Section 1- The Office Of Residence Services - Wright State University: Fill & Download for Free

The majority of “Berbers” ( as you call them) were brought to N. Africa as SLAVES.Europeans were taken off English, French, Portuguese, Spanish and American ships and were brought to Africa’s “Barbary coastal states’ such as Tunisia, Algeria, Libya , Egypt and Morocco as SLAVES by Indigenous African Muslim Tribesman (“Moors”) and Arab Muslim Tribesman!Now, I realise that our resident hard core white supremacist will not this find this answer sexy, but it's what it is so suck it up!White SlaveryA Meccan merchant (right) and his Circassian slave. Entitled, ‘Vornehmner Kaufmann mit seinem cirkassischen Sklaven’ [Distinguished merchant and his circassian slave] by Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje, ca. 1888.For other uses, see White slavery (disambiguation).See also: Slavery in medieval Europe, Slavery in Africa, and Slave narrative § North African slave narrativesPart of a series onSlaveryWhite slavery, white slave trade, and white slave traffic refer to the chattel slavery of White Europeans by non-Europeans (such as indigenous North Africans (“Moors”) and the Muslim world), as well as by Europeans themselves, such as the Viking thralls or European Galley slaves. From Antiquity, European slaves were common during the reign of Ancient Rome and were prominent during the Ottoman Empire into the early modern period. In Feudalism, there were various forms of status below the Freeman that is known as Serfdom (such as the bordar, villein, vagabond and slave) which could be bought and sold as property and were subject to labor and branding by their owners or demesne. Under Muslim rule, the African slave traders that included Caucasian captives were often fueled by raids into European territories or were taken as children in the form of a blood tax by the families of citizens of conquered territories to serve the empire for a variety of functions. In the mid 1800s, the term 'white slavery' was used to describe the Christian slaves that were sold into the Barbary slave trade.Modern use of the term can also include sexual slavery, forced prostitution and human trafficking.The phrase "white slavery" was used by Charles Sumner in 1847 to describe the chattel slavery of Christians throughout the Barbary States and primarily in the Algiers, the capitol of Ottoman Algeria. It also encompassed many forms of slavery, including the European concubines often found in Turkish harems.The term was also used from the beginning of the twentieth century when most of the countries of Europe signed in Paris in 1904 an International Agreement for the suppression of the White Slave Traffic aimed at combating the sale of women who were forced into prostitution in the countries of continental Europe. In the early twentieth century, the term was used against the forced prostitution and sexual slavery of girls who worked in Chicago brothels.White Slave Trade Slavic SlavesMain articles: Volga trade route and Trade route from the Varangians to the GreeksThe Rus trading slaves with the Khazars: Trade in the East Slavic Camp by Sergei Ivanov (1913)The Volga trade route was established by the Varangians (Vikings) who settled in Northwestern Russia in the early 9th century. About 10 km (6 mi) south of the Volkhov River entry into Lake Ladoga, they established a settlement called Ladoga (Old Norse: Aldeigjuborg).It connected Northern Europe and Northwestern Russia with the Caspian Sea, via the Volga River. The Rus used this route to trade with Muslim countries on the southern shores of the Caspian Sea, sometimes penetrating as far as Baghdad. The route functioned concurrently with the Dnieper trade route, better known as the trade route from the Varangians to the Greeks, and lost its importance in the 11th century.Saqaliba refers to Slavic slaves, kidnapped from the coasts of Europe or in wars, as well as white mercenaries in the medieval Muslim world, in the Middle East, North Africa, Sicily and Al-Andalus. Saqaliba served, or were forced to serve, in a multitude of ways: servants, harem concubines, eunuchs, craftsmen, soldiers, and as Caliph's guards. In Iberia, Morocco, Damascus and Sicily, their military role may be compared with that of mamluks in the Ottoman Empire. In Spain, Slavic eunuchs were so popular and widely distributed that they became synonymous with Saqāliba.Crimean KhanateMain articles: History of slavery in Asia and Crimean KhanateSee also: Crimean–Nogai raids into East Slavic landsIn the time of the Crimean Khanate, Crimeans engaged in frequent raids into the Danubian principalities, Poland-Lithuania, and Muscovy. For each captive, the khan received a fixed share (savğa) of 10 percent or 20 percent. The campaigns by Crimean forces categorize into "sefers", declared military operations led by the khans themselves, and çapuls, raids undertaken by groups of noblemen, sometimes illegally because they contravened treaties concluded by the khans with neighbouring rulers. For a long time, until the early 18th century, the khanate maintained a massive slave trade with the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East. Caffa was one of the best known and significant trading ports and slave markets.Tatar raiders enslaved between 1 and 2 million slaves from Russia and Poland-Lithuania over the period 1500–1700. Caffa (city on Crimean peninsula) was one of the best known and significant trading ports and slave markets.In 1769, a last major Tatar raid resulted in the capture of 20,000 Russian and Ruthenian slaves.Barbary Slave TradeMain articles: Barbary slave trade and Barbary corsairsThe Barbary CoastGiulio Rosati, Inspection of New Arrivals, 1858–1917, Circassian beauties.The purchase of Christian captives by Catholic monks in the Barbary states.Slave markets flourished on the Barbary Coast of North Africa, in what is modern-day Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and western Libya, between the 15th and middle of the 18th century.These markets prospered while the states were nominally under Ottoman suzerainty, though, in reality, they were mostly autonomous. The North African slave markets traded in European slaves which were acquired by Barbary pirates in slave raids on ships and by raids on coastal towns from Italy to Spain, Portugal, France, England, the Netherlands, and as far afield as the Turkish Abductions in Iceland. Men, women, and children were captured to such a devastating extent that vast numbers of sea coast towns were abandoned.1815 illustration of a British Captain horrified by seeing Christians worked as slaves in Algiers.According to Robert Davis, between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by Barbary pirates and sold as slaves in North Africa and Ottoman Empire between the 15th and 19th centuries. However, to extrapolate his numbers, Davis assumes the number of European slaves captured by Barbary pirates were constant for a 250-year period, stating:There are no records of how many men, women and children were enslaved, but it is possible to calculate roughly the number of fresh captives that would have been needed to keep populations steady and replace those slaves who died, escaped, were ransomed, or converted to Islam. On this basis it is thought that around 8,500 new slaves were needed annually to replenish numbers - about 850,000 captives over the century from 1580 to 1680. By extension, for the 250 years between 1530 and 1780, the figure could easily have been as high as 1,250,000."Davis' numbers have been challenged by other historians, such as David Earle, who cautions that true picture of Europeans slaves is clouded by the fact the corsairs also seized non-Christian whites from eastern Europe and black people from west Africa.In addition, the number of slaves traded was hyperactive, with exaggerated estimates relying on peak years to calculate averages for entire centuries, or millennia. Hence, there were wide fluctuations year-to-year, particularly in the 18th and 19th centuries, given slave imports, and also given the fact that, prior to the 1840s, there are no consistent records. Middle East expert, John Wright, cautions that modern estimates are based on back-calculations from human observation.Such observations, across the late 1500s and early 1600s observers, account for around 35,000 European Christian slaves held throughout this period on the Barbary Coast, across Tripoli, Tunis, but mostly in Algiers. The majority were sailors (particularly those who were English), taken with their ships, but others were fishermen and coastal villagers. However, most of these captives were people from lands close to Africa, particularly Spain and Italy.From bases on the Barbary coast, North Africa, the Barbary pirates raided ships traveling through the Mediterranean and along the northern and western coasts of Africa, plundering their cargo and enslaving the people they captured. From at least 1500, the pirates also conducted raids along seaside towns of Italy, Spain, France, England, the Netherlands and as far away as Iceland, capturing men, women and children. On some occasions, settlements such as Baltimore, Ireland were abandoned following the raid, only being resettled many years later. Between 1609 and 1616, England alone had 466 merchant ships lost to Barbary pirates.While Barbary corsairs looted the cargo of ships they captured, their primary goal was to capture people for sale as slaves or for ransom. Those who had family or friends who might ransom them were held captive, but not obliged to work; the most famous of these was the author Miguel de Cervantes, who was held for almost five years. Others were sold into various types of servitude. Attractive women or boys could be used as sex slaves. Captives who converted to Islam were generally freed, since enslavement of Muslims was prohibited; but this meant that they could never return to their native countries.16th- and 17th-century customs statistics suggest that Istanbul's additional slave import from the Black Sea may have totaled around 2.5 million from 1450 to 1700.The markets declined after the loss of the Barbary Warsand ended in the 1830s, when the region was conquered by France.Christian Slavery in Muslim SpainMain article: Slavery in SpainAbraham Duquesne delivering Christian captives in Algiers after the Bombardment of Algiers (1683).During the Al-Andalus (also known as Muslim Spain or Islamic Iberia), the Moors controlled much of the peninsula. They imported white Christian slaves from the 8th century until the Reconquista in the late 15th century. The slaves were exported from the Christian section of Spain, as well as Eastern Europe, sparking significant reaction from many in Christian Spain and many Christians still living in Muslim Spain. Soon after, Muslims were successful, taking Christian captives of 30,000 from Spain. In the eighth century slavery lasted longer due to "frequent cross-border skirmishes, interspersed between periods of major campaigns". By the tenth century, in the eastern Mediterranean Byzantine Christian's were captured by Muslims. Many of the raids designed by Muslims were created for a fast captive of prisoners. Therefore, Muslims restricted the control in order to keep captives from fleeing. The Iberian peninsula served as a base for further exports of slaves into other Muslim regions in Northern Africa.Ottoman Slave TradeMain article: Ottoman slave tradeSlavery was a legal and a significant part of the Ottoman Empire's economy and society.The main sources of slaves were war captives and organized enslavement expeditions in Africa, Eastern Europe and Circassia in the Caucasus. It has been reported that the selling price of slaves fell after large military operations Enslavement of Europeans was banned in the early 19th century, while slaves from other groups were allowed.Even after several measures to ban slavery in the late 19th century, the practice continued largely unabated into the early 20th century. As late as 1908, female slaves were still sold in the Ottoman Empire. Sexual slavery was a central part of the Ottoman slave system throughout the history of the institution.European SlaverySee also: Slavery in Ireland, Slavery in Britain, Slavery in Spain, and Slavery in RussiaRelief from Smyrna (present-day Izmir, Turkey) depicting a Roman soldier leading captives in chainsSlavery in Ancient RomeMain article: Slavery in ancient RomeFurther information: Slavery in the Byzantine EmpireThe Slave Market, by Gustave Boulanger(1882)In the Roman Republic and later Roman Empire, slaves accounted for most of the means of industrial output in Roman commerce. Slaves were drawn from all over Europe and the Mediterranean, including Gaul, Hispania, North Africa, Syria, Germania, Britannia, the Balkans, and Greece. Generally, slaves in Italy were indigenous Italians, with a minority of foreigners (including both slaves and freedmen) born outside of Italy estimated at 5% of the total in the capital, where their number was largest, at its peak.Slaves numbering in the tens of thousands were condemned to work in the mines or quarries, where conditions were notoriously brutal. Damnati in metallum ("those condemned to the mine") were convicts who lost their freedom as citizens (libertas), forfeited their property (bona) to the state, and became servi poenae, slaves as a legal penalty. Their status under the law was different from that of other slaves; they could not buy their freedom, be sold, or be set free. They were expected to live and die in the mines.Imperial slaves and freedmen (the familia Caesaris) worked in mine administration and management. In the Late Republic, about half the gladiators who fought in Roman arenas were slaves, though the most skilled were often free volunteers.Successful