3/5 Of A Human Being

[IM2]

The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.

The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.

Both sets of people being Democrats. That tells you they haven't changed their mindset; they've just expanded their field of targets.

Incorrect.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?

Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.



"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”

Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.

In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."

Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:

"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"

Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress

Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.

www.cbsnews.com

Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."

Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:


"Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
page 33.

Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional. Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.

no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional

Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.

• 1.“…history of laws against miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation—in the United States.
  
  Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with the Progressive movement, peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
  
  “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained racially pure and unmixed, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to defilement of the blood.”
  Adolph Hitler
  Untitled Document
  
  
• 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
  
  
  
  3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
• “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”

Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats

• Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
  (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
• 
  
• 
  4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.
• The Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
  
  In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’

“Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”

Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats

Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.

www.breitbart.com

• 5. From the LATimes:
• “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices. Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly."
  When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes

Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them

I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.

Right wingers were democrats back then. Lincoln was a republican.

I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit

You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.

I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866

Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.

You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?

Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.



"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”

Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.

In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."






Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:

"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"

Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress

Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.

www.cbsnews.com

Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."

Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:


"Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
page 33.

Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional. Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.

no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional

Yes, they were unConstitutional. Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.

• Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.

A political five to four decision? Blacks were also created equal. And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception. They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization. The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.

irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866

Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.

all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866

Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.

irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866

All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.

no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats

More disingenuous white racist bullshit.

I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussions
My directive to you is go fuck your racist self

Fallacy is all right wingers usually have. If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all, or so it usually seems.

You've been nothing but a dribbling pile of fallacy

lol. Thanks for proving my point, right winger. No valid arguments just ad hominems is all you have.

Then you don't know what an ad hominem is. Just because facts calls you a liar doesn't make them ad hominens

Except you didn't have the facts son.

On March 26, 1790, the United States of America decided who could be a citizen of this country for the first time. This was a congressional decision named The Naturalization Act of 1790. The act states: “any alien, being a free white person,” could apply for citizenship, so long as he or she lived in the United States for at least two years, and in the state where the application was filed for at least a year. The new law also provided that “children of citizens of the United States that may be born … out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens.” Please notice the first 7 words. Only whites were entitled to be citizens of this country. Never mind the Native American nations already here. Blacks could forget about it.

You dumb son of a bitch that's what I have said the whole fucking thread Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?

Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.



"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”

Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.

In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."

Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:

"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"

Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress

Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.

www.cbsnews.com

Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."

Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:


"Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
page 33.

Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional. Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.

no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional

Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.

• 1.“…history of laws against miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation—in the United States.
  
  Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with the Progressive movement, peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
  
  “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained racially pure and unmixed, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to defilement of the blood.”
  Adolph Hitler
  Untitled Document
  
  
• 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
  
  
  
  3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
• “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”

Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats

• Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
  (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
• 
  
• 
  4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.
• The Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
  
  In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’

“Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”

Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats

Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.

www.breitbart.com

• 5. From the LATimes:
• “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices. Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly."
  When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes

Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them

I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.

Right wingers were democrats back then. Lincoln was a republican.

I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit

You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.

I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866

Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.

You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?

Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.



"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”

Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.

In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."






Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:

"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"

Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress

Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.

www.cbsnews.com

Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."

Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:


"Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
page 33.

Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional. Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.

no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional

Yes, they were unConstitutional. Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.

• Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.

A political five to four decision? Blacks were also created equal. And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception. They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization. The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.

irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866

Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.

all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866

Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.

irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866

All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.

no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats

More disingenuous white racist bullshit.

I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussions
My directive to you is go fuck your racist self

Fallacy is all right wingers usually have. If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all, or so it usually seems.

You've been nothing but a dribbling pile of fallacy

lol. Thanks for proving my point, right winger. No valid arguments just ad hominems is all you have.

Then you don't know what an ad hominem is. Just because facts calls you a liar doesn't make them ad hominens

What facts are you claiming? Our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral, from Inception.

This is actually part of our supreme Law of the land:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Being legal to our express written supreme law of the land meant anyone (not just white persons) born in the US (after 1808) was automatically a US citizens; any extra Constitutional federal laws to the contrary not with Standing.

IM2 just contridicted what you said

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.

The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.

Both sets of people being Democrats. That tells you they haven't changed their mindset; they've just expanded their field of targets.

The South used to vote democrat until the civil rights acts.

not true

 

[danielpalos]

You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?

Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.



"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”

Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.

In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."

First, everything you said was wrong.

The south wanted to count 100% of the slaves, but give them 0% of the vote. One person pointed out, that the north should then count their horses and cows, since they too were property and not people.

The adding of 3/5ths to the souths voting power clearly gave the south the power to tie the far bigger north, when it came to slavery. The great and 3/5ths compromises were the two big bargains struck with the devil to build the union, and enshrine in the constitution the continuation of slavery.

Everything YOU just said was ignorant bullshit. I'm sure it sounds wonderful and "principled" for you to sit in your comfy armchair in the luxury of modern-day America and spout off about how the Founders should have demanded a complete abolition of slavery right on the spot, and refused to accept any "deal with the devil". After all, YOU have nothing to lose by pretending to a moral superiority over your historical betters. It costs you nothing to play at judgementalism.

They, on the other hand, were the ones who had to make a new country work with EVERYTHING to lose, both for themselves and you.

Where would your spoiled, entitled ass be right now if they had not made that compromise? Where would the descendants of those slaves be if the Founders had had the benefit of your "wisdom" and made the "principled stand" you want to demand with no skin in the game?

Your post is pure horseshit. There was no reason for them not to have abolished slavery then and there. Today, we descendants of slaves would have the same wealth and representation as whites is slavery would have been abolished. There would have been no jim crow and the continuous fight we've had with whites would not be.

I can't get a straight answer from the right wing as to why the South did not insist on eminent domain as a First Amendment right available to the several States and the Confederacy. There was no need for our Civil War or the result.

 

[danielpalos]

You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?

Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.



"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”

Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.

In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."

Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:

"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"

Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress

Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.

www.cbsnews.com

Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."

Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:


"Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
page 33.

Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional. Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.

no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional

Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.

• 1.“…history of laws against miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation—in the United States.
  
  Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with the Progressive movement, peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
  
  “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained racially pure and unmixed, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to defilement of the blood.”
  Adolph Hitler
  Untitled Document
  
  
• 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
  
  
  
  3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
• “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”

Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats

• Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
  (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
• 
  
• 
  4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.
• The Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
  
  In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’

“Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”

Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats

Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.

www.breitbart.com

• 5. From the LATimes:
• “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices. Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly."
  When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes

Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them

I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.

Right wingers were democrats back then. Lincoln was a republican.

I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit

You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.

I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866

Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.

You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?

Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.



"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”

Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.

In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."






Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:

"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"

Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress

Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.

www.cbsnews.com

Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."

Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:


"Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
page 33.

Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional. Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.

no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional

Yes, they were unConstitutional. Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.

• Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.

A political five to four decision? Blacks were also created equal. And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception. They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization. The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.

irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866

Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.

all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866

Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.

irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866

All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.

no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats

More disingenuous white racist bullshit.

I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussions
My directive to you is go fuck your racist self

Fallacy is all right wingers usually have. If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all, or so it usually seems.

You've been nothing but a dribbling pile of fallacy

lol. Thanks for proving my point, right winger. No valid arguments just ad hominems is all you have.

Then you don't know what an ad hominem is. Just because facts calls you a liar doesn't make them ad hominens

Except you didn't have the facts son.

On March 26, 1790, the United States of America decided who could be a citizen of this country for the first time. This was a congressional decision named The Naturalization Act of 1790. The act states: “any alien, being a free white person,” could apply for citizenship, so long as he or she lived in the United States for at least two years, and in the state where the application was filed for at least a year. The new law also provided that “children of citizens of the United States that may be born … out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens.” Please notice the first 7 words. Only whites were entitled to be citizens of this country. Never mind the Native American nations already here. Blacks could forget about it.

You dumb son of a bitch that's what I have said the whole fucking thread Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866

They were supposed to. This is the actual law right wingers were being unfaithful to:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

 

[danielpalos]

The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.

The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.

Both sets of people being Democrats. That tells you they haven't changed their mindset; they've just expanded their field of targets.

The South used to vote democrat until the civil rights acts.

not true

I gainsay your contention, want to argue about it?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?

Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.



"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”

Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.

In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."

Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:

"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"

Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress

Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.

www.cbsnews.com

Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."

Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:


"Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
page 33.

Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional. Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.

no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional

Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.

• 1.“…history of laws against miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation—in the United States.
  
  Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with the Progressive movement, peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
  
  “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained racially pure and unmixed, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to defilement of the blood.”
  Adolph Hitler
  Untitled Document
  
  
• 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
  
  
  
  3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
• “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”

Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats

• Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
  (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
• 
  
• 
  4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.
• The Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
  
  In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’

“Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”

Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats

Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.

www.breitbart.com

• 5. From the LATimes:
• “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices. Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly."
  When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes

Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them

I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.

Right wingers were democrats back then. Lincoln was a republican.

I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit

You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.

I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866

Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.

You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?

Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.



"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”

Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.

In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."






Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:

"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"

Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress

Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.

www.cbsnews.com

Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."

Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:


"Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
page 33.

Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional. Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.

no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional

Yes, they were unConstitutional. Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.

• Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.

A political five to four decision? Blacks were also created equal. And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception. They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization. The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.

irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866

Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.

all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866

Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.

irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866

All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.

no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats

More disingenuous white racist bullshit.

I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussions
My directive to you is go fuck your racist self

Fallacy is all right wingers usually have. If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all, or so it usually seems.

You've been nothing but a dribbling pile of fallacy

lol. Thanks for proving my point, right winger. No valid arguments just ad hominems is all you have.

Then you don't know what an ad hominem is. Just because facts calls you a liar doesn't make them ad hominens

Except you didn't have the facts son.

On March 26, 1790, the United States of America decided who could be a citizen of this country for the first time. This was a congressional decision named The Naturalization Act of 1790. The act states: “any alien, being a free white person,” could apply for citizenship, so long as he or she lived in the United States for at least two years, and in the state where the application was filed for at least a year. The new law also provided that “children of citizens of the United States that may be born … out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens.” Please notice the first 7 words. Only whites were entitled to be citizens of this country. Never mind the Native American nations already here. Blacks could forget about it.

You dumb son of a bitch that's what I have said the whole fucking thread Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866

They were supposed to. This is the actual law right wingers were being unfaithful to:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

BECAUSE blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?

Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.



"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”

Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.

In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."

First, everything you said was wrong.

The south wanted to count 100% of the slaves, but give them 0% of the vote. One person pointed out, that the north should then count their horses and cows, since they too were property and not people.

The adding of 3/5ths to the souths voting power clearly gave the south the power to tie the far bigger north, when it came to slavery. The great and 3/5ths compromises were the two big bargains struck with the devil to build the union, and enshrine in the constitution the continuation of slavery.

Everything YOU just said was ignorant bullshit. I'm sure it sounds wonderful and "principled" for you to sit in your comfy armchair in the luxury of modern-day America and spout off about how the Founders should have demanded a complete abolition of slavery right on the spot, and refused to accept any "deal with the devil". After all, YOU have nothing to lose by pretending to a moral superiority over your historical betters. It costs you nothing to play at judgementalism.

They, on the other hand, were the ones who had to make a new country work with EVERYTHING to lose, both for themselves and you.

Where would your spoiled, entitled ass be right now if they had not made that compromise? Where would the descendants of those slaves be if the Founders had had the benefit of your "wisdom" and made the "principled stand" you want to demand with no skin in the game?

Your post is pure horseshit. There was no reason for them not to have abolished slavery then and there. Today, we descendants of slaves would have the same wealth and representation as whites is slavery would have been abolished. There would have been no jim crow and the continuous fight we've had with whites would not be.

I can't get a straight answer from the right wing as to why the South did not insist on eminent domain as a First Amendment right available to the several States and the Confederacy. There was no need for our Civil War or the result.

You aren't an American are you?
Looks like you reading from a text book
and no American would respond with words like "the several States"
There were 13 colonies that became 13 states so which of the 13 are you referring to as the several states?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.

The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.

Both sets of people being Democrats. That tells you they haven't changed their mindset; they've just expanded their field of targets.

The South used to vote democrat until the civil rights acts.

not true

I gainsay your contention, want to argue about it?

the south started voting Republican in 96

 

[danielpalos]

BECAUSE blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866

Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union. The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.

 

[danielpalos]

You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?

Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.



"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”

Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.

In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."

First, everything you said was wrong.

The south wanted to count 100% of the slaves, but give them 0% of the vote. One person pointed out, that the north should then count their horses and cows, since they too were property and not people.

