Compensating The Slave Masters And Slaves Was The Big Talk After The Civil War

April 22nd, 2014  

This is one of the BIGGEST secret not known to many people today. Till this day, the slave masters and their descendants; and those held as slave and their descendants were not compensated for what happen during the slavery and civil war era. According to the Hebrew Code and Constitutional Law, the slave masters must be compensated first for their property (slaves) before those who were held as slaves whether European, native, mulatto or Moorish (Blacks, Negroes, Coloreds, Black Indians, Latino, West Indian, Afro/African American, ect) can get compensated afterwards. Many people scream about the word reparation, however the proper, lawful and constitutional term is “COMPENSATION”. Look the word “COMPENSATION” up in the Black’s Law Dictionary.

What this means is the prosperity of the dejure, organic, REPUBLICAN form of government will not be made whole until both races have been satisfied by law. Those who were held as slaves was to go through a process of Naturalization, Colonization and Compensation, but this was not fulfilled. Naturalization meaning a constitutional method for those held as slaves to become true American Citizens; Colonization of over 22 States so those held as slaves can prosper on their own land and Compensation in gold for what happen to them and their ancestors during slavery. Which is why President Abraham Lincoln was pushing the Freedmen Towns, Freedmen Hospitals, Freedmen Bank and Freedmen Bureau. President Abraham Lincoln’s Initial Proclamation of September 22, 1862; Compensated Emancipation Proclamation of December 1, 1862; Supplemental Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863; Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction of December 8, 1863 and the 13th Amendment with 20 section was laid out to bring harmony back to the South, North and the Union based on what was just. President Abraham Lincoln’s Executive will was not fulfilled by congress through one of the greatest conspiracy on earth and the great coverup existing even till today. Another reason why Prophet Noble Drew Ali had to come to bring peace within the land. Below is one of the two newspaper articles speaking about a $400,000,000 compensation for the slave masters in the South for their slaves (private property) that was taken away by the United States.

The next news article below has many MIND BLOWING facts, read it slowly. Keep in mind that compensation for slaves was the talk of the time and was nothing new. The Moorish Science Temple The Divine and National Movement of North America, Inc; #13 The Moorish American National Republic is just bringing this issue back to the public’s attention. The newspaper article picture was too large to post, so the text version is below. Below are the words of Robert Mercer Taliaferro Hunter (click here for more on Robert Mercer Taliaferro Hunter) who was a Statesman for the North and for the South speaking on the lawful and constitutional points pertaining to the 14th Amendment, 15th Amendment, 5th Amendment, slaves as property, compensation for slave holders needed and policy of President Abraham Lincoln (known as Mr. Lincoln in the article).

Compensation For Slaves: Views Of R.M.T Hunter – Endorsement by The Richmond Whig

New York Times (1857 – 1922); November 9, 1973, ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The New York Times (1851 – 2009) page 6

