147-Year-Old Promissory Note - w/Interest

[Johnny Lloyd]

Anyone seen this?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,338569,00.html

http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/article419897.ece

So... "save yer Confederate money... 'cuz granny sez the South's Gonna Rise Again!"

Can you believe it? Ha!

22-million bucks ain't nothing to sneeze at! If she gets away with it, more power to her and I'd be amazed.

:) -Johnny Lloyd

[HangarFlying]

Re: 147-Year-Old Promissory Note - w/Interest

It only has collection or antique value. The promissary value is a big fat zero thanks to the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

[47thNYReb]

Re: 147-Year-Old Promissory Note - w/Interest

With the going prices on ebay lately, she could always get most of that $22 million by selling it there. And this one is actually from the war, unlike many of the "artifacts" being sold there.

[Jim Mayo]

Re: 147-Year-Old Promissory Note - w/Interest

In the 1950s my Grandmother send her Confederate money to the Treasury Dept. asking if it were worth anything. They actually sent the money back (about 20 bills) with a letter saying they were sorry but they could not redeem it for US money. They also suggested that she take it to a collector if she wanted to sell it.

I still have the money and the letter.

Think that would happen today?

[lthull3rdla]

Re: 147-Year-Old Promissory Note - w/Interest

I don't know how this will really turn out for this family. However let me tell ya something. I personally know a fellow who, in 1979, bought a trunk of old leather bound books. After a year he started going through them, weeding out the worthless ones and etc, and found, inside of one of them, a $1000 'good to the bearer', written on the United States Government sometimes in the 1800's. I'm not sure what year.

end result is, he got 1.5M for it, and that was almost 30 years ago.

dumbass squandered it on alcohol and drugs and women.. now he is just a working stiff like the rest of us LOL

Ronnie

[Johnny Lloyd]

Re: 147-Year-Old Promissory Note - w/Interest

It only has collection or antique value. The promissary value is a big fat zero thanks to the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

14th Amendment- Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Yup... you're right. The Confederacy's debts were legally (?) cancelled by this one.

Florida had seceeded on 10 January 1861, so therefore they were officially in a state of "insurrection or rebellion against the United States" by 21 June 1861, when the note was signed.

Now if the note was signed BEFORE the state seceeded, the case MIGHT have a chance, if proven...? Hmmm...

Yeah, right.

Yeah, I thought this case was gonna fly like a monkey turd- quite messy and not very far.


Thanks -Johnny

[1stMaine]

Re: 147-Year-Old Promissory Note - w/Interest

Johnny,

I think her lawsuit might actually have merit. Here's the reason: The debt was incurred by the City of Tampa, and NOT by the State or Central Government of the Confederacy. Being that the City of Tampa remained solvent and acting as a legal entity throughout the various changes between Federal and Confederate governments, it stands to reason hat this debt is valid and ought to be paid.

It's no different than the city contracting for office furniture or heating fuel, etc. It was a contract let BY the city for the city's defence, and in that regard, would be not unlike purchasing arms and ammunition for the constabulary.

This, the 14th Ammendment does not apply in this case. You'll note that it only applies to the federal Government, and the various State governments, but NOT to municipal or commercial debts.

Just my own personal opinion... :)

[Johnny Lloyd]

Re: 147-Year-Old Promissory Note - w/Interest

Johnny,

I think her lawsuit might actually have merit. Here's the reason: The debt was incurred by the City of Tampa, and NOT by the State or Central Government of the Confederacy. Being that the City of Tampa remained solvent and acting as a legal entity throughout the various changes between Federal and Confederate governments, it stands to reason hat this debt is valid and ought to be paid.

It's no different than the city contracting for office furniture or heating fuel, etc. It was a contract let BY the city for the city's defence, and in that regard, would be not unlike purchasing arms and ammunition for the constabulary.

This, the 14th Ammendment does not apply in this case. You'll note that it only applies to the federal Government, and the various State governments, but NOT to municipal or commercial debts.

Just my own personal opinion... :)

Wow, I hear ya'... but that would be legal diceing from hell if that arguement is used.

My points to argue AGAINST the case if I was the lawyer:

-The debt was accrued by the city of Tampa to the private party under Confederate control. (Devil's Advocate here on this point: Didn't Lincoln consider the states under the Confederacy to have NOT actually seceeded because the move was unconstitutional- I'm sure that could be proved somehow with period documents/written quotes.)