The adding of 3/5ths to the souths voting power clearly gave the south the power to tie the far bigger north, when it came to slavery. The great and 3/5ths compromises were the two big bargains struck with the devil to build the union, and enshrine in the constitution the continuation of slavery.

Everything YOU just said was ignorant bullshit. I'm sure it sounds wonderful and "principled" for you to sit in your comfy armchair in the luxury of modern-day America and spout off about how the Founders should have demanded a complete abolition of slavery right on the spot, and refused to accept any "deal with the devil". After all, YOU have nothing to lose by pretending to a moral superiority over your historical betters. It costs you nothing to play at judgementalism.

They, on the other hand, were the ones who had to make a new country work with EVERYTHING to lose, both for themselves and you.

Where would your spoiled, entitled ass be right now if they had not made that compromise? Where would the descendants of those slaves be if the Founders had had the benefit of your "wisdom" and made the "principled stand" you want to demand with no skin in the game?

Your post is pure horseshit. There was no reason for them not to have abolished slavery then and there. Today, we descendants of slaves would have the same wealth and representation as whites is slavery would have been abolished. There would have been no jim crow and the continuous fight we've had with whites would not be.

I can't get a straight answer from the right wing as to why the South did not insist on eminent domain as a First Amendment right available to the several States and the Confederacy. There was no need for our Civil War or the result.

You aren't an American are you?
Looks like you reading from a text book
and no American would respond with words like "the several States"
There were 13 colonies that became 13 states so which of the 13 are you referring to as the several states?

More American than You, apparently since I understand our federal Constitution better than You.

 

[danielpalos]

The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.

The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.

Both sets of people being Democrats. That tells you they haven't changed their mindset; they've just expanded their field of targets.

The South used to vote democrat until the civil rights acts.

not true

I gainsay your contention, want to argue about it?

the south started voting Republican in 96

Democratic dominance of the South originated in the struggle of white Southerners during and after Reconstruction (1865–1877) to reestablish white supremacy and disenfranchise blacks. The U.S. government under the Republican Party had defeated the Confederacy, abolished slavery, and enfranchised blacks. In several states, black voters were a majority or close to it. Republicans supported by blacks controlled state governments in these states. Thus the Democratic Party became the vehicle for the white supremacist "Redeemers". The Ku Klux Klan, as well as other insurgent paramilitary groups such as the White League and Red Shirts from 1874, acted as "the military arm of the Democratic party" to disrupt Republican organizing, and intimidate and suppress black voters.[8]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_South

 

[IM2]

The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.

The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.

Both sets of people being Democrats. That tells you they haven't changed their mindset; they've just expanded their field of targets.

The South used to vote democrat until the civil rights acts.

not true

I gainsay your contention, want to argue about it?

the south started voting Republican in 96

That started in 1964.

 

[IM2]

The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.

The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.

Both sets of people being Democrats. That tells you they haven't changed their mindset; they've just expanded their field of targets.

The South used to vote democrat until the civil rights acts.

not true

I gainsay your contention, want to argue about it?

the south started voting Republican in 96

Democratic dominance of the South originated in the struggle of white Southerners during and after Reconstruction (1865–1877) to reestablish white supremacy and disenfranchise blacks. The U.S. government under the Republican Party had defeated the Confederacy, abolished slavery, and enfranchised blacks. In several states, black voters were a majority or close to it. Republicans supported by blacks controlled state governments in these states. Thus the Democratic Party became the vehicle for the white supremacist "Redeemers". The Ku Klux Klan, as well as other insurgent paramilitary groups such as the White League and Red Shirts from 1874, acted as "the military arm of the Democratic party" to disrupt Republican organizing, and intimidate and suppress black voters.[8]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_South

Actually republicans made a compromise that ended reconstruction. Then they began actively trying to get the white vote to avoid being "THE PARTY OF THE NEGRO."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.

The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.

Both sets of people being Democrats. That tells you they haven't changed their mindset; they've just expanded their field of targets.

The South used to vote democrat until the civil rights acts.

not true

I gainsay your contention, want to argue about it?

the south started voting Republican in 96

That started in 1964.

that's a bald face lie

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?

Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.



"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”

Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.

In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."

First, everything you said was wrong.

The south wanted to count 100% of the slaves, but give them 0% of the vote. One person pointed out, that the north should then count their horses and cows, since they too were property and not people.