gladiators were occasionally rewarded with freedom. However, gladiators being trained warriors and having access to weapons, were potentially the most dangerous slaves. At an earlier time, many gladiators had been soldiers taken captive in war. Spartacus, who led the great slave rebellion of 73-71 BCE, was a rebel gladiator.The slaves imported in Italy were native Europeans, and very few of them were from outside Europe. This has been confirmed by biochemical analysis of 166 skeletons from three imperial-era cemeteries in the vicinity of Rome (where the bulk of the slaves lived), which shows that only one individual came from outside of Europe (North Africa), and another two possibly did, but results are inconclusive. In the rest of the Italian peninsula, the fraction of non European slaves was much lower than that.Slavery Under Islamic RuleHistory of the Ottoman EmpireSocial structureCourt and aristocracyOttoman courtSlaveryDevshirmeMilletsMuslimsChristians ArmeniansBulgariansGreeksJewsGreat Fire of 1660Main articles: History of slavery in the Muslim world and Slavery in the Ottoman EmpireThe "pençik" or "penç-yek" tax, meaning "one fifth", was a taxation based on a verse of the Quran; whereby one fifth of the spoils of war belonged to God, to Muhammad and his family, to orphans, to those in need and to travelers. This eventually included slaves and war captives were given to soldiers and officers to help motivate their participation in wars.Main articles: Dhimmi, Dhimmitude, and JizyaChristians and Jews, known as People of the Book in Islam, were considered dhimmis in territories under Muslim rule, a status of second-class citizens that were afforded limited freedoms, legal protections, personal safety, and were allowed to "practice their religion, subject to certain conditions, and to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy". In order to keep these protections and rights, dhimmis were required to pay the Jizya and Kharaj taxes as an acknowledgement of Muslim rule. According to Abu Yusuf, Failure to pay this tax should render the dhemmi's life and property void and subject the dhemmi to forced conversion, enslavement, imprisonment or death. If anyone had agreed to pay the jizya, leaving Muslim territory for enemy land was punishable by enslavement if captured.Failure to pay the jizya was commonly punished by house arrest and some legal authorities allowed enslavement of dhimmis for non-payment of taxes.In South Asia, for example, seizure of dhimmi families upon their failure to pay annual jizya was one of the two significant sources of slaves sold in the slave markets of Delhi Sultanate and Mughal era. Main article: DevshirmeSee also: Kapi Agha, Ghilman, Mamluk, and SaqalibaThe Devshirme was a blood tax largely imposed in the Balkans and Anatoliain which the Ottoman Empire sent military to collect Christian boys between the ages of 8 to 18 that were taken from their families and raised to serve the empire.The tax was imposed by Murad I in the mid 1300s and lasted until the reign of Ahmet III in the early 1700s. From the mid to late 14th, through early 18th centuries, the devşirme–janissary system enslaved an estimated 500,000 to one million non–Muslim adolescent males.These boys would attain a great education and high social standing after their training and forced conversion to Islam.Basilike Papoulia wrote that "...the devsirme was the 'forcible removal', in the form of a tribute, of children of the Christian subjects from their ethnic, religious and cultural environment and their transportation into the Turkish-Islamic environment with the aim of employing them in the service of the Palace, the army, and the state, whereby they were on the one hand to serve the Sultan as slaves and freedmen and on the other to form the ruling class of the State."Indentured ServitudeMain articles: Indentured servitude and Irish indentured servantsIn the modern era, many whites in England, Ireland and British North America were indentured servants, a form of slavery now banned by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.Between 50 and 67 percent of white immigrants to the American colonies, from the 1630s and American Revolution, had traveled under indenture.White Slave TrafficMain article: International Agreement for the suppression of the White Slave TrafficThe International Agreement for the suppression of the White Slave Traffic is a series of anti–human trafficking treaties, the first of which was first negotiated in Paris in 1904. It was one of the first multilateral treaties to address issues of slavery and human trafficking. The Slavery, Servitude, Forced Labour and Similar Institutions and Practices Convention of 1926 and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Women of Full Age of 1933 are similar documents.White Slave Traffic Act of 1910Main article: Mann ActTo battle sex trafficking in the United States, in 1910 the US Congress passed the White Slave Traffic Act (better known as the Mann Act), which made it a felony to transport women across state borders for the purpose of "prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose." As more women were being trafficked from foreign countries, the US began passing immigration acts to curtail aliens from entering the country such as the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and the Immigration Act of 1924. Following the banning of immigrants during the 1920s, human trafficking was not considered a major issue until the 1990s.Criminal Law Amendment (White Slave Traffic) BillAn attempt was made to introduce a similar law into the UK between 1910 and 1913 as the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1912. Arthur Lee would state in the House of Commons: "the United Kingdom, and particularly England, is increasingly becoming a clearing-house and depot and dispatch centre of the white slave traffic, and the headquarters of the foreign agents engaged in the most expensive and lucrative phase of the business."South America was stated as the main destination for the trafficked girls. The Spectator commented that "the Bill has been blocked by a member [alluding to Frederick Booth ] or members who, for various reasons consider that it is not a measure which ought to be placed upon the statute book" as it would affect the liberty of the individual.See alsoTurkish AbductionsMamlukGuðríður SímonardóttirJan JanszoonÓlafur EgilssonRumeliaRumelia EyaletSeljuk Empire1926 Slavery ConventionSlavery in antiquityWhite slave propagandaWhite-Slave Traffic ActIrish slave mythReferences[edit]Jump up^ Sumner, Charles (1847). White Slavery in The Barbary States. A Lecture Before The Boston Mercantile Library Association, Feb. 17, 1847. Boston: William D. Ticknor and Company. p. 4. I propose to consider the subject of White Slavery in Algiers, or perhaps is might be more appropriately called, White Slavery in the Barbary States. As Algiers was its chief seat, it seems to have acquired a current name for the place. This I shall not disturb; though I shall speak of white slavery, or the slavery of Christians, throughout the Barbary States.Jump up^ Sumner, Charles (1847). White Slavery in The Barbary States. A Lecture Before The Boston Mercantile Library Association, Feb. 17, 1847. Boston: William D. Ticknor and Company. p. 54. Among the concubines of a prince of Morocco were two slaves of the age of fifteen, one of English, and the other of French extraction. - Lampiere's Tour, p. 147. There is an account of "One Mrs. Shaw, an Irishwoman," in words hardly polite enough to be quoted. She was swept into the harem of Muley Shmael, who "forced her to turn moor";"but soon after, having taken a dislike to her, he gave her to a soldier." - Braithwaite's Morocco, p. 191.Jump up^ Brøndsted (1965), pp. 64–65Jump up^ The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery: A-K ; Vol. II, L-Z, by Junius P. RodriguezJump up^ Historical survey > Slave societiesJump up^ Galina I. Yermolenko (15 July 2010). Roxolana in European Literature, History and Culture. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 111. ISBN 978-0-7546-6761-2. Retrieved 31 May 2012.Jump up^ Darjusz Kołodziejczyk, as reported by Mikhail Kizilov (2007). "Slaves, Money Lenders, and Prisoner Guards:The Jews and the Trade in Slaves and Captivesin the Crimean Khanate". The Journal of Jewish Studies. p. 2.Jump up^ Historical survey > Slave societiesJump up^ CaffaJump up^ Davis, Robert. Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500-1800.[1]Jump up^ "When Europeans were slaves: Research suggests white slavery was much more common than previously believed", Research News, Ohio State University^ Jump up to:a b Carroll, Rory; correspondent, Africa (2004-03-11). "New book reopens old arguments about slave raids on Europe". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2017-12-11.Jump up^ Wright, John (2007). "Trans-Saharan Slave Trade". Routledge.Jump up^ Davis, Robert (17 Feb 2011). "British Slaves on the Barbary Coast". BBC.Jump up^ Rees Davies, "British Slaves on the Barbary Coast", BBC, 1 July 2003Jump up^ Diego de Haedo, Topografía e historia general de Argel, 3 vols., Madrid, 1927-29.Jump up^ Daniel Eisenberg, "¿Por qué volvió Cervantes de Argel?", in Ingeniosa invención: Essays on Golden Age Spanish Literature for Geoffrey L. Stagg in Honor of his Eighty-Fifth Birthday, Newark, Delaware, Juan de la Cuesta, 1999, ISBN 9780936388830, pp. 241-253, http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/obra/por-qu-volvi-cervantes-de-argel-0/, retrieved 11/20/2014.Jump up^ The Cambridge World History of Slavery: Volume 3, AD 1420–AD 1804Jump up^ Trade and traders in Muslim Spain, Fourth Series, Cambridge University Press, 1996.Jump up^ Supply of Slaves^ Jump up to:a b Spyropoulos Yannis, Slaves and freedmen in 17th- and early 18th-century Ottoman Crete, Turcica, 46, 2015, p. 181, 182.Jump up^ Ottomans against Italians and Portuguese about (white slavery).Jump up^ Eric Dursteler (2006). Venetians in Constantinople: Nation, Identity, and Coexistence in the Early Modern Mediterranean. JHU Press. p. 72. ISBN 978-0-8018-8324-8.Jump up^ Wolf Von Schierbrand (28 March 1886). "Slaves sold to the Turk; How the vile traffic is still carried on in the East. Sights our correspondent saw for twenty dollars--in the house of a grand old Turk of a dealer" (PDF). The New York Times. Retrieved 19 January 2011.Jump up^ Madeline C. Zilfi Women and slavery in the late Ottoman Empire Cambridge University Press, 2010Jump up^ Santosuosso, Antonio (2001). Storming the Heavens. Westview Press. pp. 43–44. ISBN 978-0-8133-3523-0.Jump up^ Alfred Michael Hirt, Imperial Mines and Quarries in the Roman World: Organizational Aspects 27–BC AD 235 (Oxford University Press, 2010), sect. 3.3.Jump up^ Hirt, Imperial Mines and Quarries, sect. 4.2.1.Jump up^ Alison Futrell, A Sourcebook on the Roman Games (Blackwell, 2006), p. 124.Jump up^ Prowse, Tracy L.; Schwarcz, Henry P.; Garnsey, Peter; Knyf, Martin; MacChiarelli, Roberto; Bondioli, Luca (2007). "Isotopic evidence for age-related immigration to imperial Rome". American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 132 (4): 510–519. doi:10.1002/ajpa.20541. PMID 17205550.Jump up^ Killgrove, Kristina; Montgomery, Janet (2016). "Killgrove and Montgomery. "All Roads Lead to Rome: Exploring Human Migration to the Eternal City through Biochemistry of Skeletons from Two Imperial-Era Cemeteries (1st-3rd c AD)"". PLOS ONE. 11 (2): e0147585. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147585. PMC 4749291. PMID 26863610.Jump up^ Lewis, Bernard (1984). The Jews of Islam. Princeton University Press. p. 14–15. ISBN 978-0-691-00807-3.Jump up^ Humphrey Fisher (2001), Slavery in the History of Muslim Black Africa. NYU Press. p. 47.Jump up^ Lewis, Bernard (1992). Race and Slavery in the Middle East: An Historical Enquiry. Oxford University Press. p. 7. ISBN 978-0195053265. [...] those who remained faithful to their old religions and lived as protected persons (dhimmis) under Muslim rule could not, if free, be legally enslaved unless they had violated the terms of the dhimma, the contract governing their status, as for example by rebelling against Muslim rule or helping the enemies of the Muslim state or, according to some authorities, by withholding payment of the Kharaj or the Jizya, the taxes due from dhimmis to the Muslim state.Jump up^ Mark R. Cohen (2005), Poverty and Charity in the Jewish Community of Medieval Egypt, Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-0691092720, pp. 120–3; 130–8, Quotes: "Family members were held responsible for individual's poll tax (mahbus min al-jizya)"; "Imprisonment for failure to pay (poll tax) debt was very common"; "This imprisonment often meant house arrest... which was known as tarsim"Jump up^ I. P. Petrushevsky (1995), Islam in Iran, SUNY Press, ISBN 978-0-88706-070-0, pp 155, Quote - "The law does not contemplate slavery for debt in the case of Muslims, but it allows the enslavement of Dhimmis for non-payment of jizya and kharaj.(...) "Jump up^ Scott C. Levi (2002), "Hindu Beyond Hindu Kush: Indians in the Central Asian Slave Trade." Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 12, Part 3 (November 2002): p. 282Jump up^ Perry Anderson (1979). Lineages of the Absolutist State. Verso. pp. 366–. ISBN 978-0-86091-710-6.Jump up^ Pollard, Elizabeth (2015). Worlds Together Worlds Apart. W.W. Norton & Company. p. 395. ISBN 978-0-393-92207-3.Jump up^ A. E. Vacalopoulos. The Greek Nation, 1453–1669, New Brunswick, New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 1976, p. 41; Vasiliki Papoulia, The Impact of Devshirme on Greek Society, in War and Society in East Central Europe, Editor—in—Chief, Bela K. Kiraly, 1982, Vol. II, pp. 561—562.Jump up^ David Nicolle (1995-05-15), The Janissaries, p. 12, ISBN 9781855324138Jump up^ Some Notes on the Devsirme, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Vol. 29, No. 1, 1966, V.L.Menage, (Cambridge University Press, 1966), 64.Jump up^ Galenson 1984: 1Jump up^ Candidate, Jo Doezema Ph.D. "Loose women or lost women? The re-emergence of the myth of white slavery in contemporary discourses of trafficking in women." Gender issues 18.1 (1999): 23-50.Jump up^ Donovan, Brian. White slave crusades: race, gender, and anti-vice activism, 1887-1917. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2006.Jump up^ Hansard CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (WHITE SLAVE TRAFFIC) BILL. HC Deb 10 June 1912 vol 39 cc571-627Jump up^ The Spectator 11 May 1912Categories:Greek slaves of the Ottoman EmpireSlaves of the Ottoman EmpireEthnic and racial stereotypesArabian slaves and freedmenSexual slaverySlavery lawSlavery by typeSearchMain pageContentsFeatured contentCurrent eventsRandom articleDonate to WikipediaWikipedia storeInteractionHelpCommunity portalRecent changesContact pageToolsWhat links hereRelated changesUpload fileSpecial pagesPermanent linkPage informationWikidata itemCite this pagePrint/exportCreate a bookDownload as PDFPrintable versionLanguagesFrançais日本語РусскийTürkç

