in OTL U.S.A. There was no upset Senate race here in Michigan. The incumbant, Democrat Carl Levin trounced his Republican opponant by a 2-1 margin. This one I did for fun, using names and changing political ideologies in ways that only I would notice and be amused by. For example, the loser in this race, Burnet Peters, is a member of the Commerce Party, a Center-Right party. In OTL, Democrat Gary Peters, a liberal, won election to the US House of Representatives, defeating a Republican incumbant. His mentor & advisor in College (and mine also) was a liberal professor named Burnet Davis. Hence the name Burnet Peters. It was fun switching their idologies.

Someone ought start a thread, "names of real people in your TL's and why you included them".

[Archangel]

What's the distribution of religious affiliations in Albion in 1849?

[Lord Grattan]

Albion's Catholic/Protestant mix is about the same as OTL USA; the Jewish population is slightly higher. Just the other day I realized that I have said very little about Albion's Native Indian religions thus far in the TL, and I need to change that.

[Lord Grattan]

Beginning in the mid 15th Century, the Camino Real and later, the Las Cruces Trail, served as the major transportation routes across the Isthmus of Panama. By the 1820’s however, it was becoming clear that a cheaper and faster alternative was required. In 1815, Simón Bolívar, who believed that the “The Isthmian States” (called the United States of America after achieving independence from Spain) were in “a magnificent position between the two great oceans and could with time become the emporium of the universe”, envisioned a time when canals built there between the oceans would “shorten the distances of the world, by narrowing commercial ties between Europe, the Americas and Asia, and thus bring to this fortunate region the tributes of the four parts of the globe.” Bolívar further articulated his view of the region’s importance to world trade saying that “Given all this, perhaps there, and only there could a capital of the world be established!”

Inspired by this vision, many early leaders of the U.S.A. wished to see a canal across the isthmus built. However, the huge cost and the technological difficulties of constructing such a canal thwarted even studying the idea. It was during the 1825 Congress of Panama that Martin Van Buren and Albert Gallatin suggested to the Governor of Panama, Antonio Jesús Carbajal, that the U.S.A. consider building a rail road across the isthmus. With their help, Carbajal developed a proposal and then convinced the United States’ Federal Assembly to commission a study into the possibility of building a railway from Chagres (on the Chagres River) to Panama City; this study was carried out between 1827 and 1829, and reported that such a railway would be possible. However, the idea was shelved due to lack of funds. In 1833, King Edward II requested, and the Albish Congress approved funding for a study of proposed routes for interoceanic transport, in order to protect the interests of Albish citizens traveling between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Following the completion of the study, in 1837, Albion acquired a franchise to build a trans-Isthmian railroad between Chagres and Panama City. Federal funds to begin the project were approved by Congress as part of the 1839 budget. However, when the 1839 financial panic engulfed Albion early in that year, the King, who being head of the executive branch of government was the one responsible for executing the laws and spending the people’s funds judiciously, issued several Executive Orders prohibiting the expenditure of funds on non-essential projects, including railroad across the isthmus. The project was delt a further blow that year when sporadic civil unrest in various parts of the U.S.A. devolved into interstate warfare and resulted in the 1842 dissolution of the federation.

As the U.S.A. broke into the separate nations of Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama. Albion and Great Britain, along with The Netherlands and France scurried to reestablish political ties with and rebuild their economic influence in the region. Albion’s efforts were hampered by the presence and actions of Royce Randolph, an Allegheny born mercenary soldier, who had joined the Guatemalan fight for autonomy in 1840. The 29 year old Randolph, a charismatic and merciless man, had joined the war for the usual reasons, fame and fortune, and by its end he had achieved both. In 1844 Randolph became President of Guatemala, and during his 2½ years in power suppressed all opposing voices, restricted individual freedoms and heaped bigoted scorn upon the Mayan Indian minority. Albion never recognized the legitimacy of his administration. When finally overthrown, Randolph was tried and convicted for treason and then executed by firing squad. His body was allegedly dumped into a piranha infested river. Soon after that, Mayan Indians rose up and attacked Albish loggers working in the Belizean Peninsula, killing 68 and taking several women and children captive in retribution for Randolph’s rule of terror. This in turn triggered a controversial naval and marine response by Albion in May 1849 after the new Guatemalan government refused, or was unable to affect the prisoners’ release or bring the attackers to justice.

