Win / GreatAwakening
GreatAwakening
Sign In
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES All General AskWin Funny Technology Animals Sports Gaming DIY Health Positive Privacy
Reason: None provided.

But challenged by WHOM? It was actually the Democrats who disputed the official certificates from LA, SC, FL and OR because all were from states still controlled by Republican legislatures, canvassing boards and governors (except Oregon, BUT the state law for appointing replacement Electors in cases of vacancies was explicitly clear, and the shit Dem governor tried to violate it). Their challenge FAILED becuase the Commission (thank God Bradley was the replacement for Davis) ultimately ruled that they could not "go behind the votes" and must accept the official certificates from the disputed states, thus approving all Hayes Electors. While the Commission was only quasi legal because the Constitution does not authorize Congressmen to serve as judges in an inherently judicial function, it was at least better than the previous Rule used in 1864, 1868 and 1872 when only Congress was involved, but it was a far more legitimate temporary solution than the shitshow of the 1887 ECA.

Btw, the so-called "Compromise of 1877" is a complete myth, created by Democrats to use as propaganda against Republicans and blame them for the shortcomings of Reconstruction. The real villains were the shithead rebel KKK Democrats using black codes and Jim Crow to restore legalized slavery and steal elections to regain their lost plantation political power. The Republicans didn't "turn their backs on blacks"... that's just the distraction to take the heat off the Democrats for the evil they committed.

1 year ago
2 score
Reason: None provided.

But challenged by WHOM? It was actually the Democrats who disputed the official certificates from LA, SC, FL and OR because all were from states still controlled by Republican legislatures, canvassing boards and governors (except Oregon, BUT the state law for appointing replacement Electors in cases of vacancies was explicitly clear, and the shit Dem governor tried to violate it). Their challenge FAILED becuase the Commission (thank God Bradley was the replacement for Davis) ultimately ruled that they could not "go behind the votes" and must accept the official certificates from the disputed states, thus approving all Hayes Electors. While the Commission was only quasi legal because the Constitution does not authorize Congressmen to serve as judges in an inherently judicial function, it was at least better than the previous Rule used in 1864, 1868 and 1872 when only Congress was involved, but it was a far more legitimate temporary solution than the shitshow of the 1887 ECA.

Btw, the so-called "Compromise of 1877" is a complete myth, created by Democrats to use as propaganda against Republicans and blame them for the shortcomings of Reconstruction. The real villains were the shithead rebel KKK Democrats using black codes and Jim Crow to restore legalized slavery. The Republicans didn't "turn their backs on blacks"... that's just the distraction to take the heat off the Democrats for the evil they committed.

1 year ago
2 score
Reason: None provided.

But challenged by WHOM? It was actually the Democrats who disputed the official certificates from LA, SC, FL and OR because all were from states still controlled by Republican legislatures, canvassing boards and governors (except Oregon, BUT the state law for appointing replacement Electors in cases of vacancies was explicitly clear, and the shit Dem governor tried to violate it). Their challenge FAILED becuase the Commission (thank God Bradley was the replacement for Davis) ultimately ruled that they could not "go behind the votes" and must accept the official certificates from the disputed states, thus approving all Hayes Electors. While the Commission was only quasi legal because the Constitution does not authorize Congressmen to serve as judges in an inherently judicial function, it was at least better than the previous Rule used in 1864, 1868 and 1872 when only Congress was involved, but it was a far more legitimate temporary solution than the shitshow of the 1887 ECA.

Btw, the so-called "Compromise of 1887" is a complete myth, created by Democrats to use as propaganda against Republicans and blame them for the shortcomings of Reconstruction. The real villains were the shithead rebel KKK Democrats using black codes and Jim Crow to restore legalized slavery. The Republicans didn't "turn their backs on blacks"... that's just the distraction to take the heat off the Democrats for the evil they committed.

1 year ago
2 score
Reason: None provided.

But challenged by WHOM? It was actually the Democrats who disputed the official certificates from LA, SC, FL and OR because all were from states still controlled by Republican legislatures, canvassing boards and governors (except Oregon, BUT the state law for appointing replacement Electors in cases of vacancies was explicitly clear, and the shit Dem governor tried to violate it). Their challenge FAILED becuase the Commission (thank God Bradley was the replacement for Davis) ultimately ruled that they could not "go behind the votes" and must accept the official certificates from the disputed states, thus approving all Hayes Electors. While the Commission was only quasi legal because the Constitution does not authorize Congressmen to serve as judges in an inherently judicial function, it was at least better than the previous Rule used in 1864, 1868 and 1862 when only Congress was involved, but it was a far more legitimate temporary solution than the shitshow of the 1887 ECA.

Btw, the so-called "Compromise of 1887" is a complete myth, created by Democrats to use as propaganda against Republicans and blame them for the shortcomings of Reconstruction. The real villains were the shithead rebel KKK Democrats using black codes and Jim Crow to restore legalized slavery. The Republicans didn't "turn their backs on blacks"... that's just the distraction to take the heat off the Democrats for the evil they committed.

1 year ago
2 score
Reason: Original

But disputed by WHOM? It was actually the Democrats who disputed the official certificates from LA, SC, FL and OR because all were from states still controlled by Republican legislatures, canvassing boards and governors (except Oregon, BUT the state law for appointing replacement Electors in cases of vacancies was explicitly clear, and the shit Dem governor tried to violate it). Ultimately the Commission (thank God Bradley was the replacement for Davis) ruled that they could not "go behind the votes" and must accept the official certificates from the disputed states, thus approving all Hayes Electors. While the Commission was only quasi legal because the Constitution does not authorize Congressmen to serve as judges in an inherently judicial function, it was at least better than the previous Rule used in 1864, 1868 and 1862 when only Congress was involved, but it was a far more legitimate temporary solution than the shitshow of the 1887 ECA.

Btw, the so-called "Compromise of 1887" is a complete myth, created by Democrats to use as propaganda against Republicans and blame them for the shortcomings of Reconstruction. The real villains were the shithead rebel KKK Democrats using black codes and Jim Crow to restore legalized slavery. The Republicans didn't "turn their backs on blacks"... that's just the distraction to take the heat off the Democrats for the evil they committed.

1 year ago
1 score