Review and Critique of Randy E. Barnett'sOUR REPUBLICAN CONSTITUTION:Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the PeopleREVIEWRandy E. Barnett's Our Republican Constitution (Broadside Books, 2016) is both an informative history of how the United States has been transformed from a republic that secured the liberty and sovereignty of the people to a democracy that threatens that liberty and sovereignty of individual Americans, and a polemic on progressives as the culprits in this hijacking.In his Foreword to Our Republican Constitution, George F. Will states:All American political arguments involve, at bottom, interpretations of the Declaration of Independence and of the Constitution. . . . The Constitution, which Barnett calls “the law that governs those who govern us,” is, he argues, properly read in the bright light cast by the great document that preceded it, the Declaration of Independence (that is prefaced by) . . . what Barnett calls Jefferson’s “fifty-five compelling words”:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed (pp. xi-xii).We the PeopleThe Constitution of the United States starts with three words — We the People:We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.Barnett lays out two visions of “We the People” that distinguish his democratic* Constitution from his republican Constitution._______________* Throughout this review and critique, I italicize a lower case republican or democratic Constitution even where Barnett does not since Barnett is inconsistent in his use of italics versus capitalization of these terms. _______________________________________________________________________________________At its core, (the) debate (in American politics) is about the meaning of the first three words of the Constitution: “We the People.” Those who favor the democratic Constitution view We the People as a group, as a body, as a collective entity. Those who favor the republican Constitution view We the People as individuals. . . .Each vision of We the People yields a different conception of what is called “popular sovereignty.” . . . (T)he democratic Constitution:• starts with a collective vision of We the People;• which leads to a conception of popular sovereignty based on the “will of the people” as a group;• which, in practice, can only be the will of the majority.What separates a republican Constitution from a democratic Constitution is its conception of “popular sovereignty.” Where a democratic Constitution views sovereignty as residing in the people collectively or as a group, a republican Constitution views sovereignty as residing in the people as individuals (pp 19-22).Individual rights retained by the peopleBarnett argues that:The idea of individual popular sovereignty helps us to better understand just what rights and powers, privileges and immunities are retained by the sovereign people as individuals. Indeed, under a republican Constitution, the rights and powers retained by the people closely resemble those enjoyed by sovereign monarchs, (jurisdiction over private property; the use of force in defense of themselves and their possessions; the right to freely alter their legal relations with their fellow citizens and joint sovereigns).. . . (A) republican Constitution is established, in part, so that these liberties of the individual may be regulated by law. But the proper purpose of such regulation must be limited to the equal protection of the rights of each and every person. Any law that does not have this as its purpose is beyond the just powers of a republican legislature to impose on the citizenry (pp 24-25).The first seven chapters of Our Republican Constitution provide the details of how this all came about, culminating in a revised republican Constitution improved by a Republican Party that amended the Constitution following the War Between the States, and how those improvements were subsequently undermined by progressives who, eventually, changed it into a democratic Constitution designed to “control the people” by imposing “the will of the people” as a majoritarian mandate, undermining the sovereignty of individuals by redefining We the People from a collection of sovereign individuals to a collective of majorities with power over individuals.In the critique that follows, I will suggest in what ways Barnett's analysis is incomplete and the Founders' intentions of securing life, liberty, and freedom to pursue happiness are better carried out by a combination of the republican and the democratic Constitutions that Barnett wants to abandon.CRITIQUEThe Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are each declarations of liberties and plans to secure and protect them. The Declaration invoked the liberty of one people to separate from another and announced the intention of 13 colonies in America to separate from the British Empire to secure that liberty. The Constitution created a republic of those same, now sovereign, States and a federal government restricted to a specific set of enumerated powers to ensure the sovereignty of the States and of the people.Each document contains explicit statements of its purpose.The Declaration of IndependenceWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.The Constitution of the United States of AmericaWe the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.The communality between these documents is to protect “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” of We the People and to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” While the Declaration’s emphasis is on “a people” as a collective standing against a henceforth to be a foreign government, the Constitution’s emphasis is on enumerating and restricting the duties and powers of the federal government vis-à-vis the States and individuals residing in them, the first eight Amendments to the Constitution explicating restrictions of the federal government vis-à-vis individuals; the 9th and 10th Amendments emphasizing that rights not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution were reserved to the States and to the people.I have no disagreement with any of the above and appreciate and admire Barnett’s description of the function of each document. What I disagree with is how Barnett distinguishes his republican Constitution as a protector of liberty from his democratic Constitution as a threat to that liberty.A Chronology of Change1789 to 1865. A republican Constitution interpreted and implemented as applying exclusively to free men. Some women and even some enslaved men enjoyed some of the “blessings of liberty (secured) for ourselves and our posterity,” but not all. Barnett’s republican Constitution existed in spirit, even though it was restricted to “free men” by the terms of 1789 and did not apply, yet, to We the People as a whole.1865 to 1948. Abolitionists tried to abolish slavery before 1865, and Republicans succeeded in 1865 through winning the War Between the States and passing the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution before accepting the rebellious states back into the union subject to the acceptance of the amended Constitution.Slavery was gone, but liberty was hardly universal. Post-war, Republicans watched as the KKK organized and re-established white supremacy over blacks throughout the South. Sending troops back south, this time not to defeat the Confederacy but to reconstruct an orderly society of free and recently freed men, all local and state government was suspended for Reconstruction, and federal troops administered and enforced the law. During this period, blacks were at liberty to run for public office, and many were elected.Barnett describes what happened:The reaction of the South to . . . measures to restrict its power over the freed blacks was a campaign of terrorism unwitnessed in this country before or since, from lynchings up to and including mass murders. . . . (T)he Supreme Court used the Due Process Clause to place some limits on the police powers of states. But its efforts were bitterly opposed by progressives (in the north) who favored the rights of states to enact progressive economic legislation, and by their coalition partners, the southern Democrats, who favored the rights of states to enact the economic system of Jim Crow (p 197).By 1876—ironically exactly 100 years after the Declaration—“the (Republican) North grew tired of the occupation (of Reconstruction) and left the Southerners, white and black, to their own devices (and) Democrats in the South got busy reestablishing their old order of racial subordination” (pp 123-124). This became possible when Democrats offered and Republicans accepted the Compromise of 1877 in which Democrats offered to withdraw their Electoral College votes and validate the Electoral College votes Republicans presented from three formerly Confederate states even though Republican Rutherford B. Hays had clearly received fewer popular votes than Democrat Samuel J. Tilden in the three disputed states as well as in the rest of the country Compromise of 1877 Ended Reconstruction, Ushered In Jim Crow Era. The price of Republican Hays becoming president instead of Democrat Tilden? Withdrawal of federal troops from the South and the end of Reconstruction Was President Tilden Robbed? The Great Stolen Election of 1876.The rest, as we say, is history: White Democrats ruled the South for the next 79 years, while Republicans respected the southern states’ rights to deny liberty to blacks throughout the period. The Jim Crow laws established under states’ rights denied human, civil, and voting rights to blacks by both law and custom, enforced by the KKK and other now legitimated terrorist groups, didn’t begin to break down until the north/south coalition of Democrats broke up in 1948 when southern delegates to the Democratic National Convention walked out and ran their own nominee for president—Strom Thurmond of South Carolina—over the civil rights plank in the party platform.Southern Democrats had become increasingly disturbed over President Truman's support of civil rights, particularly following his executive order racially integrating the U.S. armed forces and a civil rights message he sent to Congress in February 1948. At the Southern Governor's Conference in Wakulla Springs, Florida, on February 6, Mississippi Governor Fielding Wright proposed the formation of a new third party to protect racial segregation in the South. On May 10, 1948, the governors of the eleven states of the former Confederacy, along with other high-ranking Southern officials, met in Jackson, Mississippi, to discuss their concerns about the growing civil rights movement within the Democratic Party. At the meeting, South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond criticized President Truman for his civil rights agenda, and the governors discussed ways to oppose it.The Southern Democrats who had walked out of the Democratic National Convention to protest the civil rights platform approved by the convention, and supported by Truman, promptly met at Municipal Auditorium in Birmingham, Alabama, on July 17, 1948, and formed yet another political party, which they named the States' Rights Democratic Party. More commonly known as the "Dixiecrats," the party's main goal was continuing the policy of racial segregation in the South and the Jim Crow laws that sustained it. Governor Thurmond, who had led the walkout, became the party's presidential nominee after the convention's initial favorite, Arkansas Governor Benjamin Laney withdrew his name from consideration. United - Wikipedia States presidential election, 1948.America's Civil Rights Timeline (from America's Civil Rights Timeline)1857MARCH 6, 1857The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott decision to deny citizenship and constitutional rights to all black people, legally establishing the race as "subordinate, inferior beings -- whether slave or freedmen."1863JAN. 1, 1863Emancipation Proclamation issued by President Lincoln freed slaves in the Confederacy.1865DEC. 6, 1865The 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution abolished slavery. However, Southern states managed to revive slavery era codes creating unattainable prerequisites for blacks to live, work or participate in society. The following year, the First Civil Rights Act invalidated these "Black Codes," conferring the "rights of citizenship" on all black people.1868JULY 9, 1868The 14th Amendment granted due process and equal protection under the law to African Americans.1870FEB. 3, 1870The 15th Amendment granted blacks the right to vote, including former slaves.1875MARCH 1, 1875Congress passed a third Civil Rights Act in response to many white business owners and merchants who refused to make their facilities and establishments equally available to black people. