Jump to content

Talk:Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 81.85.69.212 (talk) at 19:47, 14 November 2015 (Added a link to the opinion text of Robertson v. Baldwin). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The following phrase is incorrect

"two Democrats, Reverdy Johnson of Maryland and James Nesmith of Oregon voted "aye." "

Johnson voted aye but was NOT a Democrat, he was a Unionist.

Should be corrected to:

"two Demcrats, Benjamin F. Harding and James W. Nesmith, both of Oregon, voted "aye."

Do you have a reliable source for what you say? SMP0328. (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Robertson v. Baldwin citation needs clarification

The plain use of the words "sailor" and "deserters" make it seem as though Robertson, et al, had run away from the Navy, and that the case was about the obligations of those in the military. They had not and it was not. They were merchant seamen who fled from the merchant ship Arago in Astoria. They were arrested and held in jail until the ship was ready to sail, then forcibly put into the captain's custody. After they refused to work during the voyage, they were rearrested in San Francisco and charged under a federal statute criminalizing a seaman's refusal to work. I can't edit the article, but I would recommend wording it as:

In Robertson v. Baldwin (1897), a group of merchant seaman challenged federal statutes which criminalized a seaman's failure to complete their contractual term of service. The Court ruled that seamen's contracts had been considered unique from time immemorial, and that "the amendment was not intended to introduce any novel doctrine with respect to certain descriptions of service which have always been treated as exceptional." 81.85.69.212 (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, here's the text of the opinion to confirm all that shizz: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/165/275/case.html 81.85.69.212 (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]