“I did not make any proposition to pay the claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave, or to compensate the owner for such loss, either in substance or form. That $400,000,000 would not pay for 4,500,000 slaves when they were emancipated is obvious that I need not discuss the question. This amount would be very far from paying for such a number of slaves at the time of the emancipation. Nor did I propose to give absolutely $400,000,000, or any amount of money, to pay for these slaves. But on the contrary, suggested a deposit of that amount to the slaveholding States, without interest to be loaned to the despoiled slaveholders in the same manner after the model and strictly upon the precedent of the act of June 23, 1836, depositing the surplus revenue of the United States with the different States upon the terms and in the manner theirin specified. When the United States Government wished to transfer their surplus revenue to the States, finding that it had no authority to money to the States, it saved the constitutional point and eluded the difficulty by giving the transfer the form of a loan or deposit without interest, to be resumed by the United States in certain events, and in a prescribed mode. I proposed that $400,000,000, the sum named by Mr. Lincoln as that which he was willing to give the despoiled slaveholders, should be deposited with the States without interest, and in the same manner to be loaned to the slaveholder in proportion to his losses. If the loan of the surplus revenue in the manner in which it was made, was not an assumption of the power to give money to the States, not granted in the Constitution, then the deposit of the $400,000,000 with the slaveholding States in the same manner and upon the same terms, would be no violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbade the Government to pay for a slave lost by emancipation. The inducement to deposit the surplus revenue with the States was a the hope that it would be used far more usefully for the purpose in this way than if it remained in the Treasury of the United States. Far greater would be inducements to deposit the $400,000,000 with the slaveholding States for their easement and the benefit of the despoiled slaveholder, than exited for that of the surplus revenue when it took place. It would be difficult to estimate how much such a deposit, to be loaned to the slaveholder, would contribute to the prosperity and revival of the States of which he was a citizen. That this revival would greatly promote the inter-State trade and commerce, in which all are interested, is a proposition so plain as to need no dissension. All may see how much this would increase the capacity of those states, now so depressed, to contribute to the common taxes and burden of the country. Although unable to estimate the advantages of these pecuniary returns to the Government of the United States and their people, I should probably be not far wrong in saying that these advantages would repay before very long to the whole Union the expenses of the original outlay. But this is not all. The union and fraternal action of the two races in the South have been delayed by the fear, real or affected, on the part of the colored race that their former masters would see to re-enslave them. This fear is so absorb that it is difficult to believe in its existence. But if it really exists then such a measure would hardly fail to extinguish it, as the negro would feel that the claim of his former master had been satisfied, if not paid or compensated by the money of the United States. Perhaps there is no measure which would contribute more to restore peace between the two races. I say, then that if the inducements to deposit the surplus revenue of the United States with the States were strong enough to justify the act, still more would a similar deposit of the $400,000,000 which I have proposed be commended for the probable beneficence of its operation. But the measure may be recommended on still higher grounds.

When the private property in slaves was taken by the United States for public uses, a claim accrued to the individual owner for just compensation under the Fifth Article of the Amendments to the Constitution. This claim thus accrued to the individual slave owner, not only upon consideration of justice, but upon the express provisions of the Constitution before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. It was a claim upon the United States, not of States but of individuals, and the obligation could only be discharged by a ‘just compensation’ to the despoiled owner or by a release of the claimant. The State had no authority to release the claim of the individual which accrued before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. On the contrary, the State, as a member of the Union, was partly bound for the payment of the debt, and could not release itself by any act but one of payment. It could no more release the United States from this obligation to compensate the individual owner for his property thus taken for public use than it could release the United States from the claim of a private citizen whose land had been seized by the Government as the site for a light-house or a navy-yard. It could, however, and it did assist in ratifying an amendment by which the United States Government was forbidden to discharge an obligation which it incurred under the fifth article of the amendments to the Constitution. It could not release the United States from any interclaim of individuals, but it could say that they should not discharge this obligation or pay this debt. They thus multiplied the obstacles to a fair and practical solution of the difficulty, and aided to place the United States in this absurd dilemma. If they compensated the slaveholder, whose property was taken for public uses, they violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and if they failed to pay this claim, which accrued before adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, they violated the Fifth Amendment, which declared that ‘private property should not be taken for public uses without just compensation.’ A dilemma produced by the Fourteenth Amendment so absurd that it is difficult to suppose that it was not suggested by passion on the one side, and adopted under the influence of fear by the other. But be that as it may, I do not propose either to attack or the validity of this amendment or to violate it. A loan of $400,000,000 to the slaveholder States, without interest or with a small interest, to be recalled at the pleasure of the United States is no payment in whole or in part for the loss sustained by the slaveholder, and if it be not, it is no violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in the present depression of the former slaveholding interest in the South, the loan of this sum might go far to satisfy the claimant, although it would not pay him.