As the movement of settlers to the west coast increased during the mid 1840’s, Albion once again turned its attention to securing a safe, reliable and speedy link between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. On Christmas Eve, December 14, 1847, Albion, in spite of having its image being tarnished by Randolph, and by its European rivals in the region who did all they could to use the situation to their advantage, signed a Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Navigation and Trade with Panama. This agreement of mutual cooperation granted to Albion significant transit rights over the Isthmus of Panama. The following March, Congress authorized the running of two mail ship lines, one from New York City to Chagres, and the other from Astoria, Oregon and Yerba Buena, Sierra to Panama City.

At the time, the actual transit across the isthmus was by the old trails, which were falling into disrepair. A single transit would usually take 4 to 5 days. Robert Darnell, the operator of the Pacific mail ship line, conceived a plan to construct a rail road across the isthmus. Darnell and his partners created the Panama Rail Road Company and raised funds for the project through the sale of stock. Their timing proved perfect, as the discovery of gold in Sierra created a groundswell of interest in the project and a rush of emigrants wishing to cross the isthmus. The 1st shovel of sod was turned on the project in April 1850 and the 1st train traveled the finished line’s full 48 miles from coast to coast on February 13, 1855. Christened the Intercoastal Rail Road when completed, it was later described as being the world’s 1st “transcontinental” railroad. The infrastructure of this still functioning railroad (now called the Panama A&P Railway Company) was of vital importance for construction of the Panama Canal over a parallel route at the close of the 19th Century.

[Herr Frage]

So Albion suffers a major setback tanks to an alternate "Gray Man of Destiny."

In the 1840ws the U.S.A. collapsed into warring states never to reunite. Such words make me happy.

Was that real Bolivar or his ITTL brother?

[Lord Grattan]

The words quoted are those of OTL's Bolivar. BTW, TTL's Bolivar called his Republic the Confederated States of America. The C.S.A., like the U.S.A. collapsed into separate nations.

[Lord Grattan]

In 1845, following the conflagration in Congress over the King’s selection of Caleb Polk as Chancellor, a proposed amendment to the Constitution was introduced in both the House and Senate by Patriot Party MC’s. The proposed amendment (to Article I, Section 3) stated, “The Chancellor of Albion shall be a sitting member of the House of Representatives and be chosen from among the Representatives belonging to the largest Party Block in the House of Representatives.” Though the proposal received the necessary 2/3 affirmative votes in the House (231-114) for adoption, it fell far short of that mark in the Senate (37-35), and died. The subject would be revisited from time to time over the years and more then once become a bone of contention between King and Congress. Nonetheless, Congress would never again propose a constitutional amendment to limit who the monarch could choose as Chancellor.

During the 19th Century scores of proposed amendments to the Constitution were introduced in Congress, but none received the broad support necessary to receive serious consideration. A good number of those proposals were however subsequently enacted as Federal law. The next proposed amendment sent to the provinces for ratification would be the 1903 Income Tax Amendment, which when ratified in 1909 became the 12th Amendment (the Bill of Rights being Amendments 1-11), became the 1st amendment made to the Albish constitution in 107 years.

The stability of the Federal Constitution during this era stood in marked contrast to the fluidity of provincial constitutions of the day. Provincial constitutional changes during the 1830’s and 40’s, brought about in most cases by constitutional conventions or popular referendums, had the effect of opening up the doors of the political process for more to enter in and participate. Religious tests and property qualifications for holding office were swept away and manhood suffrage adopted (though in some places limited to White men). Newer provincial constitutions, beginning with Tennessee’s in 1833, transferred many offices from being appointed position to being elected ones. County officials such as sheriffs and justices of the peace, provincial officials such as provincial treasurers and attorney generals, even court judges became elected officials; some constitutions even placed term limits upon these officials. As the westward movement of people gathered momentum and new towns and cities sprang up, the charters of those municipalities embodied a similar openness and permitted a similar level of citizen participation.

These constitutional changes also had significant impact on the power of political organizations. Prior to this “new age of participatory politics” as Henry Clay called it, Albish political party organizations existed mainly for electing members of Congress. Now they could exist, draw power from and wield influence upon 3 levels of government: federal, provincial and municipal. A good Patriot would no more think of voting for a Commerce governor or a Commerce sheriff then a Commerce candidate for Congress. Federal, provincial and local politics became so enmeshed that the misconduct of a provincial treasurer might turn a congressional or gubernatorial election in a neighboring province, and the position of a Senator from another province on a tariff or public lands bill might embarrass his party’s candidates for municipal office. A study of the Commerce, Patriot and Populist parties and their successors reveals a bundle of individual, cultural, local and regional interests. The make up of these parties, and of all that have gained a national following over the decades, reveals that instead of displaying a few simple colors, they reveal a tapestry composed of liberal and conservative, national and regional, personal loyalty and issue oriented threads. Party strategy was, and remains, directed toward gathering up as many bundles as possible, and toward finding persons and principles common to all the threads in the tapestry that would prompt party members to set aside their differences and in union find strength.

[Herr Frage]

Victory! The king triumphs over the upstart Parliament. Most excellent. Hmm, no amendments for a long time, stability indicated? Lots of interesting stuff happening at the local level.

Is this system of constituency similar to the OTL American Political Party Structure?

[Lord Grattan]

Originally Posted by Herr Frage

Victory! The king triumphs over the upstart Parliament. Most excellent. Hmm, no amendments for a long time, stability indicated? Lots of interesting stuff happening at the local level.

Indeed; the balance of power is maintained. The next few posts will have a few more interesting constitutional twists and turns.

Originally Posted by Herr Frage

Is this system of constituency similar to the OTL American Political Party Structure?

Yes, especially at the provincial and local levels. Less similar at the national level though, as in TTL political parties do not use national conventions to nominate national leaders (President & Vice President). They're used only to discuss issues. Also the spoils/patronage system for awarding government jobs at the federal level, established in OTL by Jackson & Van Buren, does not exist in TTL; but is developing at the provincial and local levels on its own.

[Lord Grattan]

Some of these constitutional changes came to pass with minimal conflict and violence, while others were birthed amid much. Maryland is an example of the latter. The province was operating under its 1770 Royal Charter, issued by King George III. Landed property was still a requirement for voting and the apportionment of seats in the lower chamber of the legislature virtually disenfranchised many eligible voters and left residents in all cities and towns formed after the turn of the century without representation in the chamber. Provincial leaders of both the Commerce and Patriot parties refused repeated requests to consider calling a convention to write a new constitution. In 1836, Montgomery County businessman Peter Mason, a long time proponent of political reform in Maryland, organized the Readjustment Party, which in spite of harassment and threats made against party leaders by deputized constables, gathered over 8,000 signatures on a petition calling for constitutional change in Maryland and drafted a proposed Constitution. On Election Day that October, several polling places in Baltimore had to be moved due to vandalism allegedly caused by (and later shown falsely blamed on) Readjustment Party agitators. In February 1837, Maryland Governor Grayson and Chancellor Edmonson met in Americus to discuss the situation. Afterwards, Edmonson, whose own province, Massachusetts, was still (until 1839) governed by a pre-independence royal charter, urged the Congress and Royal Cabinet not to become involved in the dispute but simply to assert that Maryland’s Royal Charter was the province’s legal governing document.