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 prohibited such cases of racial discrimination and guaranteed equal access to public accommodations regardless of race or color. White supremacist groups, however, embarked upon a campaign against blacks and their white supporters.1896MAY 18, 1896The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson upheld an 1890 Louisiana statute mandating racially segregated but equal railroad cars. The ruling stated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution dealt with political and not social equality. Plessy v. Ferguson gave a broad interpretation of "equal but separate" accommodations with reference to "white and colored people" legitimizing "Jim Crow" practices throughout the South.1909FEB. 12, 1909The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was founded by a multi-racial group of activists in New York, N.Y. Initially, the group called themselves the National Negro Committee. Founders Ida Wells-Barnett, W.E.B. DuBois, Henry Moscowitz, Mary White Ovington, Oswald Garrison Villiard and William English Walling led the call to renew the struggle for civil and political liberty.1954MAY 17, 1954The U.S. Supreme Court's unanimously ruled in the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas that public school segregation was unconstitutional and paved the way for desegregation. The decision overturned the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson ruling that said "separate educational facilities were inherently unequal." It was a victory for NAACP attorney Thurgood Marshall, who argued the case and later returned to the Supreme Court as the nation's first African-American Supreme Court justice.1955AUG. 27, 1955While visiting family in Mississippi, fourteen-year-old Chicagoan Emmett Till was kidnapped, brutally beaten, shot and dumped in the Tallahatchie River for allegedly whistling at a white woman. Two white men, J. W. Milam and Roy Bryant, were arrested for the murder and acquitted by an all-white jury. They later boasted about committing the murder in a Look magazine interview. The case became a cause célèbre of the civil rights movement.DEC. 1, 1955Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat at the front of the "colored section" of a bus in Montgomery, Ala., to a white passenger, defying a southern custom of the time. In response to her arrest, the Montgomery black community launched a bus boycott that lasted over a year until the buses desegregated on Dec. 21, 1956. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., the newly elected president of the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA), was instrumental in leading the boycott.1957FEB. 14, 1957The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, comprised of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., Charles K. Steele and Fred L. Shuttlesworth, was established. King was the organization's first president. The SCLC proved to be a major force in organizing the civil rights movement with a principle base of nonviolence and civil disobedience. King believed it was essential for the civil rights movement not sink to the level of the racists and hate mongers who opposed them. "We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline," he urged.1957SUMMER 1957NAACP Branch President Robert F. Williams successfully led an armed self-defense of the home of the branch vice president and Monroe, N.C.'s black community from an armed attack by a Ku Klux Klan motorcade. At a time of high racial tension, massive Klan presence and official rampant abuses of the black citizenry, Williams was recognized as a dynamic leader and key figure in the American South where he promoted a combination of nonviolence with armed self-defense, authoring the widely read "Negroes With Guns" in 1962.SEPT. 2, 1957Integration was easier said than done at the formerly all-white Central High School in Little Rock, Ark. Nine black students, who became known as the "Little Rock Nine," were blocked from entering the school on the orders of Arkansas Governor Orval Fabus. President Eisenhower sent federal troops and the National Guard to intervene on behalf of the students, but a federal judge granted an injunction against the governor's use of National Guard troops to prevent integration. They were withdrawn on Sept. 20, 1957.On Monday, Sept. 23, when school resumed, Little Rock policemen surrounded Central High where more than 1,000 people gathered in front of the school. The police escorted the nine black students to a side door where they quietly entered the building to begin classes. When the mob learned the blacks were inside, they began to challenge the police with shouts and threats. Fearful the police would be unable to control the crowd, the school administration moved the black students out a side door before noon.1960FEB. 1, 1960Four black university students from N.C. A&T University began a sit-in at a segregated F.W. Woolworth's lunch counter in Greensboro, N.C. Although they were refused service, they were allowed to stay at the counter. The event triggered similar nonviolent protests throughout the South. Six months later, the original four protesters are served lunch at the same Woolworth's counter. Student sit-ins would be an effective tactic throughout the South in integrating parks, swimming pools, theaters, libraries and other public facilities.1961MARCH 6, 1961President Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925, prohibiting discrimination in federal government hiring on the basis of race, religion or national origin and establishing The President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity , the EEOC. They were immediately directed to scrutinize and study employment practices of the United States government and to consider and recommend additional affirmative steps for executive departments and agencies.APRIL 1961The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) was founded at Shaw University in Raleigh, N.C., providing young blacks with a more prominent place in the civil rights movement. The SNCC later grew into a more radical organization under the leadership of Stokely Carmichael (1966-1967) and H. Rap Brown (1967-1998). The organization changed its name to the Student National Coordinating Committee.1962OCT. 1, 1962James Meredith became the first black student to enroll at the University of Mississippi. President Kennedy sent 5,000 federal troops to contain the violence and riots surrounding the incident.1963JUNE 12, 1963Mississippi's NAACP field secretary, 37-year-old Medgar Evers, was murdered outside his home in Jackson, Miss. Byron De La Beckwith was tried twice in 1964, both trials resulting in hung juries. Thirty years later, he was convicted of murdering Evers.AUG. 28, 1963More than 250,000 people join in the March on Washington. Congregating at the Lincoln Memorial, participants listened as Martin Luther King delivered his famous "I Have a Dream" speech.SEPT. 15, 1963Four young girls, Denise McNair, Cynthia Wesley, Carole Robertson and Addie Mae Collins, attending Sunday school were killed when a bomb exploded at the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, a popular location for civil rights meetings. Riots erupted in Birmingham, Ala., leading to the deaths of two more black youth.1964JAN. 23, 1964The 24th Amendment abolished the poll tax, which had originally been instituted in 11 southern states. The poll tax made it difficult for blacks to vote.MAY 4, 1964 (FREEDOM SUMMER)The Mississippi Freedom Summer Project was organized in 1964 by the Council of Federated Organizations (COFO), a coalition of four civil rights organizations: the Student NonViolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC); the Congress on Racial Equality (CORE); the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). The project was to carry out a unified voter registration program in the state of Mississippi. Both COFO and the Summer Project were the result of the "Sit-In" and "Freedom Ride" movements of 1960 and 1961, and of SNCC's earlier efforts to organize voter registration drives throughout Mississippi.The Council of Federated Organizations (COFO) launched a massive effort to register black voters during what becomes known as the Freedom Summer. The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) began sending student volunteers on bus trips to test the implementation of new laws prohibiting segregation in interstate travel facilities. One of the first two groups of "Freedom Riders," as they are called, encountered its first problem two weeks later when a mob in Alabama sets the riders' bus on fire. The program continued and by the end of the summer, more than 1,000 volunteers, black and white, participated.CORE also sent delegates to the Democratic National Convention as the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party to protest - and attempt to unseat - the official all-white Mississippi contingent.JULY 2, 1964President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The most sweeping civil rights legislation since Reconstruction, the Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination of all kinds based on race, color, religion or national origin and transform American society. The law allowed the federal government to enforce desegregation and prohibits discrimination in public facilities, in government and in employment. The "Jim Crow" laws in the South were abolished, and it became illegal to compel segregation of the races in schools, housing or hiring. Enforcement powers were initially weak, but they grew over the years, and later programs, such as affirmative action, were made possible by the Act. Title VII of the Act established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).AUG. 4, 1964The bodies of three civil-rights workers - two white, one black - were found in an earthen dam. James E. Chaney, 21; Andrew Goodman, 21; and Michael Schwerner, 24, had been working to register black voters in Mississippi, and on June 21, went to investigate the burning of a black church. They were arrested by the police on speeding charges, incarcerated for several hours, and released after dark into the hands of the Ku Klux Klan, who murdered them.1965FEB. 21, 1965 - MALCOLM X AssassinatedBorn Malcolm Little in Omaha, Neb., on May 19, 1925, this world-renowned black nationalist leader was assassinated at the Audubon Ballroom in Manhattan on the first day of National Brotherhood Week. A Black Muslim Minister, revolutionary black freedom fighter, civil rights activist and for a time the national spokesperson for the Nation of Islam, he famously spoke of the need for black freedom "by any means necessary." Disillusioned with Elijah Muhammad's teachings, Malcolm formed his own organization, the Organization of Afro-American Unity and the Muslim Mosque Inc. In 1964, he made a pilgrimage to Islam's holy city, Mecca, and adopted the name El-Hajj Malik El Shabazz.MARCH 1965Selma to Montgomery MarchesThe Selma to Montgomery marches, which included Bloody Sunday, were actually three marches that marked the political and emotional peak of the American civil rights movement.MARCH 7, 1965Bloody SundayBlacks began a march to Montgomery in support of voting rights, but were stopped at the Edmund Pettus Bridge by a police blockade in Selma, Ala. State troopers and the Dallas County Sheriff's Department, some mounted on horseback, awaited them. In the presence of the news media, the lawmen attacked the peaceful demonstrators with billy clubs, tear gas and bull whips, driving them back into Selma.The incident was dubbed "Bloody Sunday" by the national media, with each of the three networks interrupting telecasts to broadcast footage from the horrific incident. The march was considered the catalyst for pushing through the Voting Rights Act five months later.MARCH 9, 1965Ceremonial Action within 48 hours, demonstrations in support of the marchers, were held in 80 cities and thousands of religious and lay leaders, including Dr. Martin Luther King, flew to Selma. He called for people across the country to join him. Hundreds responded to his call, shocked by what they had seen on television.However, to prevent another outbreak of violence, marchers attempted to gain a court order that would prohibit the police from interfering. Instead of issuing the court order, Federal District Court Judge Frank Minis Johnson issued a restraining order, preventing the march from taking place until he could hold additional hearings later in the week. On March 9, Dr. King led a group again to the Edmund Pettus Bridge where they knelt, prayed and to the consternation of some, returned to Brown Chapel. That night, a Northern minister who was in Selma to march, was killed by white vigilantes.MARCH 21-25 1965 (Selma to Montgomery March)Under protection of a federalized National Guard, voting rights advocates left Selma on March 21, and stood 25,000 strong on March 25 before the state capitol in Montgomery. As a direct consequence of these events, the U.S. Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, guaranteeing every American 21 years old and over the right to register to vote.AUG. 10, 1965Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, making it easier for Southern blacks to register to vote. Literacy tests, poll taxes and other such requirements that were used to restrict black voting were made illegal.SEPT. 24, 1965President Lyndon Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 to enforce affirmative action for the first time because he believed asserting civil rights laws were not enough to remedy discrimination. It required government contractors to "take affirmative action" toward prospective minority employees in all aspects of hiring and employment. This represented the first time "affirmative action" entered the federal contracting lexicon and sought to ensure equality of employment. (Presidential Executive Order 11375 extends this language to include women on October 13, 1968.)1967JUNE 12, 1967In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that prohibiting interracial marriage was unconstitutional. Sixteen states that still banned interracial marriage at the time were forced to revise their laws.AUG. 30, 1967Senate confirmed President Lyndon Johnson's appointment of Thurgood Marshall as the first African American Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court after he served for two years as a Solicitor General of the United States.1968APRIL 4, 1968Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., at age 39, was shot as he was standing on the balcony outside his hotel room at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tenn. Escaped convict and committed racist James Earl Ray was convicted of the crime. The networks then broadcast President Johnson's statement in which he called for Americans to "reject the blind violence," yet cities were ignited from coast to coast.APRIL 11, 1968President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1968, prohibiting discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of housing.1969President Nixon's "Philadelphia Order" presented "goals and timetables" for reaching equal employment opportunity in construction trades. It was extended in 1970 to non-construction federal contractors.1971APRIL 20, 1971The Supreme Court, in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education upheld busing as a legitimate means for achieving integration of public schools. Although largely unwelcome (and sometimes violently opposed) in local school districts, court-ordered busing plans in cities such as Charlotte, Boston, and Denver continued until the late 1990s.1988MARCH 22, 1988Overriding President Ronald Reagan's veto, Congress passed the Civil Rights Restoration Act, which expanded the reach of nondiscrimination laws within private institutions receiving federal funds.1992JUNE 23, 1992In the most important affirmative action decision since the 1978 Bakke case, the Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School's policy, which ruled race could be one of factors colleges consider when selecting students because it furthered "a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."The Involvement of Republicans in the Liberation of Blacks in AmericaAfter a really good start by abolitionists to liberate blacks from slavery, establish the Republican Party, elect Abraham Lincoln president, prosecute the resulting War Between the States, pass the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, and Reconstruct the Union, Republicans for all practical purposes disappeared from the liberation of blacks from prejudice and discrimination in America. Yet Randy E. Barnett in Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People appears not to have noticed this fact. Instead of following up a quite proper defense of We the People being reference to individuals in the United States’ Constitution and following it to its logical conclusion that it is individuals — “each and every one of them” — that the Constitution is referring to, Barnett takes a distinct turn in his last two chapters to argue that the federalist structure of the American republic, controlled primarily by the “police powers” of the separate states, has been supplanted by an “administrative state” controlled primarily by the federal government, and the culprits who have done this dastardly deed are progressives bent on using the majoritarian “will of the people” of the country as a whole to thwart the interests and intentions of the peoples of the separate states to continue to take liberties with the rights of minority residents of their respective states.Rights verses Liberties — An Important DistinctionPhilosophers, political scientists, and the legal profession make a distinction between negative or liberty rights and positive or claim rights. A positive or claim right is a right that entails responsibilities, duties, or obligations on other parties regarding the right-holder, while a negative or liberty right is a right that does not entail obligations on other parties except to refrain from interfering with the freedom of the right-holder (Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld, Fundamental Legal Conceptions, As Applied in Judicial Reasoning and Other Legal Essays, 1920).Civil rights are the rights recognized by a government for the protection of its citizens in respect to guaranteeing fairness and checking discrimination. Civil liberties are the basic, broader rights guaranteed in the Constitution to all citizens and legal residents in the country. Unlike civil rights which may oblige specific actions of others, civil liberties are protective, negative rights that oblige only inaction (Civil Rights vs. Civil Liberties - FindLaw.Barnett’s book and this critique are exclusively about negative or liberty rights and civil liberties.The Purposes and Functions of GovernmentBarnett draws directly from John Locke in stating the purposes or functions of government.According to Locke, the social compact establishes a government that addresses the inconveniences in the state of nature, primarily the inconvenience of executing or enforcing the laws of nature that protect one’s natural rights. . . . (T)hough in the state of nature a person has the natural rights to his life, liberty, and possessions, the enjoyment of such rights is “very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others.” Without a government, the enjoyment of one’s property “is very unsafe, very unsecure.” Because the state of nature “is full of fears and continual dangers,” it is reasonable for a person “to join in society with others . . . for the mutual preservations of their lives, liberties, and estates.” (pp. 205-206)Barnett summarizes: “No one of us is strong enough to enforce our rights against everyone else, especially against a group of persons allied against us” (p. 207). Which establishes why Barnett states definitively in his Introduction:Under a republican Constitution, . . . the first duty of government is to equally protect these personal and individual rights from being violated by (either) domestic or foreign transgression (and again later in the his Introduction that) the Declaration stipulates that the ultimate end or purpose of republican governments is “to secure these” . . . preexisting natural rights (which was) the measure against which all government . . . will be judged. This language identifies what is perhaps the central underlying “republican” assumption of the Constitution: that governments are instituted to secure the preexisting natural rights that are retained by the people. In short, that first comes rights and then comes government (pp 23 & 41, respectively).Problems of Factionalism and Majoritarian RuleJames Madison was concerned about factionalism and majoritarian rule.All civilized societies, (Madison) explained, “are divided into different interests and factions, as they happen to be creditors or debtors—Rich or poor—husbandmen, merchants or manufacturers—members of different religious sects—followers of different political leaders—inhabitants of different districts—owners of different kinds of property.”In a democracy, the debtors outnumber the creditors and the poor outnumber the rich. The larger group can simply outvote the smaller. The “majority however composed, ultimately give the law. Whenever therefore an apparent interest or common passion unites a majority what is to restrain them from unjust violation of the rights and interests of the minority, or the individual?” (p 54).(T)he problem Madison identified with “republican Government” as it had been implemented (under the Articles of Confederation) was that it was simply too democratic or majoritarian (p 55).“By a faction,” (Madison) wrote in Federalist 10, “I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. . . .” (p 56, italics in the original).Madison believed that “to secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is the great object to which our inquiries (in the Continental Congress) are directed” (pp 56-57).Federalism as a Solution to the “Problem of Faction” and the “Majoritarian Difficulty”Barnett tells us:Madison observed, where the greatest power resides lies the greatest danger to the rights of the people. In a republic, that power resides in a majority of the electorate. . . .The U.S. Constitution is primarily a structure that was intended to protect the individual sovereignty of the people. . . .The majoritarian difficulty is the problematic claim that a subset of the people, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, gets to rule the others. It is problematic because each and every one of the people has certain fundamental rights, and it is only “to secure these rights that governments are instituted among men.” . . . (T)he republican Constitution is supposed to secure the sovereignty of the people, each and every one.Federalism is the term used to describe the division of powers between the national and state governments. . . . (F)ederalism has yielded some enormous advantages for protecting the rights retained by the people. If the federal government has only power to provide for the common defense as well as to protect the free flow of commerce between states, along with a few other specific tasks, most of the laws affecting the liberties of the people will be made at the state level. This would include the regulation of most economic activity as well as what are today called “social issues” (pp 162-163, 167-168, 170, 172-173).A substantive constraint takes the form of “thou shalt not do X,” and must be enforced by the courts. A structural constraint is “self-enforcing” and therefore potentially more effective (p 170).Federalism is a structural constraint.Why Federalism MattersBarnett argues four reasons federalism matters.Federalism makes diversity possible. When it comes to economic regulation, so long as they remain within the proper scope of their power to protect the rights, health, and safety of the public, fifty states can experiment with different regimes of legal regulation so the results can be witnessed and judged rather than endlessly speculated about. . . .As important, if not more so, businesses small and large can decide to relocate if they deem a particular scheme of regulation to be too onerous (p 175).Foot voting empowers the sovereign individual. Ilya Somin has explained how the competition of federalism empowers the sovereign individual. Because one’s vote in an election is swamped by the ballots of millions of others, it is simply irrational for most persons to invest too heavily the time and resources to learn what it takes to vote wisely. Unless one is voting on a referendum, voters can only choose between candidates from one of two (or three) parties, each of which presents a complex package of economic and social policies that voters are not allowed to disaggregate. You must vote for one of the packages, or not vote at all.In sum, a system of voting does not allow the sovereign people to “rule,” and it is a pernicious myth to claim that they do. . . .By contrast, Somin explains, when voting with one’s feet by moving to another city or state, one has far greater control over the results. Each person can individually control the state in which they live be selecting from among fifty choices . . . (a)nd they can personally experience the economic opportunities that result from different state policies. In a federal system, people are then free to move to another state for a better job, or for a cleaner and safer environment (p 177).It’s important to keep social issues local. When it comes to social policy, the preferences of individuals loom even larger. Not only is it difficult to identify the objectively “correct” social policy; it is not clear that such policies even exist. Different people subjectively prefer to live in different types of communities, not only because of differing opinions about morality, but simply as a matter of taste. . . .A rich diversity of preferred lifestyles can only be achieved at the local level. . . . From the perspective of diversity, it is preferable to have the variety of options provided by fifty state governments than a one-size-fits-all national policy. . . .With fifty states to choose from, it is far more likely that a person can find a state or municipality with a social environment in which he or she is more comfortable than if one social policy is imposed on the United States as a whole. . . .By their nature, communities must have one character or another. Given that communities must be one type or another, it is best to have as many different communities as possible from which to choose to satisfy the range of individual tastes, preferences, and moral commitments. The3refore, these are the sorts of zero-sum, or all-or-nothing, decisions that are best decided as locally as is legally feasible (p 178-179).Federalism avoids a political war of all against all. There is another, and potentially even more powerful way that federalism protects the individual sovereignty of the people. When one issue is moved to the national level, it creates a set of winners and a set of losers. Consequently, the more issues that are elevated to the national level, the more contentious , bitterness, and “gridlock” develops as people fight even harder not to lose. The result is a political version of what Thomas Hobbes called a “war of all against all.” . . .As with religious liberty, we avoid a political, and sometimes physical, Hobbesian war of all against all by ensuring that as many issues as possible are handled at the personal level of individual sovereigns, which is why individual liberty is the ultimate means to the pursuit of happiness for people living in society with others. Because of the competitive processes I have already described, reinforced by federal checks on state power, such individual liberty is far better protected at the more local level than at the national.To repeat . . . it is not that the social and economic policy issues protected by a diversity of state regulations are less important than those handled at the national. To the contrary, the more important the issue, the more likely it will engender a political war of all against all to avoid having another’s social policy imposed on you. So, the more important the issue, the less it is fit to be decided at the national level (p 182-183, italics in the original).In other words, Barnett likes federalism. But is that because federalism helps protect the rights and liberties of all or is it because it protects or at least enables some to be at liberty to take liberties with the liberties of others?