3/5 Of A Human Being

[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.

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

Simply being born in the US confers citizenship. Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.

 

[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?

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

You have nothing but ignorance.

 

[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?

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.

You don't understand slaves didn't have citizenship rights. What law freed slaves and gave them citizenship rights date must be added to your response

 

[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.

Simply being born in the US confers citizenship. Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.

wrong snowflake not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion

 

[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

You have nothing but ignorance.

says the idiot who think slaves had rights before 1866
old danny boy calls himself a federalist? lol
The party drew its early support from those who—for ideological and other reasons—wished to strengthen national instead of state power. Until its defeat in the presidential election of 1800, its style was elitist, and its leaders scorned democracy, widespread suffrage, and open elections. Its backing centered in the commercial Northeast, whose economy and public order had been threatened by the failings of the Confederation government before 1788. Although the party enjoyed considerable influence in Virginia, North Carolina and the area around Charleston, South Carolina, it failed to attract plantation owners and yeoman farmers in the South and West. Its inability to broaden its geographic and social appeal eventually did it in.

Federalist Party: Leaders, Beliefs & Definition | HISTORY

The Federalist Party was an early U.S. political party that fought for a strong federal government. Supporters included John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay.

www.history.com

 

[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.

You don't understand slaves didn't have citizenship rights. What law freed slaves and gave them citizenship rights date must be added to your response

Simply being naturally born in the US after 1808 should have resulted in automatic citizenship rights for everyone born here.

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

 

[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.

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

Simply being born in the US confers citizenship. Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.

wrong snowflake not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion

The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.

 

[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?

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

You have nothing but ignorance.

says the idiot who think slaves had rights before 1866
old danny boy calls himself a federalist? lol
The party drew its early support from those who—for ideological and other reasons—wished to strengthen national instead of state power. Until its defeat in the presidential election of 1800, its style was elitist, and its leaders scorned democracy, widespread suffrage, and open elections. Its backing centered in the commercial Northeast, whose economy and public order had been threatened by the failings of the Confederation government before 1788. Although the party enjoyed considerable influence in Virginia, North Carolina and the area around Charleston, South Carolina, it failed to attract plantation owners and yeoman farmers in the South and West. Its inability to broaden its geographic and social appeal eventually did it in.

Federalist Party: Leaders, Beliefs & Definition | HISTORY

The Federalist Party was an early U.S. political party that fought for a strong federal government. Supporters included John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay.

www.history.com

Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth. The several States no longer had jurisdiction over immigration after that.

Show us what law made blacks non-citizens after 1808.

 

[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?

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.

You don't understand slaves didn't have citizenship rights. What law freed slaves and gave them citizenship rights date must be added to your response

Simply being naturally born in the US after 1808 should have resulted in automatic citizenship rights for everyone born here.

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

Not according to the immigration act of 1790 the Congress of 1790 defined who was a citizen not you
Congress first defined eligibility for citizenship by naturalization in this law, and limited this important right to “free white persons.” In practice, only white, male property owners could naturalize and acquire the status of citizens, whereas women, nonwhite persons, and indentured servants could not.

Nationality Act of 1790 - Immigration History

This was the first law to define eligibility for citizenship by naturalization and establish standards and procedures by which immigrants became US citizens. In this early version, Congress limited this important right to “free white persons.”

immigrationhistory.org

 

[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

You have nothing but ignorance.

says the idiot who think slaves had rights before 1866
old danny boy calls himself a federalist? lol
The party drew its early support from those who—for ideological and other reasons—wished to strengthen national instead of state power. Until its defeat in the presidential election of 1800, its style was elitist, and its leaders scorned democracy, widespread suffrage, and open elections. Its backing centered in the commercial Northeast, whose economy and public order had been threatened by the failings of the Confederation government before 1788. Although the party enjoyed considerable influence in Virginia, North Carolina and the area around Charleston, South Carolina, it failed to attract plantation owners and yeoman farmers in the South and West. Its inability to broaden its geographic and social appeal eventually did it in.