When the petition and draft constitution were presented to the governor in May 1837, Mason and several other movement leaders were arrested and charged with treason. This touched off a wave of civil unrest, which spread throughout Maryland after the men were convicted. Governor Grayson requested the assistance of Federal troops to quell the unrest, but was turned down. That summer as a long and hot one for provincial officials in Annapolis, as unrest continued. That August, fearful legislators finally gave in and called for a constitutional convention to be convened and for it to consider enacting the Readjustment Constitution. The document, which expanded the lower chamber of the provincial legislature and extended the right to vote to all White citizens of the province, was overwhelmingly approved by voters the following year. Additionally, the governor pardoned all the men who had been convicted of treason. Peter Mason ventured west after being released from jail and lived out his days on the open range. Maryland’s experience clearly accelerated the pace of constitutional change elsewhere in the realm.

In December of 1837, Martin McHenry, who had been arrested along with Peter Mason, filed suit in Federal court against the Province of Maryland in an effort to vindicate the Readjustment cause. At the time of his arrest, a provincial official allegedly damaged his property and broke his arm. McHenry sought compensation from the province, contending that the province’s Royal Charter was not “representative” in nature because it denied actual representation to many citizens throughout the province and restricted the electorate to only the most propertied classes, a violation of Article IV, Section 4, Clause 1of the Federal Constitution, which states, “The federal government shall guarantee to every province in this realm a representative form of government that respects the rule of law and the rights of individuals;” and as such, he argued, the official who arrested him acted without proper authority. A ruling in McHenry’s favor would necessarily have found the Readjustment cause to have been right. In January 1844, the Supreme Court ruled 7-1 that it was up to the King and Congress to enforce this clause and that, as an inherently political question, it was outside the purview of the Court. The ruling established that the “representative form of government” clause of Article IV, Section 4 was non-justiciable; a ruling that, though modified by later Supreme Court decisions, still stands today.

At the time the Court issued its decision in the McHenry case, the province of Narragansett was embroiled in a similar conflict over constitutional change. Three times between 1838 and 1844 the lower chamber of that province’s General Assembly had adopted resolutions calling for a convention to be convened for the purpose of replacing the province’s 180 year old Royal Charter with a new Constitution and sent them on to the upper chamber for further action. On each occasion though, the upper chamber took no action and the resolutions died. In April 1844, a new constitutional resolution was adopted by the chamber. This one requested that King Edward II intervene to intervene in, what it called, “a broken political system,” and to compel the upper chamber and the governor to establish a representative form of government in the province. On May 8, after seeking advice from Supreme Court Chief Justice John McLean and consulting his Royal Cabinet, the King issued an Executive Order to compel the Narragansett General Assembly and the province’s governor to call for and convene a constitutional convention for the purpose of drafting a constitution for the province that would be in line with the representative government clause of Article IV, Section 4 in Albion’s Federal Constitution. A Constitutional Convention was convened that summer and by the June of 1845, a new constitution had been drafted, adopted by the General Assembly and overwhelmingly ratified by the people of Narragansett.

In St. John, the constitutional change demanded centered on the issue of land reform. As the province’s population grew during the early 1800’s, property owners leased parcels of their land out to newcomers. Few of these leases called for rent payments to be made in cash. Instead, lease terms usually called for payments to be made in the form of grain, produce or human labor performed for the landowner. Tenants found these terms annoying and wearing, but not too burdensome to bear. What tenants did find onerous however, was the “quarter money” charge. This referred to a standard clause in nearly all leases which stated that if a tenant sold out, at least 25% of the sum received went to the landowner. Tenants also objected to their having to pay provincial taxes on the land they rented and for all improvements to their farms. From time to time popular discontent over these charges broke out in acts of violence or local riots. This system was not unique to St. John. In fact it was common throughout Great Britain’s continental colonies during the 17th and 18th Centuries, although, by the 1830’s the Albish provinces of St. John and New York, and the British province of Quebec were the only places where it remained.