• Barnett tells us that federalism makes diversity possible in that businesses and individuals can move among states, cities, towns, and rural areas to where the richer and more powerful can use their money, positions, and powers to dominate and control the less rich with less status, and less powerful.• Barnett tells us that voting with one’s feet empowers the sovereignty of individuals because the “Big Fish in the small pond” don’t need to compete or compromise with the “Little Fish”; they can just devour them.• Barnett tells us that it’s important to keep social issues local where they are zero/sum games where they can be won by those same Big Fish.• Barnett tells us, in other words, that federalism avoids political war, allowing the powerful to win most battles without much of a fightThat sounds to me a lot more like racial segregation in the Jim Crow south and residential covenants and redlining in the north than it does like “liberty and justice for all.” Where is the constitutionally guaranteed “security” and “protection” for all? Where is the “liberation” of the individual from factions as well as governments that liberals talk about when attacking progressives who they claim don’t care about liberty?Letting the Courts Decide, Lacking the Will to Enforce the LawBarnett’s book is a dissertation of legal decisions. He resolves the legal issues by defining We the People as a collection of free individuals when it is convenient to do so before the mid 19th century, switching to a collectives of individuals—i.e., “factions—residing in states governed by majority rule that can win state elections and rewrite the Black Codes of Jim Crow days if they desire. For Barnett, states’ rights prevail by majority rule when it is convenient to do so.I’m certain that Ronald Reagan agreed with the republican Constitution and would have been pleased with Barnett’s book. Throughout the 1980 presidential election and again in his inauguration, Reagan boldly stated: “Government isn’t the solution; government is the problem” when he clearly meant “Government is the problem when it gets in MY way of using MY position, power, and resources to secure and protect MY liberties to take liberties with others’.” MY, MY, MY!Barnett’s (and Wills’) Polemic on Progressives and Why They Are WrongAs Barnett insists, the great divide in America today is between those who do believe, as the founders did, that “first come rights and then comes government,” and those who believe, as progressives do, that “first comes government, then come rights.” The former are adherents of the republican Constitution. The latter have given us the democratic Constitution. (George Will, p xii)Barnett has become a leader of those who are reasserting the natural rights tradition that was overthrown during progressivism’s long success in defining the nature of the democratic Constitution and the judiciaries permissive role in construing the government’s powers under it. (George Will, p xiv)While progressivism is today remembered for its advocacy of economic legislation, it also favored legal coercion to achieve other types of social improvements. (Barnett, p 124)When it became clear that (Theodore Roosevelt) would be denied the Republican nomination, . . . (he) bolted the party to create his own “Progressive Party.” In an address to its national convention in Chicago on August 6, 1912, he congratulated them on forming a new party. “The time is ripe, and overripe, for a genuine Progressive movement,” and the “first essential in the Progressive programme is the right of the people to rule.” With respect to the judiciary, Roosevelt said, “our prime concern is that in dealing with the fundamental law of the land, in assuming finally to interpret it, and therefore finally to make it, the acts of the courts should be subject to and not above the final control of the people as a whole.” He then succinctly summarized the central tenet of the democratic Constitution: “Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people,” which in operation Roosevelt frankly affirmed means the majority of the people, or a majority of legislative bodies. (Barnett, p 134)In other words, progressives were responsible for:• asserting the will of the people as the purpose of government in place of securing the inalienable rights of individuals,• using legal coercion to achieve social improvements,• overthrowing the natural rights tradition, and• instituting the democratic Constitution’s premise that “first comes government, then come rights” for the republican Constitution’s premise “first come rights and then comes government.”I have no disagreement that progressives did all these things. What I disagree with is the pejorative characterization Barnett gives each of these things, especially given that each was likely an essential ingredient in the effort to diminish white supremacy in America after Republicans abandoned the south to the Democrats and, for the most part, did not participate in the Civil Rights Movement that, finally, eliminated de jure racial discrimination and began the process of diminishing de facto discrimination.A recent discussion by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson (“Making America Great Again: The Case for the Mixed Economy,” Foreign Affairs, May/June 2016, pp 69-90) describes how this came about.FROM THE FOUNDERS TO THE PROGRESSIVES*Government has unique capacities — to enforce compliance, constrain or encourage action, and protect citizens from private predation — that allow it to solve problems that markets can’t solve on their own. These problems are both economic and political; they concern areas in which markets tend to fall short and areas where market actors tend to distort democratic processes in pursuit of private advantage. . . .Because governments have chosen to intervene to . . . counter negative externalities and do some benign nudging, hundreds of millions of lives are now healthier, safer, and better protected. . . . In the United States . . . the majority of regulation involves protection of the public from the operations of unscrupulous private actors. These programs are overwhelmingly popular even though they are also, as a rule, coercive. That is not a paradox; it’s the point — because government is doing things that people need to get done but can’t or won’t do themselves. . . .This trajectory was a reflection of the Constitution’s purpose and design, not (as many charge today) a betrayal of them. The leading statesmen who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 were keenly aware of the need for effective government authority. Indeed, they had become convinced that its absence was a mortal threat to the fledgling nation. Perhaps the most influential of them all, James Madison, put the point bluntly at the Virginia ratifying convention: “There never was a government without force. What is the meaning of government? An institution to make people do their duty. A government leaving it to a man to do his duty, or not, as he pleases, would be a new species of government, or rather no government at all.” . . .So long as government sat on the sidelines, the harms (of private predation) just kept multiplying. It was only a matter of time before a reaction set in, and eventually it did, in the form of the Progressive movement. . . .It makes sense to think of the two Roosevelts (Theodore and Franklin) as bookending a long Progressive era. It was progressive because at crucial moments, nearly everyone in a position of high public leadership came to believe that the U.S. social contract needed updating. It was long because challenging entrenched elites proved difficult, and only persistent agitation and huge disruptions to the U.S. political order allowed the translation of these new beliefs into new governing arrangements. (From Making America Great Again.)My Conclusions Regarding Barnett’s Desire to Redeem the Republican ConstitutionContrary to Barnett’s polemic on progressives, the Progressive movement was a necessary adjunct to the efforts of Republicans to gain and then ensure liberty for blacks and other minorities in America. Barnett’s republican Constitution took America only so far. To get over the hump and free blacks from the white supremacy of the Jim Crow south, coercive action, legitimized by a national majority against a minority of individuals and their representatives in Congress, proved necessary in the end to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to end de jure discrimination in America and continue the process of diminishing de facto discrimination.In this respect, Randy Barnett's analysis in Our Republican Constitution is incomplete in that, contrary to Barnett’s advocacy of “Redeeming Our Republican Constitution” in his concluding chapter, the Founders' intentions of securing life, liberty, and freedom to pursue happiness are better carried out by a combination of the republican and the democratic Constitutions than by a redemption of the republican Constitution and the abandonment of the democratic.____________*In this extract from the Hacker and Pierson article I have removed references to the impact of progressives on the economic welfare of the United States to focus on the nature of progressivism that allowed it to enhance the liberty of blacks oppressed under the white supremacist Jim Crow south.

US election 2020 polls: Who is ahead - Trump or Biden?Voters in America will decide on 3 November whether Donald Trump remains in the White House for another four years.The Republican president is being challenged by Democratic Party nominee Joe Biden, who is best known as Barack Obama's vice-president but has been in US politics since the 1970s.As election day approaches, polling companies will be trying to gauge the mood of the nation by asking voters which candidate they prefer.We'll be keeping track of those polls here and trying to work out what they can and can't tell us about who will win the election.Biden leading national presidential pollsNational polls are a good guide as to how popular a candidate is across the country as a whole, but they're not necessarily a good way to predict the result of the election.In 2016, for example, Hillary Clinton led in the polls and won nearly three million more votes than Donald Trump, but she still lost - that's because the US uses an electoral college system , so winning the most votes doesn't always win you the election.With that caveat aside, Joe Biden has been ahead of Donald Trump in most national polls since the start of the year. He has hovered around 50% in recent months and has had a 10-point lead on occasions.By contrast, in 2016 the polls were far less clear and just a couple of percentage points separated Mr Trump and his then-rival Hillary Clinton at several points as election day neared.Which states will decide this election?As Mrs Clinton discovered in 2016, the number of votes you win is less important than where you win them.Most states nearly always vote the same way, meaning that in reality there are just a handful of states where both candidates stand a chance of winning. These are the places where the election will be won and lost and are known as battleground states.In the electoral college system the US uses to elect its president, each state is given a number of votes based on how many members it sends to Congress - House and Senate. A total of 538 electoral college votes are up for grabs, so a candidate needs to hit 270 to win.As the map above shows, some battleground states have a lot more electoral college votes on offer than others so candidates often spend a lot more time campaigning in them.Who's leading in the battleground states?At the moment, polls in the battleground states look good for Joe Biden, but there's a long way to go and things can change very quickly, especially when Donald Trump's involved.The polls suggest Mr Biden is ahead in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin - three industrial states his Republican rival won by margins of less than 1% to clinch victory in 2016.But it's the battleground states where Mr Trump won big in 2016 that his campaign team will be most worried about. His winning margin in Iowa, Ohio and Texas was between 8-10% back then but it's looking much closer in all three at the moment.Betting markets, however, are certainly not writing Mr Trump off just yet. The latest odds give him just less than a 50% chance