Federalist Party: Leaders, Beliefs & Definition | HISTORY

The Federalist Party was an early U.S. political party that fought for a strong federal government. Supporters included John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay.

www.history.com

Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth. The several States no longer had jurisdiction over immigration after that.

Show us what law made blacks non-citizens after 1808.

I want you to show me were the immigration act of 1790 was amended and changed before 1808
FYI Dred Scott v. Sandford, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 6, 1857, declared that Black people, whether free or enslaved, could not be American citizens and were thus constitutionally unable to sue for citizenship in the federal courts.

OH and danny boy you calling yourself a federalist means you are anti-democracy a part of the elitist class and wide spread suffrage and free elections

 

[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.

Simply being born in the US confers citizenship. Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.

wrong snowflake not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion

The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.

Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.

 

[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.

You don't understand slaves didn't have citizenship rights. What law freed slaves and gave them citizenship rights date must be added to your response

Simply being naturally born in the US after 1808 should have resulted in automatic citizenship rights for everyone born here.

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

Not according to the immigration act of 1790 the Congress of 1790 defined who was a citizen not you
Congress first defined eligibility for citizenship by naturalization in this law, and limited this important right to “free white persons.” In practice, only white, male property owners could naturalize and acquire the status of citizens, whereas women, nonwhite persons, and indentured servants could not.

Nationality Act of 1790 - Immigration History

This was the first law to define eligibility for citizenship by naturalization and establish standards and procedures by which immigrants became US citizens. In this early version, Congress limited this important right to “free white persons.”

immigrationhistory.org

Not according to the immigration act of 1790 the Congress of 1790 defined who was a citizen not you
Congress first defined eligibility for citizenship by naturalization in this law, and limited this important right to “free white persons.” In practice, only white, male property owners could naturalize and acquire the status of citizens, whereas women, nonwhite persons, and indentured servants could not.

Citizens by naturalization is not the same as citizens by birth. Anyone born in the Union after 1808 should have been considered a citizen by natural born birth.

 

[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?

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

You have nothing but ignorance.

says the idiot who think slaves had rights before 1866
old danny boy calls himself a federalist? lol
The party drew its early support from those who—for ideological and other reasons—wished to strengthen national instead of state power. Until its defeat in the presidential election of 1800, its style was elitist, and its leaders scorned democracy, widespread suffrage, and open elections. Its backing centered in the commercial Northeast, whose economy and public order had been threatened by the failings of the Confederation government before 1788. Although the party enjoyed considerable influence in Virginia, North Carolina and the area around Charleston, South Carolina, it failed to attract plantation owners and yeoman farmers in the South and West. Its inability to broaden its geographic and social appeal eventually did it in.

Federalist Party: Leaders, Beliefs & Definition | HISTORY

The Federalist Party was an early U.S. political party that fought for a strong federal government. Supporters included John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay.

www.history.com

Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth. The several States no longer had jurisdiction over immigration after that.

Show us what law made blacks non-citizens after 1808.

I want you to show me were the immigration act of 1790 was amended and changed before 1808
FYI Dred Scott v. Sandford, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 6, 1857, declared that Black people, whether free or enslaved, could not be American citizens and were thus constitutionally unable to sue for citizenship in the federal courts.

OH and danny boy you calling yourself a federalist means you are anti-democracy a part of the elitist class and wide spread suffrage and free elections

Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth; our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral. Any race based laws should have been unConstitutional and null and void from Inception; but that would have required more morals than were available at the time, apparently.

 

[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.

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

Simply being born in the US confers citizenship. Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.

wrong snowflake not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion

The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.

Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.

Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land; no federal law was required and those federal laws which contradicted our federal Constitution were null and void in any conflict of laws with our supreme law of the land. Morals is all that was required.

 

[Rigby5]

" Enforce Jus Sanguinin And Remit Social Subsistence Costs To Countries Of Citizenship Origin "

* No Subscription For Open Source Seekers *

Just right wing shills?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/08/no-this-video-does-not-show-obama-urging-undocumented-people-to-vote/

That o ba ma promoted us citizens to vote for the interests of non jurisdiction migrants must necessarily imply that non jurisdiction migrants expect political persuasion for social entitlements of which they are not entitled to receive .