Tenant associations sprang up across St. John between 1837 and 1840. These groups met in secret for fear of local constables. In July 1840 delegates from Tenant Associations throughout the province gathered at Mayfield for the 1st Tenants’ Convention, where the Tenant Rights Party was formed and a petition requesting that the provincial legislature abolish and ban feudal leasing practices was signed. Under the leadership of the young, articulate and charismatic Calvin Penn the party grew rapidly. Ballads were written and songs were sung that championed the tenant’s cause as well. The tenant petition sparked much debate in the legislature and was at the forefront of people’s minds as they voted in the 1840 General Congressional and 1842 Provincial Legislative elections. The question asked of all candidates was, “are you pro or anti tenant?” Many land owners responded by evicting tenants active in the movement or who were behind on rent payments. Some tenants reacted by committing acts of vandalism against land owners. Though sometimes serious, including some where individuals were injured or suffered significant loss of valuable possessions, most were no more then the childish pranks of middle aged men who grew up playing “Spanish Guerilla War” games in the 18-teens and 1820’s. Though the situation nearly reached a boiling point on several occasions, the legislature drug its feet. Finally, in May 1844, the provincial legislature proposed, and voters subsequently approved a Constitutional amendment abolishing feudal tenures and limiting the length of agricultural land leases to10 years or less. By the time this law was enacted most landowners had already succumbed to the political pressure and modified or rewrote their leases.

In New York, the prime farmland in the upper Hudson River valley had been owned for well over a century by wealthy Dutch families, including the Van Rensselaer, Livingston, and VanderMolen families. Their influence over New York politics was so pervasive that nothing was done about this antiquated system until the March 1838 death of Stephen Van Rensselaer, “the last patroon.” When the elder Van Rensselaer’s sons attempted to collect the enormous back rent owed them (both cash and poultry) the tenants resisted. Other land owners followed suit and called in the back rent owed them from their tenants. Farmers in several counties refused or were unable to pay. Some resisted through acts of vandalism against the landowners’ property. Local constables were assaulted as they attempted to serve writs of payment or arrest warrants. That October, Governor Henry Brower threatened to call out the provincial militia if necessary to suppress the violence, restore order and enforce the law. A few weeks later, winter weather pounced upon the province like a ferocious lion. New York and all of northeastern Albion was held in its bitterly cold and snowy grip until mid-April. The harsh weather forced a cooling off period upon the tenants and gave provincial officials time to form a commission to look into the whole matter. The commission, led by provincial Senator William York, the King’s brother, met with landowners and tenants in the spring of 1839. After a great deal of effort and arm twisting most landowners agreed to modify or write completely new lease agreements and to forgive much of the tenants’ past non-monetary debt. Then, in 1845, when a new representative provincial Constitution was drafted, a clause abolishing all feudal tenures and one limiting the length of agricultural leases to no more then 12 years was included. With the enactment of constitutional change in St. John and New York feudalism ceased to exist in Albion.

[Herr Frage]

As ever unparalleled attention to detail.

Why no Albish peerage?

Will provide more feedback at later time.

[Arch-Angel]

Wow, this is flipping amazing, I just found this yesterday, and spent most of yesterday and most of this morning reading it all.

[Archangel]

Originally Posted by Lord Grattan

...
In St. John, the constitutional change demanded centered on the issue of land reform. As the province’s population grew during the early 1800’s, property owners leased parcels of their land out to newcomers. Few of these leases called for rent payments to be made in cash. Instead, lease terms usually called for payments to be made in the form of grain, produce or human labor performed for the landowner. Tenants found these terms annoying and wearing, but not too burdensome to bear.

It's a bit different and more profitable, but reminds me of Foros.

Originally Posted by Lord Grattan

...
Finally, in May 1844, the provincial legislature proposed, and voters subsequently approved a Constitutional amendment abolishing feudal tenures and limiting the length of agricultural land leases to10 years or less. By the time this law was enacted most landowners had already succumbed to the political pressure and modified or rewrote their leases.
...
After a great deal of effort and arm twisting most landowners agreed to modify or write completely new lease agreements and to forgive much of the tenants’ past non-monetary debt. Then, in 1845, when a new representative provincial Constitution was drafted, a clause abolishing all feudal tenures and one limiting the length of agricultural leases to no more then 12 years was included. With the enactment of constitutional change in St. John and New York feudalism ceased to exist in Albion.

