Author Topic: What ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ really meant  (Read 49 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 418,151
What ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ really meant
« on: April 21, 2026, 11:49:01 am »
What ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ really meant

To really understand the 14th Amendment, we must examine a little-known but crucial aspect of Civil War history.

Larry Moore | April 21, 2026

The Supreme Court is now considering a fundamental question: Is a person born in the United States automatically a citizen?  The answer turns on a single phrase in the 14th Amendment: that a person born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a citizen.  The language appears simple.  The history behind it is anything but.

To understand what that phrase meant, we must revisit a part of American history that is often overlooked if not outright hidden.  The conventional narrative portrays the Civil War–era North as uniformly noble and anti-slavery.  And it is true that many Northern states abolished slavery well before the Civil War.  But now, the rest of the story.

After ending slavery, several Northern states enacted laws that made it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for free black people to remain within their borders.  These laws required proof of freedom; registration with authorities; and, in some cases, the posting of substantial financial bonds.

Consider Ohio.  After abolishing slavery, it required free black individuals entering the state to present proof of freedom, something a runaway slave could not produce, and they had to post a bond, typically $500.  In today’s terms, that is roughly $14,000.  For a family of six, that would amount to approximately $84,000.  The practical effect was obvious: Most newly freed individuals could not afford to stay.

Other states followed similar paths.  Indiana imposed registration and bonding requirements and ultimately prohibited black immigration altogether.  Illinois required proof of freedom and later barred black settlement entirely.  Iowa imposed bond requirements.  Oregon enacted laws ordering free black residents to leave and prohibiting future settlement.  Michigan required registration and bonding.

more
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/04/what_subject_to_the_jurisdiction_thereof_really_meant.html
Democrat Party...the Party of Infanticide

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience"
Mark Twain


“Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”
-Matthew 6:34


Smokin Joe: Stupid people vote. If you have enough of them, you don’t need to steal an election

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37,375
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: What ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ really meant
« Reply #1 on: April 21, 2026, 05:00:22 pm »
Quote
The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was not incidental.  It was intended to confirm that those who were born in a state but were not citizens, nor owed allegiance to any other sovereign, and were fully subject to U.S. law, were in fact citizens.

 :bingo:
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien