States Rights, Slave Trading & Right Wing Hypocrisy

[Procrustes Stretched]

States Rights, Slave Trading & Right Wing Hypocrisy
"in 1787, when the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia, no American state except Georgia had yet reopened the African trade. Nevertheless, with the expectation of reopening the international slave trade, the delegates from the Deep South jealously guarded their right to import more slaves...the provision in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, which prevented Congress from ending the trade before 1808."

Beck and right wingers here at USMB and other places have misrepresented and lied about the 'innocent' slave trade in Colonial America up to the Us Civil War. They tried to say it was Big Government and regulation that turned the Colonial/American slave trade from being in their words 'innocent' --- into the horror people pretend to be horrified by even as they wittingly or unwittingly defend it.

After 1800, however, Georgia and South Carolina reopened their international slave trade, and in the next eight years, these two states would introduce about 100,000 new slaves from Africa.

It's time for a history lesson minus the dry drunkard Beck and his angry white followers who would defend the slave trade as a way to attack big government.

 

[Revere]

The Federal government prolonged slavery by ruling that slave property in slave states was slave property in free states.

A white, Republican President ended slavery. A white, male Supreme court overturned Plessy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Federal government prolonged slavery by ruling that slave property in slave states was slave property in free states.

A white, Republican President ended slavery. A white, male Supreme court overturned Plessy.

Actually a constitutional amendment ended slavery.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Federal government prolonged slavery by ruling that slave property in slave states was slave property in free states.

A white, Republican President ended slavery. A white, male Supreme court overturned Plessy.

The US Constitution started it all. Read up on things. A white Liberal Republican. White northerners and southerners all held their puke back as they fought southern demands for slaves being counted, so they compromised. 3/5 of slaves counted for representation. How ironic is that?

slave holders asking to get federal representation for slaves.

Revere, if you desire to engage in misrepresentation without acknowledging truth, you will remain a lowly troll with little impact

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Federal government prolonged slavery by ruling that slave property in slave states was slave property in free states.

A white, Republican President ended slavery. A white, male Supreme court overturned Plessy.

Actually a constitutional amendment ended slavery.

thank you

Revere is a typical Right Wing Lunatic @ USMB ::: incapable of fully grasping and posting truths.

 

[mdn2000]

Funny thing though, it was liberal democrats who fought for their right to own people as slaves, or as private property.

Just like now we have to fight the liberal democrats.

I am a slave to liberal democrats who steal more and more of my hard work to make themselves rich.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Funny thing though, it was liberal democrats who fought for their right to own people as slaves, or as private property.

Just like now we have to fight the liberal democrats.

I am a slave to liberal democrats who steal more and more of my hard work to make themselves rich.

And it was conservative Republicans who wanted to keep all black people out of the west to preserve the area for free white people, and who wanted to deport all free black people back to Africa or Central America. Only genuine abolitionists had the moral high ground during this era, not Republicans or Democrats.

 

[Dr.House]

Dainty got banned again?

Gotta be a record now...

 

[mdn2000]

Funny thing though, it was liberal democrats who fought for their right to own people as slaves, or as private property.

Just like now we have to fight the liberal democrats.

I am a slave to liberal democrats who steal more and more of my hard work to make themselves rich.

And it was conservative Republicans who wanted to keep all black people out of the west to preserve the area for free white people, and who wanted to deport all free black people back to Africa or Central America. Only genuine abolitionists had the moral high ground during this era, not Republicans or Democrats.

It was not conservatives nor republicans.

Can you say Senator Byrd, liberal democrat and KKK leader.

Maybe you should be specific instead of making general statements. Slavery deserves critical analysis, general statements are ugly and out of context, at best.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Funny thing though, it was liberal democrats who fought for their right to own people as slaves, or as private property.

Just like now we have to fight the liberal democrats.

I am a slave to liberal democrats who steal more and more of my hard work to make themselves rich.

And it was conservative Republicans who wanted to keep all black people out of the west to preserve the area for free white people, and who wanted to deport all free black people back to Africa or Central America. Only genuine abolitionists had the moral high ground during this era, not Republicans or Democrats.

It was not conservatives nor republicans.

Can you say Senator Byrd, liberal democrat and KKK leader.

Maybe you should be specific instead of making general statements. Slavery deserves critical analysis, general statements are ugly and out of context, at best.

Maybe you should be specific rather than making general partisan statements. Abraham Lincoln was one of the leading proponents of colonization, so yes it's safe to say that it was a Republican plan.

 

[mdn2000]

And it was conservative Republicans who wanted to keep all black people out of the west to preserve the area for free white people, and who wanted to deport all free black people back to Africa or Central America. Only genuine abolitionists had the moral high ground during this era, not Republicans or Democrats.

It was not conservatives nor republicans.

Can you say Senator Byrd, liberal democrat and KKK leader.

Maybe you should be specific instead of making general statements. Slavery deserves critical analysis, general statements are ugly and out of context, at best.

Maybe you should be specific rather than making general partisan statements. Abraham Lincoln was one of the leading proponents of colonization, so yes it's safe to say that it was a Republican plan.

Again, I guess your slow, you can say anything you want, so go ahead and make your point about Lincoln. So far you have not presented anything to debate.