Good to see land reform enacted in a sensible manner.

[Lord Grattan]

The 19th Century was a time of social, religious, economic and political change around the globe. Unlike the nations of Europe, Albion remained relatively stable amid the passionate tumult and fervor of the time. This stability was due in large part because of the constitutional foundation upon which Albion was built. The Federal Constitution was the rudder that successfully guided the ship of state through those deep waters of change. The key to the Constitution’s stability is its style, which says what is or is not to be done, without any implication of why. Thus it remains flexible, anchored upon a set of core principles and yet open to new understanding and application as situations may warrant. Dartmouth College professor Franklin Pierce one of the 19th Century’s leading Constitutional theorists, called it a “work of genius.” Pierce wrote that, “The primary factor behind the Constitution’s staying power is its ability to acclimatize the values upon which this nation was founded to the times, for its significance is bound only by the attitude of the men who framed it, and that attitude was one of change.”

The flexibility of the Constitution, its ability to acclimatize to the needs and issues times even though nothing new was added to it, was borne out several times during the 19th Century. During the 1840’s, the Supreme Court issued two landmark rulings which demonstrated the suppleness of the Constitution. The cases, Douglass v. Kentucky and Alcorn v. Charleston Port Authority concerned the issues of slavery and personal freedom. Recall that the 1787 Albish Constitution is silent on the issue of slavery and required amendment (the Bill of Rights, Amendments 1-11) in order to have a voice concerning personal freedoms. In the early 1840’s 2 Supreme Court justices with pro-slavery leanings left the Court (Abner Lipscomb resigned in 1841 due to ill health and Joseph Daniel died in March 1845) and were replaced by men who maintained publicly neutral on slavery, but who were believed to privately favor its eventual abolition (Rufus Choate and Hamilton Gamble). As Chief Justice, John McLean had shown himself to be a protector of citizens’ rights and freedoms. He also made no secret of his disdain for slavery and his desire to “drive a stake into the heart of that vampiric institution.” In both the Alcorn and Douglass cases, McLean found opportunities to stretch the Constitution’s muscles and to apply its core values to 2 pressing concerns of the day in order to smooth the progress of positive cultural change.

4The Province of Kentucky adopted a new Constitution in 1843 which guaranteed the right of all citizens, except for inferior classes of people as determined by the Kentucky General Assembly, the right to vote. That summer, the Assembly adopted legislation that declared Blacks, Women, Imbeciles, the Insane and Persons Convicted of Treason against the Province or Realm ineligible to vote. Prior to this, Blacks did have the right to vote in Kentucky. In November 1844, 27 year old Onesimus Douglass, a Black resident of Portland, Kentucky, attempted to vote in the General Election but was told that he was ineligible to vote. When Douglass insisted that he had voted in previous elections he was informed that the law had changed and told to leave the polling place. When he protested, poll workers grabbed him, roughed him up and threw him out of the building. Douglass and 2 other black men who showed up to vote with him were arrested and later convicted of creating a public disturbance and attempting to vote illegally. The men’s convictions were appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals by Thomas Lincoln Jr., who asked the Court to overturn the General Assembly’s action barring Blacks from voting, for they had “previously enjoyed and wisely exercised their right to vote, thereby demonstrating that with regard to voting, they were not an inferior class of people.” In February 1846 the court denied Lincoln’s appeal and upheld the men’s convictions. Following that ruling, Lincoln appealed the case in Federal Court claiming that his clients were denied the right to vote based on their ethnic heritage, a violation of the Federal Constitution’s Ninth Amendment (‘The right of citizens of Albion to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the Federal Government or by any Province in the realm on account of ethnic heritage, place of birth or previous condition of servitude.’).