of winning on 3 November, which suggests some people expect the outlook to change a lot over the next few weeks.But political analysts are less convinced about his chances of re-election. FiveThirtyEight , a political analysis website, says Mr Biden is "favoured" to win the election, while The Economist says he is "likely" to beat Mr Trump.Has coronavirus affected Trump's numbers?The coronavirus pandemic has dominated headlines in the US since the start of the year and the response to President Trump's actions has been split predictably along party lines.Support for his approach peaked in mid-March after he declared a national emergency and made $50 billion available to states to stop the spread of the virus. At this point, 55% of Americans approved of his actions, according to data from Ipsos , a leading polling company.But any support he had from Democrats disappeared after that, while Republicans continued to back their president.By July, the data suggests his own supporters had begun to question his response - but there was a slight uptick at the end of August.The virus is likely to be at the forefront of voters' minds and one leading model produced by experts at the University of Washington predicts the death toll will have risen to about 260,000 people by election day.Mr Trump may be hoping Operation Warp Speed, his administration's vaccine initiative, can produce an "October surprise" - a last-minute event that turns the election upside down.The chief scientific adviser to the initiative has said it's "extremely unlikely but not impossible" that a vaccine could be ready to distribute before 3 November.Can we trust the polls?It's easy to dismiss the polls by saying they got it wrong in 2016 and President Trump frequently does exactly that. But it's not entirely true.Most national polls did have Hillary Clinton ahead by a few percentage points, but that doesn't mean they were wrong, since she won three million more votes than her rival.Pollsters did have some problems in 2016 - notably a failure to properly represent voters without a college degree - meaning Mr Trump's advantage in some key battleground states wasn't spotted until late in the race, if at all. Most polling companies have corrected this now.But this year there's even more uncertainty than normal due to the coronavirus pandemic and the effect it's having on both the economy and how people will vote in November, so all polls should be read with some scepticism, especially this far out from election day.02Trump rallies 2.0: Behind the curtain at the president's campaign events in the COVID-19 eraFrom the opening chords of Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA" to the final beats of "Y.M.C.A." President Donald Trump's trademark rallies are back as he enters the final stretch of his reelection bid. But despite his campaign's desire to project a sense of normalcy during the coronavirus pandemic, the new rallies are undeniably different.Facing a narrow path to victory in November, the Trump campaign has been eager to put the president on stage – holding rallies in four battleground states since he was formally nominated for a second term at the GOP convention last month – and to draw a contrast with Democratic nominee Joe Biden's socially distant style of campaigning.Start the day smarter. Get all the news you need in your inbox each morning.In addition to North Carolina, Trump has held rallies in Pennsylvania, Michigan and New Hampshire in recent weeks. He will campaign this weekend in Nevada and Arizona, holding "comeback events" near Carson City and Las Vegas.But COVID-19 has forced changes, many of which are imperceptible on television, and the events are renewing debate over the wisdom of gathering large groups during the pandemic, including from some of the administration's health advisers. Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, told CNN this week he was "puzzled and rather disheartened" by the lack of face coverings at Trump events.© Chris Carlson, AP President Donald Trump reacts to supporters as he arrives to speak at a campaign rally Tuesday, Sept. 8, 2020, in Winston-Salem, N.C.Maskless: NIH director 'puzzled' by politicization of COVID protection efforts"Going to these rallies is an act of defiance. Holding them is an act of defiance," said Republican political strategist Doug Heye. "I think there's a very reasonable question of whether lives are being put in jeopardy just to do a political event."The new Trump rallies are almost always held outside and frequently at airports where the president can, as he explained during a rally in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, last week, "get off the plane... make a speech" and "get the hell out of here." Masks are distributed, though rarely worn. Temperature checks are conducted, though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and others have questioned their effectiveness.By bringing the rallies back, Trump is hoping to send a signal that the nation is moving past the worst days of the virus, despite hundreds of deaths in the nation each day. Whether voters accept that message will be key to his chances in the Nov. 3 election.But while the new iteration of rallies is familiar, there are notable differences.At the Winston-Salem rally Tuesday, participants were required to pile into shuttle buses to move from Smith Reynolds Airport, where Trump spoke, to offsite parking lots. The more cumbersome process prompted some attendees to abandon a section of seats so they could beat exiting crowds ten minutes before Trump finished – leaving a rare section of seats empty that had been full when the program got under way.John Fritze, USA TODAY Some attendees at President Donald Trump's Sept. 8, 2020 rally in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, departed before the president finished speaking, leaving a section partially empty. This photograph was taken at 8:02 p.m. ET, about eight minutes before Trump left the stage.Most attendees stuck it out, but the departures were nevertheless an unusual sight."I don't know how many people are here, but there's a lot," Trump told the crowd in North Carolina, where polls show Biden with a single-digit lead. "It's beyond what we had in terms of enthusiasm – beyond what we had four years ago."Trump's first return to the rally stage – his June 20 event in Tulsa, Oklahoma – drew fire after public health officials there said it "more than likely" contributed to a spike in coronavirus cases weeks later. The campaign has acknowledged at least eight advance team staff members involved with that event had tested positive for the virus.Former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, who attended the rally at Tulsa's BOK Center, tested positive for the virus nine days later. He died on July 30.Oklahoma: Trump slammed for using offensive, 'racist' remarks at Tulsa rallyMichigan: Trump claims 'globalist sellout' Biden will send American jobs overseasTrump backed off indoor, arena-style rallies in the weeks that followed. It wasn't until his Aug. 27 acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, which he delivered from the South Lawn of the White House, that he spoke at an event that had the feel of a rally. A day later, he traveled to New Hampshire for a "general admission" event that was largely indistinguishable from the airport rallies he held before the pandemic.Laura Montenegro, a spokeswoman for the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, said officials aren't aware of any coronavirus cases from the event.But that doesn't mean there haven't been concerns raised behind the scenes.Sean Rayford, Getty Images President Donald Trump addresses a crowd during a campaign rally at Smith Reynolds Airport on September 8, 2020 in Winston Salem, North Carolina.The Reno-Tahoe Airport Authority this week advised the Trump campaign that a rally planned for Saturday "may not proceed" because it would violate state and local COVID restrictions. Campaign spokesman Tim Murtaugh blamed the move on politics and aides announced a series of other events this weekend.Similar logistical considerations took place ahead of Trump's rally in Winston-Salem. The Trump campaign initially planned to hold the event in a hangar but as crowd estimates grew, it was moved to a fully outdoor space on the tarmac, an official with knowledge of the planning said on condition of anonymity to relay internal discussions.Trump joked Tuesday that aides tried to limit the crowd size but "they didn't do too good a job." He has described his rallies as a "peaceful protest," and the campaign distributed signs at the events printed with those words – a reference to Black Lives Matters demonstrations that took place in some cities this year.North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat who has drawn Trump's ire in the past, signed an order in March capping outdoor gatherings to 50 people. An extension of that order, signed this month, exempts religious ceremonies, weddings and other activities "constituting the exercise" of First Amendment rights."We had those conversations," said Joshua Swift, Forsyth County's health director. "I would just say that obviously, outside, there's a low risk but there still is a risk.Within a camera frame, Trump's rallies don't look very different today than they did four years ago: Huge crowds roaring at the president's attacks on Democrats, a sea of red MAGA caps, signs distributed by aides waving overhead, large overflow crowds standing shoulder-to-shoulder and most people not wearing masks.But there are subtle differences: Trump's recent rallies are held outdoors, or in airport hangars with wide open doors. Most of the audience sits at ground level, which means that if the campaign wants to show people behind the president – as it did in Winston-Salem – a riser is placed behind the podium. The seated crowd appears to be smaller than when Trump filled indoor sports arenas but the outside venues mean overflow crowds can be positioned within view, blurring the distinction with ticketed supporters. MANDEL NGAN, AFP via Getty Images President Donald Trump addresses supporters during a campaign rally at MBS International Airport in Freeland, Michigan on September 10, 2020.In other cases, Air Force One is parked behind the president.Campaign officials declined to answer whether they are limiting crowd sizes. An official at the Winston-Salem airport told the Winston-Salem Journal that his best guess on crowd size was between 7,000 to 9,000. The campaign distributed masks, conducted temperature checks and has warned supporters signing up for rallies that they assume a risk of getting sick."Events look different during a pandemic, but we have adapted to continue harnessing the unmatched organic enthusiasm of the president’s supporters and build on the momentum to carry him to victory in November," said Trump campaign spokeswoman Samantha Zager. "President Trump and his campaign have always valued connecting directly with the American people and we’ve been able to do so in a way that prioritizes the health and safety of every event attendee."Public health officials continue to caution that large gatherings of people – even those held outdoors – are a risk."Rallies and public gatherings of any kind increase risk of transmission," said Dr. Howard Markel, director of the Center for the History of Medicine at the University of Michigan. "The virus is quite apolitical in that regard. I still wouldn’t attend a rally on either side of the political spectrum."Several supporters said they were willing to take that risk."A little bit," Pat Nifong, 66, responded when asked if she was worried about being in such a large group. The Winston-Salem woman said she was "happy to be here" but that her concerns about the virus were why she was standing "six feet away from everybody."Carl Horstkamp, a 50-year-old Winston-Salem man who was attending his first rally, said he thought state government had reacted to the virus too aggressively and that he appreciated a chance to get outside and "see all these people – your fellow citizens.""I feel that outside is a safe place. We've got a nice breeze," Horstkamp said. "This is the best spot to hold it in this area." Chip Somodevilla, Getty Images Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden meets with veterans and union leaders in the backyard of a supporter on Labor Day September 07, 2020 in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Message for BidenBy holding the rallies at all, Trump is highlighting a contrast with Biden, who has run a campaign that relies far more on virtual and socially distanced events. Both Trump and his supporters have called attention to the differences frequently."What do you think Joe Biden is doing tonight?" North Carolina Lt. Gov. Dan Forest quizzed the crowd during his warm up remarks in Winston-Salem on Tuesday. "Probably doing a Zoom call."Biden campaign spokesman T.J. Ducklo responded by slamming what he described as Trump's "contempt for experts and willful disregard of science," and said the president was "continuing to put his own supporters in harm's way because it helps him politically."Seven in 10 Americans say they see Biden as caring to those affected by the coronavirus pandemic, while less than half say the same of Trump, according to a survey from the Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape Project.Poll: A majority of Americans see Biden as more empathetic to those with COVID-19Biden has, in fact, appeared in Michigan, Wisconsin and twice in Pennsylvania in the past 10 days, but his campaign has taken precautions, such as using a small, 16-seat aircraft, deploying hand sanitizers and maintaining social distancing. At times, that has created images Trump aides have used to suggest a lack of enthusiasm for Biden.During his Labor Day visit to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Biden met with four union members in the backyard of a supporter. The only "audience," besides the small group of reporters who traveled with him on a separate plane, were a few next-door neighbors peering into the yard as Secret Service agents in face masks guarded the perimeter.