Its easy to say anything you can imagine, present facts, reference the facts, present something other than a simple idea.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It was not conservatives nor republicans.

Can you say Senator Byrd, liberal democrat and KKK leader.

Maybe you should be specific instead of making general statements. Slavery deserves critical analysis, general statements are ugly and out of context, at best.

Maybe you should be specific rather than making general partisan statements. Abraham Lincoln was one of the leading proponents of colonization, so yes it's safe to say that it was a Republican plan.

Again, I guess your slow, you can say anything you want, so go ahead and make your point about Lincoln. So far you have not presented anything to debate.

Its easy to say anything you can imagine, present facts, reference the facts, present something other than a simple idea.

So you can say any partisan thing you want in an attempt to make Democrats look bad, but once the record is set straight on Republicans all of a sudden we need evidence. However, if it's evidence you want, it's evidence you'll get.

With his background as one of eleven managers of the Illinois State Colonization Society elected in 1857, Lincoln brought with him ideas about colonization. He supported the separation of the races for several reasons. He believed that blacks were inferior to whites and therefore not entitled to live in the same society as whites. He also rationalized that the removal of the black laborers would create a market for white laborers. "Reduce the supply of black labor by colonizing the black laborer out of the country and by precisely so much you increase the demand for and wages of white labor." His basic motive, however, for his extensive efforts was to once again have a purely white America.

Lincoln's Colonization Efforts

 

[mdn2000]

Maybe you should be specific rather than making general partisan statements. Abraham Lincoln was one of the leading proponents of colonization, so yes it's safe to say that it was a Republican plan.

Again, I guess your slow, you can say anything you want, so go ahead and make your point about Lincoln. So far you have not presented anything to debate.

Its easy to say anything you can imagine, present facts, reference the facts, present something other than a simple idea.

So you can say any partisan thing you want in an attempt to make Democrats look bad, but once the record is set straight on Republicans all of a sudden we need evidence. However, if it's evidence you want, it's evidence you'll get.

With his background as one of eleven managers of the Illinois State Colonization Society elected in 1857, Lincoln brought with him ideas about colonization. He supported the separation of the races for several reasons. He believed that blacks were inferior to whites and therefore not entitled to live in the same society as whites. He also rationalized that the removal of the black laborers would create a market for white laborers. "Reduce the supply of black labor by colonizing the black laborer out of the country and by precisely so much you increase the demand for and wages of white labor." His basic motive, however, for his extensive efforts was to once again have a purely white America.

Lincoln's Colonization Efforts

Your going to cut and paste from a community high school, your not even going to comment on what you pasted.

Is this what passes as debate, cut and paste.

If your going to cut and paste you should not be so lazy, who is the Author? Pretty lousy job on your part. If you knew the material you would know the author.

Can you even state in a simple sentence what your point is. So far you have Cut and Paste a bunch of fragments of what you find on the internet.

 

[mdn2000]

Maybe you should be specific rather than making general partisan statements. Abraham Lincoln was one of the leading proponents of colonization, so yes it's safe to say that it was a Republican plan.

Again, I guess your slow, you can say anything you want, so go ahead and make your point about Lincoln. So far you have not presented anything to debate.

Its easy to say anything you can imagine, present facts, reference the facts, present something other than a simple idea.

So you can say any partisan thing you want in an attempt to make Democrats look bad, but once the record is set straight on Republicans all of a sudden we need evidence. However, if it's evidence you want, it's evidence you'll get.

With his background as one of eleven managers of the Illinois State Colonization Society elected in 1857, Lincoln brought with him ideas about colonization. He supported the separation of the races for several reasons. He believed that blacks were inferior to whites and therefore not entitled to live in the same society as whites. He also rationalized that the removal of the black laborers would create a market for white laborers. "Reduce the supply of black labor by colonizing the black laborer out of the country and by precisely so much you increase the demand for and wages of white labor." His basic motive, however, for his extensive efforts was to once again have a purely white America.

Lincoln's Colonization Efforts

Why are you quoting a racist, is this someone you admire.

Earnest Sevier Cox is the author's name, you omitted this from your cut and paste, we dont merely link to articles, we must include the author, you have enough posts to know this.

Earnest Sevier Cox is a famous racist.

So what is it you wish to defend and debate.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Lordy lou, you are too much. I'm just going to cut my losses here because this little discussion is clearly going nowhere.

 

[mdn2000]

Lordy lou, you are too much. I'm just going to cut my losses here because this little discussion is clearly going nowhere.

No problem, actions speak louder than words.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Lordy lou, you are too much. I'm just going to cut my losses here because this little discussion is clearly going nowhere.

No problem, actions speak louder than words.

hold a libertarian to their actions and they will almost always scream 'unfair!'

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Lordy lou, you are too much. I'm just going to cut my losses here because this little discussion is clearly going nowhere.

No problem, actions speak louder than words.

hold a libertarian to their actions and they will almost always scream 'unfair!'

Now that's not fair.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No problem, actions speak louder than words.

hold a libertarian to their actions and they will almost always scream 'unfair!'

Now that's not fair.

 

[Southernboy]

there was also some black slave holders,so liberals can`t blame it all on us whities