American taxpayer would pay for illegal alien's healthcare

But illegals pay taxes now, which is greater than what their heath care costs would be, anyway.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Simply being born in the US confers citizenship. Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.

wrong snowflake not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion

The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.

Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.

A general principle of law is that of blind justice, where you have to establish a generic principle to support the legislation.
When you specify races, you are inherently violating that basic legal principle, and then you must be trying to codify an illegal, arbitrary, dictate.
But since the SCOTUS disagreed until after the 14th amendment, the point is moot.

 

[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.

Simply being born in the US confers citizenship. Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.

wrong snowflake not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion

The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.

Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.

A general principle of law is that of blind justice, where you have to establish a generic principle to support the legislation.
When you specify races, you are inherently violating that basic legal principle, and then you must be trying to codify an illegal, arbitrary, dictate.
But since the SCOTUS disagreed until after the 14th amendment, the point is moot.

The point is that dumbass said anyone born in America after 1808 had citizenship rights they didn't

 

[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.

Simply being born in the US confers citizenship. Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.

wrong snowflake not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion

The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.

Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.

Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land; no federal law was required and those federal laws which contradicted our federal Constitution were null and void in any conflict of laws with our supreme law of the land. Morals is all that was required.

and you are still wrong!
why was their a need for the 13th amendment 14th amendment?
The civil rights act of 1866?

 

[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

You have nothing but ignorance.

says the idiot who think slaves had rights before 1866
old danny boy calls himself a federalist? lol
The party drew its early support from those who—for ideological and other reasons—wished to strengthen national instead of state power. Until its defeat in the presidential election of 1800, its style was elitist, and its leaders scorned democracy, widespread suffrage, and open elections. Its backing centered in the commercial Northeast, whose economy and public order had been threatened by the failings of the Confederation government before 1788. Although the party enjoyed considerable influence in Virginia, North Carolina and the area around Charleston, South Carolina, it failed to attract plantation owners and yeoman farmers in the South and West. Its inability to broaden its geographic and social appeal eventually did it in.

Federalist Party: Leaders, Beliefs & Definition | HISTORY

The Federalist Party was an early U.S. political party that fought for a strong federal government. Supporters included John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay.

www.history.com

Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth. The several States no longer had jurisdiction over immigration after that.

Show us what law made blacks non-citizens after 1808.

I want you to show me were the immigration act of 1790 was amended and changed before 1808
FYI Dred Scott v. Sandford, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 6, 1857, declared that Black people, whether free or enslaved, could not be American citizens and were thus constitutionally unable to sue for citizenship in the federal courts.

OH and danny boy you calling yourself a federalist means you are anti-democracy a part of the elitist class and wide spread suffrage and free elections

Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth; our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral. Any race based laws should have been unConstitutional and null and void from Inception; but that would have required more morals than were available at the time, apparently.

NOPE WRONG AGAIN THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN 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?

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.

You don't understand slaves didn't have citizenship rights. What law freed slaves and gave them citizenship rights date must be added to your response

Simply being naturally born in the US after 1808 should have resulted in automatic citizenship rights for everyone born here.

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

Not according to the immigration act of 1790 the Congress of 1790 defined who was a citizen not you
Congress first defined eligibility for citizenship by naturalization in this law, and limited this important right to “free white persons.” In practice, only white, male property owners could naturalize and acquire the status of citizens, whereas women, nonwhite persons, and indentured servants could not.

Nationality Act of 1790 - Immigration History

This was the first law to define eligibility for citizenship by naturalization and establish standards and procedures by which immigrants became US citizens. In this early version, Congress limited this important right to “free white persons.”

immigrationhistory.org

Not according to the immigration act of 1790 the Congress of 1790 defined who was a citizen not you
Congress first defined eligibility for citizenship by naturalization in this law, and limited this important right to “free white persons.” In practice, only white, male property owners could naturalize and acquire the status of citizens, whereas women, nonwhite persons, and indentured servants could not.

Citizens by naturalization is not the same as citizens by birth. Anyone born in the Union after 1808 should have been considered a citizen by natural born birth.

NOT until the passage of the 14th amendment and the civil rights act of 1866