Oral arguments in the Douglass case were presented before the Supreme Court in June 1847 and the Court issued its decision that November. In a historic 7-2 vote the Albion Supreme Court ruled that, while the Province of Kentucky did have the right to determine which of its citizens were and were not eligible to vote, it could not declare a class of people whom it has previously deemed eligible to vote suddenly ineligible. The Supreme Court further ruled 6-3 that blacks are an ethnic group, that as Blacks were considered citizens in several provinces at the time the 1787 Constitution was adopted, all blacks born in Albion are citizens of Albion, that as citizens of Albion the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution covers their right to vote, and that the Province of Kentucky had violated the Ninth Amendment by denying Blacks the right to vote in that province on account of their ethnic heritage.

4The Province of South Carolina, fearful of slave rebellions within its bounds, growing abolitionist sentiment in other provinces of the realm and the increasing number of Blacks engaging in international seafaring endeavors, adopted what it called the “Black Seaman Confinement Act” in 1836. The act required that all free Black seamen arriving into South Carolina ports report to the port authority and submit themselves to confinement in the local jail until the ship they sailed in on was prepared to leave port, at their own expense and under penalty of enslavement if their confinement fees went unpaid. Lawmakers in Georgia (1838) and West Florida (1839) soon passed similar laws. Lawmakers in these provinces argued that such laws were necessary to protect public safety, ensure community peace and protect the tranquility of society in the slaveholding south. British and Albish mariners initiated several legal challenges to these laws and several attempts were made to introduce legislation in Congress aimed at overturning them, but Southern judges and politicians successfully blocked them for several years. Numerous appeals were made to “the public mind” by antislavery activists, seamen and ship owners through the publication and dissemination of memorials, lectures, novels and pamphlets about how free people were having their liberty and dignity shorn from them; but while concern and empathy were aroused by these efforts, they did not generate a groundswell of support either. Nor did they result, in the short run at least, in a change in public policy.

A successful blow against these oppressive laws was struck in February 1841, when King Edward II issued an executive order that enjoined provincial and local civil authorities in South Carolina, Georgia and West Florida from denying Black active duty Albish or foreign army and navy personnel the freedom of disembarking from their ships and going ashore as free men and from confining them in local jails. The King’s order was a positive initial step in battle against these odious laws. It did however, cover only Blacks in the military, and local officials found other ways to discourage them from venturing too far from their ship too often.

In May 1843, the Albish Merchant ship “Troubadour” arrived in Charleston Harbor. Upon its arrival, port authorities took 4 crewman, including Thomas Alcorn, an Albish citizen of African descent from New Jersey, into custody. In November of that year a lawsuit was filed on his behalf in Federal Court challenging the constitutionality of the “Black Seaman Confinement Act”, under which he had been jailed in Charleston. After a series of rulings, appeals and legal maneuvering the case reached the Supreme Court and was heard in the spring of 1847. That September the Court issued its decision, ruling 6-3 that Alcorn’s Fifth Amendment right to be secure in his person against unreasonable seizure and his Sixth Amendment protection from being imprisoned and deprived of his liberty without due process of law had been violated by the Charleston Port Authority and that South Carolina’s “Black Seaman Confinement Act” was unconstitutional. The following year similar laws in Georgia and West Florida were also ruled unconstitutional.

[bm79]

Originally Posted by Lord Grattan

A successful blow against these oppressive laws was struck in February 1841, when King Edward II issued an "executive order" that enjoined provincial and local civil authorities in South Carolina, Georgia and West Florida from denying Black active duty Albish or foreign army and navy personnel the freedom of disembarking from their ships and going ashore as free men and from confining them in local jails. The King’s order was a positive initial step in battle against these odious laws. It did however, cover only Blacks in the military, and local officials found other ways to discourage them from venturing too far from their ship too often

"Executive order" smells far too much of Dubya... back in the 19th century, the King would have issued a "decree," I suppose.

Other than that, rock on!

[Archangel]

An ATL Lincoln!

[Herr Frage]

It appears slavery will be abolished on schedule.

Might there be a reverse Harper's Ferry by Radicals to try and ignite a slave owner rebellion?

Top quality writing as ever.