The United States Government might be this relieved without any violation of either the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and greatly to the advantage of all concerned. If the general Government in the passage of the act for depositing money with the States, did not assume the power to give money to the States not granted in the Constitution, neither would the amendment forbidding her to pay the slaveholder for the loss of his slaves be violated by a deposit of $400,000,00 with the former slaveholding States. It might thus, perhaps, satisfy the just claimant under the Fifth Amendment without violating the Fourteenth, a result which would be much prized by all who value the reputation of the Government for good faith and fair dealing. It perhaps, due to the candor for me to state that I was against the act for depositing the surplus revenue with the States, because I was afraid of the precedent for reasons which it is unnecessary to recapitulate here. But in the case which I am discussing there is no fear of the precedent, as this case can have no parallel heareafter. It is difficult to see how the conclusions which I have states from the premises which are given can be resisted, unless either upon the ground that under the war power the Unites States could emancipate the slaves, without incurring the obligation to compensate the owner for their loss, or else because there could be no property in slaves. From the first claim the United States are estopped by their course of negotiation with Great Britain in the treaties which terminated the two wars which have been waged between these countries. In the seventh of the provisional articles between the two countries, agreed upon Nov. 30, 1782, it was stipulated that the British armies should withdraw without ‘carrying away any negroes or other property of the American inhabitants,’ and because they did carry away many negroes taken during the war, there was a correspondence between the Governments on that subject. In this correspondence a claim for compensation for these carried away was admitted by Sir Guy Carleton. In the first article of the Treaty of Ghent there was a similar stipulation on the part of Great Britain in regard to ‘any slaves or other private property’, and because they did carry the away it was decided by the Emperor of Russia, to whose arbitration the case was submitted, that they should pay the American owners, which they did. Neither can they set up the plea that there was no property in slaves; for here they are met by the whole course of negotiations between the United States and foreign Governments on this subject, to say nothing of the legislation on the part of the Federal Government and the decisions of the courts upon the matter. This is a question which surely there can be no need of arguing here. In thus giving any opinion as to the justice and policy of the measure which I have suggested, I must say as Mr. Lincoln did in regard to the payment of $400,000,000 to the despoiled slaveholder. ‘I speak only for myself; I am not authorized to speak for ay one else upon this subject.’ But while I maintain the justice and good policy of such a measure, I by no means propose to man an issue of it at this time. If the measure should ever be adopted, that day may be distant, and only after there is a great revolution in the public sentiment of the States which were non-slaveholding at the time of the emancipation. To press such a claim prematurely would only injure the chances and delay the time of its ultimate acknowledgement, should that ever take place. Should the measure be attempted too soon, an adverse decision might be provoked, in the present temper if the public mind, and the chances of its final adoption might be prejudiced or destroyed. But while I by no means recommend any practical issue to be made upon this question at the present, I see no harm in keeping the claim alive, or in demonstrating its justice as far as it may be possible to do so. It was in this belief that upon a late occasion I endeavored to present the claim of my wronged and despoiled countrymen, and suggested that something should be done, which, although very far short of payment, might yet be considered possibly as a satisfaction for the wrongs.”


* Web Master Notes: The words above by the Statesman R.M.T Hunter (Robert Mercer Taliaferro Hunter) are very informative. However the 13th Amendment with “two sections”, 14th and 15th Amendment are unconstitutional. So the 5th Amendment still stands. The real 13th Amendment, the one with “twenty sections”, Proclamations of President Abraham Lincoln and Compensation is still laws of the land. By enforcing these laws the nation can be saved.

The Holy Prophet told the Moors “do not throw away your slave names (your family name), because we have a birth-right under them. For the work that our ancestors did in slavery time, we will be paid off for this, and with compounded interest.” (Bro. J. Blakely Bey told the Moors this).

“…there is no need for the application of the 14th and 15th Amendments for the salvation of our people and citizens.” – Prophet Noble Drew Ali in A Divine Warning By The Prophet For The Nation in Moorish Literature

“…I am hereby calling on all true citizens that stand for a National Free Government, and the enforcement of the constitution to help me in my great missionary work because I need all support from all true American citizens of the United States of America. Help me to save my people who have fallen from the constitutional laws of government.” – Prophet Noble Drew Ali in A Divine Warning By The Prophet For The Nation in Moorish Literature

“Then the lion and the lamb can lie down together in younder hills. And neither will be harmed, because Love, Truth, Peace, Freedom and Justice will be reigning in this land. In those days the United States will be one of the greatest civilizations and prosperous governments of the world, but if the above principles are not carried out by the citizens and my people in this government, the worst is yet to come, because the Great God of the Universe is not pleased with the works that are being performed in North America by my people and this great sin must be removed from the land to save it from enormous earthquakes, disease, ect.” – Prophet Noble Drew Ali in A Divine Warning By The Prophet For The Nation in Moorish Literature

You must belogged in to post a comment.