The adding of 3/5ths to the souths voting power clearly gave the south the power to tie the far bigger north, when it came to slavery. The great and 3/5ths compromises were the two big bargains struck with the devil to build the union, and enshrine in the constitution the continuation of slavery.

Everything YOU just said was ignorant bullshit. I'm sure it sounds wonderful and "principled" for you to sit in your comfy armchair in the luxury of modern-day America and spout off about how the Founders should have demanded a complete abolition of slavery right on the spot, and refused to accept any "deal with the devil". After all, YOU have nothing to lose by pretending to a moral superiority over your historical betters. It costs you nothing to play at judgementalism.

They, on the other hand, were the ones who had to make a new country work with EVERYTHING to lose, both for themselves and you.

Where would your spoiled, entitled ass be right now if they had not made that compromise? Where would the descendants of those slaves be if the Founders had had the benefit of your "wisdom" and made the "principled stand" you want to demand with no skin in the game?

Your post is pure horseshit. There was no reason for them not to have abolished slavery then and there. Today, we descendants of slaves would have the same wealth and representation as whites is slavery would have been abolished. There would have been no jim crow and the continuous fight we've had with whites would not be.

I can't get a straight answer from the right wing as to why the South did not insist on eminent domain as a First Amendment right available to the several States and the Confederacy. There was no need for our Civil War or the result.

You aren't an American are you?
Looks like you reading from a text book
and no American would respond with words like "the several States"
There were 13 colonies that became 13 states so which of the 13 are you referring to as the several states?

More American than You, apparently since I understand our federal Constitution better than You.

anyone thinks that blacks and slaves had citizenship rights and claim it's something to do with an 1808 constitution knowns nothing of the U.S. Constitution
In 1790 only white adult males had citizenship rights Slaves and freed blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
How in the hell do you keep a citizen with rights as a slave?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

BECAUSE blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866

Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union. The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.

Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.

The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.

Both sets of people being Democrats. That tells you they haven't changed their mindset; they've just expanded their field of targets.

The South used to vote democrat until the civil rights acts.

not true

I gainsay your contention, want to argue about it?

I've shot you down every single time but you just keep on ignorantly spewing the same old lie

 

[danielpalos]

You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?

Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.



"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”

Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.

In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."

First, everything you said was wrong.

The south wanted to count 100% of the slaves, but give them 0% of the vote. One person pointed out, that the north should then count their horses and cows, since they too were property and not people.

The adding of 3/5ths to the souths voting power clearly gave the south the power to tie the far bigger north, when it came to slavery. The great and 3/5ths compromises were the two big bargains struck with the devil to build the union, and enshrine in the constitution the continuation of slavery.

Everything YOU just said was ignorant bullshit. I'm sure it sounds wonderful and "principled" for you to sit in your comfy armchair in the luxury of modern-day America and spout off about how the Founders should have demanded a complete abolition of slavery right on the spot, and refused to accept any "deal with the devil". After all, YOU have nothing to lose by pretending to a moral superiority over your historical betters. It costs you nothing to play at judgementalism.

They, on the other hand, were the ones who had to make a new country work with EVERYTHING to lose, both for themselves and you.

Where would your spoiled, entitled ass be right now if they had not made that compromise? Where would the descendants of those slaves be if the Founders had had the benefit of your "wisdom" and made the "principled stand" you want to demand with no skin in the game?

Your post is pure horseshit. There was no reason for them not to have abolished slavery then and there. Today, we descendants of slaves would have the same wealth and representation as whites is slavery would have been abolished. There would have been no jim crow and the continuous fight we've had with whites would not be.

I can't get a straight answer from the right wing as to why the South did not insist on eminent domain as a First Amendment right available to the several States and the Confederacy. There was no need for our Civil War or the result.

You aren't an American are you?
Looks like you reading from a text book
and no American would respond with words like "the several States"
There were 13 colonies that became 13 states so which of the 13 are you referring to as the several states?

More American than You, apparently since I understand our federal Constitution better than You.

anyone thinks that blacks and slaves had citizenship rights and claim it's something to do with an 1808 constitution knowns nothing of the U.S. Constitution
In 1790 only white adult males had citizenship rights Slaves and freed blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
How in the hell do you keep a citizen with rights as a slave?

If you understood English better you would understand that there was no Constitutional basis for those biased laws based on inequality.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Anyone born in the US was a citizen by birth after 1808.