-The debt was for war materiel (ie- ammunition) in support of rebellion against the United States Government, not for non-war related goods. It MIGHT be different if the stuff ordered were household goods, medical supplies, humanitarian supplies for citizens' use, etc... but it wasn't. I'm sure this fact wouldn't sit well with a United States Court.

"It's no different than the city contracting for office furniture or heating fuel, etc. It was a contract let BY the city for the city's defence, and in that regard, would be not unlike purchasing arms and ammunition for the constabulary. - 1stMaine"

Lawyers... can you argue this? The idea of "constabulary" referred to in the above statement is invoked only when there is a legitimate government is in power- i.e. the US government, not the Confederacy. Correct? The Confederacy was in power at the time of the note being written to the private party. (Again Devil's Advocate: Were the states that seceeded "legitimately" out of the Union ("legitimately"- whatever THAT means here)? If a lawyer can prove the States never really left the Union, then the case might hold water and the debt must be paid to the lady based upon the fact the debt is a public one that would still be active with no paperwork showing the deal was closed-out (i.e.- no payment/receipt issued to the woman's ancestor by the City of Tampa.)

I have the feeling that the 14th Amendment will be invoked anyway by the Feds/State of Florida- whomever- and it will be the lady's lawyer's job to knock it down with precedent to the contrary in US/State of Florida law since the War Between the States.

My 2 cents... but I see what you are saying.

Personally, it would be amazing if she does get anything out of this.

Interesting. -Johnny Lloyd

[csabugler]

Re: 147-Year-Old Promissory Note - w/Interest

Tampa was originally incorporated in 1855, but was abolished in 1869 in part because residents had no money to pay taxes, and the city had no money to pay its bills, Kite-Powell said. It was reincorporated in 1887.

Copied from the link.

I'm not a lawyer, but the city that issued the note was abolished in 1869, I'd say that would be the end of it.

[Johnny Lloyd]

Re: 147-Year-Old Promissory Note - w/Interest

Tampa was originally incorporated in 1855, but was abolished in 1869 in part because residents had no money to pay taxes, and the city had no money to pay its bills, Kite-Powell said. It was reincorporated in 1887.

Copied from the link.

I'm not a lawyer, but the city that issued the note was abolished in 1869, I'd say that would be the end of it.

Yep, one more nail in the coffin of the lady's case.

That is, unless for this one someone could argue the City of Tampa's debts somehow carry over to the postwar re-incorporation of the city.

-Johnny :)

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: 147-Year-Old Promissory Note - w/Interest

Hallo!

That pesky 14th Amendment...

"On the 1st day of July, 1868, the Confederate States of America will pay the Bearer of this bond at the seat of Government or such place of deposit...."

I'm finanically ruined....

Curt

[HangarFlying]

Re: 147-Year-Old Promissory Note - w/Interest

Tim,

Actually, yes, the 14th Amendment does apply. The wording of the amendment states that "neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States..." It doesn't state that any debt or obligation incurred by the Confederate Government or State, it specifically states that ANY debt or obligation incurred is null and void. So, the "who" doesn't matter. The fact that it was a debt that was incurred in aid of rebellion against the United States invalidates the note.

[1stMaine]

Re: 147-Year-Old Promissory Note - w/Interest

Tim,

Actually, yes, the 14th Amendment does apply. The wording of the amendment states that "neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States..." It doesn't state that any debt or obligation incurred by the Confederate Government or State, it specifically states that ANY debt or obligation incurred is null and void. So, the "who" doesn't matter. The fact that it was a debt that was incurred in aid of rebellion against the United States invalidates the note.

James,

I agree that it applies to the Federal Government, and any State Gocernment. However, the debt was incurred by the City of Tampa, a legally incorporated entity, which would and did exist as such outside of any governmental change in the levels above it. The 14th Ammendment does not apply to individual or corporate debts or obligations, IMHO, as it excludes them through ommission of the naming of any BUT Federal and State government(s) as relevany parties.

respects,

[Mike Willey]

Re: 147-Year-Old Promissory Note - w/Interest

The note is worth around $250 as a collectible.........and that's all she will ever get.

Nice try, though; and the scummy lawyers union appreciates her business!

:)

Mike Willey
late of the 49th Ohio and the Coffee-coolers