© Chip Somodevilla, Getty Images With his audience of union leadership and journalists socially distanced to reduce the risk posed by coronavirus, Democratic presidential nominee and former Vice President Joe Biden delivers remarks in the parking lot outside the United Auto Workers Region 1 offices on September 09, 2020 in Warren, Michigan.Instead of marching in Philadelphia’s annual Labor Day parade as he has in years past, Biden participated in a virtual call with union members from the AFL-CIO state headquarters in Harrisburg. Rather than walking over to the more than 50 supporters who gathered across the street from the hall, he waved from an upper-story window."Every place I go I’ve got to set an example," Biden said during a virtual fundraiser Thursday. Reaching for a face mask, he added:"That’s why, everywhere I go, I wear this mask, and, everywhere I go, I keep my social distance." Sean Rayford, Getty Images President Donald Trump addresses the crowd during a campaign rally at Smith Reynolds Airport on September 8, 2020 in Winston Salem, North Carolina.That argument stands in sharp contrast to images from Trump's rallies. On the riser behind his podium in Winston-Salem, some supporters wore masks while others did not. Away from the risers, the share of people covering their faces was even smaller.Health experts say that is a troubling cue for the public.Collins, the NIH director, told CNN that aliens arriving on Earth from another planet would scratch their heads trying to figure out why some people used a face covering to slow the spread of a virus and other did not."You would scratch your head and think, 'This is just not a planet that has much promise for the future, if something that is so straightforward can somehow get twisted into decision-making that really makes no sense,'" Collins continued.Trump has been resistant to wearing a mask in public and endorsed the practice as "patriotic" in July only after he stressed repeatedly that masks were merely a recommendation. His campaign now sells Make America Great Again coverings."I’m very concerned about the mixed message that people are getting," said Catherine Troisi, an infectious disease epidemiologist at UTHealth School of Public Health in Houston. "It is part of human nature that if we are hearing mixed messages, we will choose the one that fits into our belief system, or is more convenient."Contributing: Jeanine SantucciThis article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump rallies 2.0: Behind the curtain at the president's campaign events in the COVID-19 eraAsset or albatross? Some GOP candidates ponder whether to embrace or avoid Donald TrumpLt. Gov. Dan Patrick has a message for Republican candidates contemplating distancing themselves from Donald Trump: Stick with the president.“If I were on the ticket, I would run as close to the president as I could,” Patrick said. “There are a few districts in Texas that are pretty moderate Republican, or you might say conservative Democrat districts where maybe … there’s a policy issue that a candidate might alter a little bit, but I still think they stand with the president on the issues.”Patrick’s comments, Texas Democrats say, are good news for their candidates who are hoping to make gains in the Lone Star State, perhaps even flipping it from red to blue.“His brand has turned off a lot of people that have historically voted Republican,” Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa said of Trump. "He’s the reason that so many seats held by Republicans are now up for grabs.”The deep feelings about Trump — chances are you love him or hate him — are creating challenges for GOP candidates running in November in areas containing swing voters or soft Republicans who have soured on the president. For those candidates, trying to navigate the politics of running with Trump can be a no-win situation. There’s political fallout no matter what the candidate decides to do.Embracing Trump could turn off voters who live near the urban areas where he’s increasingly unpopular. But if GOP candidates try to distance themselves from Trump, they risk alienating his loyal voters whom they’ll need to beat Democrats.The recent rash of negative publicity about Trump isn’t helping his case with some voters. This week excerpts from an upcoming book by journalist Bob Woodward revealed that Trump had concerns in February that the coronavirus was a serious threat to the country, even as he later played down the pandemic to Americans. And earlier this month an article in The Atlantic alleged that Trump called Americans who died in war “losers and suckers.” Trump denies the allegations.But amid the storm of negative stories, Trump’s base appears to be sticking with him in his campaign against Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.A passerby stops to take a selfie with foam sculpture depictions of President Donald Trump and Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden along Dixie Highway in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., on Sept. 3, 2020. (Joe Cavaretta)A new poll by The Dallas Morning News and the University of Texas at Tyler found Trump with a two-point lead over Biden among likely Texas voters, erasing the five-point lead the former vice president enjoyed about two months ago.According to the poll, Trump is winning the Dallas-Fort Worth region among likely voters 50-44 on the strength of solid support in Collin and Denton counties. But Biden leads Trump 49-46 in the Houston area.In the Dallas-Fort Worth area, about 5% of likely voters are undecided, which could tilt the election in either direction.The question becomes, is Trump an asset or albatross?“He’s absolutely both,” said Republican political consultant Bill Miller. “He inspires such strong emotion. The people that like him would lay down their lives for him. The people that don’t will do anything to take him down. That’s why it’s a dance for some of these candidates.”President Donald Trump shakes hands with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott as they and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick discuss hurricane response at Dalfort Fueling near Love Field in Dallas in 2017. (Andy Jacobsohn / Staff Photographer)Republican consultant Vinny Minchillo, who’s worked on the presidential campaigns of Utah Sen. Mitt Romney, as well as numerous Texas Republicans, agreed that Trump offers a mixed bag for Republicans.“It depends on where you are,” Minchillo said. “In some places, candidates have to walk that fine line in keeping your distance from Trump, and that’s hard to do. In these swing districts, man, it’s tough.”In 2016, Trump beat Hillary Clinton in Texas by 9 percentage points. But the former secretary of state defeated Trump in some suburban districts, including in North Texas.Republican Genevieve Collins, who’s challenging incumbent U.S. Rep. Colin Allred in the 32nd Congressional District, has acknowledged that running with Trump could require the channeling of her inner Ginger Rogers. Trump lost the district to Clinton in 2016.“It’s a tap dance with the president,” Collins told a group of voters during a video chat. “But, by and large, our community is thriving based on his policies.”Patrick, who last week led a Trump campaign bus tour that stopped in Bedford, acknowledged that Trump is a flashpoint for many voters, but said November’s election is bigger than one candidate — even the presidential contenders.“At the end of the day, this race goes far beyond Biden and Trump,” Patrick said.Trump has been an enigma for some Republicans since 2016, when he staged an effective, populist campaign that cemented him as the undisputed leader of the GOP.Trump’s Texas popularity was tested early.During the 2016 Republican National Convention, Sen. Ted Cruz, the runner-up in the GOP race for president, refused to endorse Trump during his prime time speech. Instead, he told delegates to vote their conscience and left the stage to a chorus of boos.Cruz ultimately backed Trump against Clinton, after the New York businessman developed a list of potential Supreme Court appointees. But it took Cruz months to restore his standing with Texas Republicans as they had fully accepted Trumpism as their new political doctrine.When Cruz ran for re-election against former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, D-El Paso, he wrapped his arms around the president, even as he refused to answer questions on the campaign trail about Trump’s tweets or other controversies he generated. He beat O’Rourke by 2.6 percentage points on the strength of a united conservative front.In November, Sen. John Cornyn will have to figure out how to run with Trump. Democratic Senate nominee MJ Hegar — the former Air Force helicopter pilot — has already dubbed the senator as a “bootlicker” for Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.Cornyn, in office since 2002, is selling voters on his record.And despite withering criticism from Hegar, he has stuck with Trump, and the president is returning the favor.Trump recently retweeted a Cornyn video about his candidacy during the Republican National Convention with the comment: “Texas loves John!”In recent days, Cornyn has had to address Trump’s latest controversies, including the Woodward interview revelation that the president knew the coronavirus would be more dangerous than the flu. He stood by the president.“I understand the intention that he didn’t want to panic the American people [because], that’s not what leaders do,” Cornyn said of Trump’s actions. “In retrospect, I think he might have been able to handle that in a way that both didn’t panic the American people but also gave them accurate information.”When asked to comment on The Atlantic article that alleged Trump made disparaging remarks about the military, Cornyn’s statement to The News didn’t refer to Trump.“All men and women who wear the uniform are heroes,” Cornyn said.Because he’s running statewide, Cornyn can better afford to embrace Trump than in-district candidates. Though polls show a close race between Trump and Biden, a Democrat hasn’t won a Texas presidential contest since Jimmy Carter beat Gerald Ford in 1976.If Trump loses Texas, it likely would be curtains for Cornyn as well. If Trump wins the state by a similar margin to 2016, it’s likely that Cornyn will also be victorious.Some Republican congressional candidates have a tougher sell to voters.In 2018, Democrat Lizzie Fletcher beat John Culberson in a Houston-anchored congressional district, while former NFL player and civil rights lawyer Allred wrestled the 32nd District seat in eastern and northern Dallas County away from longtime incumbent Pete Sessions, whom Trump backed.Sessions is heavily favored to return to Congress in the Waco-area seat now held by retiring Republican Bill Flores.Trump wasn’t on the ballot in 2018 but still impacted critical races across the country. Now that his name is on the ballot, the intensity of the pro-Trump and anti-Trump movements could propel or sink candidates.Such is the case where Collins is trying to unseat Allred. She’ll have to answer questions from suburban voters who are open to voting for a Republican, but wary of Trump.On a video conference with voters, Collins discussed the politics of running with Trump.“The reality is they loathe his behavior, they loathe his tweets,” she said. “But they actually really like his policies and they like what he represents and how he gets things done, despite all the acidity and acrimony he has to go through, or what’s happening in D.C.”Collins conceded that the 32nd District was not exactly Trump country.“Yeah, there’s actually a lot of people in District 32 that are still very Bush conservatives. You guys probably know a lot of them,” she said. “There’s not always the Trump conservatives, and having President [George W.] Bush to be my actual constituent, it makes me have to thread that needle very interestingly.”She said she hoped offer “business sense” and “common sense,” while “doing it all with grace.”Congressional candidates in other parts of the area face similar challenges, including Democratic targets Beth Van Duyne in the 24th District against Democrat Candace Valenzuela, Republican incumbent Van Taylor in the 3rd District against Lulu Seikaly, Republican incumbent Ron Wright in the 6th District against Democrat Stephen Daniel and Republican incumbent Roger Williams in the 25th District against Julie Oliver.In each district, there are pockets of Trump supporters and areas where he’s unpopular.“It’s a mixed bag, almost a precinct by precinct case,” said Republican consultant Matthew Langston, who’s working for Wright. “As a Republican you can’t run from Trump. Every candidate will have to pick and choose what policies on which they choose to get close to Trump.”Focusing on core conservative issues is how many Republicans blunt criticism from independent voters about supporting Trump.And they also create their own Frankenstein’s monster-type image—whether it’s House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — to counter fears of another Trump term.Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick photographs Air Force One as it takes off from Dallas Love Field Airport after President Donald Trump participated in a roundtable conversation about race relations and policing and attended a fundraiser at a private residence on June 11, 2020, in Dallas.