3/5 Of A Human Being

[meaner gene]

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.

 

[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

 

[meaner gene]

Everything I wrote, as always, is 100% true, correct and accurate.

Like the 5-10 million illegal votes in california?

You ever find them?

Kris Kobach looked for them, and couldn't find them.

So claiming you're 100% right, is 100% wrong.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Everything I wrote, as always, is 100% true, correct and accurate.

Like the 5-10 million illegal votes in california?

You ever find them?

Kris Kobach looked for them, and couldn't find them.

So claiming you're 100% right, is 100% wrong.

From the leftists go to fact checker snopes
What's True
Estimates of voter rolls in the counties of some states, including California, tally more registered voters than eligible adults.
What's False
Such estimates do not encompass the entire U.S., are based on questionable methodologies, and may include voters who are listed on state rolls as "inactive."

Does the U.S. Have Millions More Registered Voters Than Eligible Adults?

A persistent claim about widespread voter fraud is based on problematic tallies of registered and eligible voters.

www.snopes.com

 

[IM2]

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."

This is a lie. Your post is disingenuous. But that SOP for you.

 

[IM2]

" No Representation For Non Jurisdiction Sojourners "

* Imagine Seeding A Foreign Country With Loyalist Agents *

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.

The non jurisdiction sojourner is not enslaved and have objectives and social structures that do not include population control as a consideration , especially when having citizen children includes a stipend and a seeding of cause by familial citizens to rally numerical and political representation .

Irrespective of public policy for aggressive deportation of non jurisdiction sojourners to their country of origin , a non jurisdiction sojourner is not entitled from any numerical incidence to representation by a vote in any legislative body .

A census would only be useful to indicate where to target resources for the deportation of non jurisdiction sojourners .

* Stuck In The Middle Of Saying Know To Not Knot Make It Our Problem *

There are certainly enough economic libertarians willing to import non jurisdiction labor to lower wages and operating costs while offloading responsibilities of over population and its low socioeconomic conditions to the public .

There are also the secular humanists seeking to sacrifice taxpayer finances for saving the world by on boarding anyone from anywhere regardless of merit , intentionally lowering barriers to implement its authoritarian socialist controls for pilfering free enterprise and for implementing political correctness that it promotes by fomenting race based and class based conflicts .

* Jus Sanguinin For Children Of Non Jurisdiction Sojourners *

The " non jurisdiction " sojourner remains subject to jurisdiction by the country of its citizenship ; and , by not being a subject of a title in us legal immigration system an offspring of a non jurisdiction sojourner is to be provided birth to the country of maternal citizenship , by jus sanguinin .

While non violence principles for individualism is an ethical standard among hue mammon and a basis for liberty in social civil agreements for which one exchanges natural freedoms to become a citizen of a greater individual of state , to an extent , national sovereignty is individual sovereignty , and non jurisdiction sojourners can be deported .

I wish that were the case.

Here, we have Democrat Presidents who tell illegal aliens to go and vote in our elections.

Another lie.

 

[IM2]

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 .."

Great post PoliticalChic!! ...
I never knew the "real" reason for the 3/5th's compromise.

A big 'Thank You,' Sunni.


Had the Founders not gotten that compromise, this sort of thing would be pro forma:


"The lynchings were Southern whites' extrajudicial efforts to maintain social control, white supremacy, and Democratic Party rule, ..... From 1882 to 1968, "...nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal law."[10] Not one bill was approved by the Senate because of the powerful opposition of the Southern Democratic voting block."

Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Today's lesson:

The Radical Republicans

You know, I like to read. And COVID 19 has made it so that I have plenty of time to do so. One of the books I have read is called Republicans and the Black Vote. It's a book that tells the history of blacks and the republican party. Such is why I say there is no democratic plantation and it is why I say those saying such are racists. And that includes those with internalized racism.

For example, the republican faction responsible for freeing the slaves were called "Radical Republicans."

The Radical Republicans were a faction of American politicians within the Republican Party of the United States from around 1854 (before the American Civil War) until the end of Reconstruction in 1877. They called themselves "Radicals", with a goal of immediate, complete, permanent eradication of slavery, without compromise. They were opposed during the War by the moderate Republicans (led by U.S. President Abraham Lincoln), and by the pro-slavery and anti-Reconstruction Democratic Party as well as liberals in the Northern United States during Reconstruction. Radicals led efforts after the war to establish civil rights for former slaves and fully implement emancipation. After weaker measures in 1866 resulted in violence against former slaves in the rebel states, Radicals pushed the Fourteenth Amendment and statutory protections through Congress. They disfavored allowing ex-Confederate officers to retake political power in the Southern United States, and emphasized equality, civil rights and voting rights for the "freedmen", i.e. people who had been enslaved by state slavery laws within the United States.

During the war, Radical Republicans opposed Lincoln's initial selection of General George B. McClellan for top command of the major eastern Army of the Potomac and Lincoln's efforts in 1864 to bring seceded Southern states back into the Union as quickly and easily as possible. Lincoln later recognized McClellan's weakness and relieved him of command. The Radicals passed their own Reconstruction plan through Congress in 1864, but Lincoln vetoed it and was putting his own policies in effect as military commander-in-chief when he was assassinated in April 1865. Radicals pushed for the uncompensated abolition of slavery, while Lincoln wanted to pay slave owners who were loyal to the Union. After the war, the Radicals demanded civil rights for freed slaves, including measures ensuring suffrage. They initiated the various Reconstruction Acts as well as the Fourteenth Amendment and limited political and voting rights for ex-Confederate civil officials and military officers. They keenly fought Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, a former slave owner from Tennessee who favored allowing Southern states to decide the rights and status of former slaves. After Johnson vetoed various congressional acts favoring civil rights for former slaves, they attempted to remove him from office through impeachment, which failed by one vote in 1868.

The Radicals were never formally organized and there was movement in and out of the group. Their most successful and systematic leader was Pennsylvania Congressman Thaddeus Stevens in the House of Representatives. The Democrats were strongly opposed to the Radicals, but they were generally a weak minority in politics until they took control of the House in the 1874 congressional elections. The moderate and conservative Republican factions usually opposed the Radicals, but they were not well organized. Lincoln tried to build a multi-faction coalition, including radicals, conservatives, moderates and War Democrats as while he was often opposed by the Radicals, he never ostracized them. Andrew Johnson was thought to be a Radical when he became President in 1865, but he soon became their leading opponent. However, Johnson was so inept as a politician he was unable to form a cohesive support network. Finally in 1872, the Liberal Republicans, who wanted a return to classical republicanism,[7] ran a presidential campaign and won the support of the Democratic Party for their ticket. They argued that Grant and the Radicals were corrupt and had imposed Reconstruction far too long on the South.

After the 1860 elections, moderate Republicans dominated the Congress. Radical Republicans were often critical of Lincoln, who they believed was too slow in freeing slaves and supporting their legal equality.

End of Reconstruction

The so-called "Liberal Republicans" (more conservative than the Radicals), along with Democrats, argued in 1872 that the Radical Republicans were corrupt and accepted bribes (notably since 1869, during the Grant administration). These opponents of the Radicals demanded amnesty for all ex-Confederates, thus restoring their right to vote and hold public office.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Republicans

So you see, this is where the dishonesty begins in the right wing gaslighting campaign. There were several competing factions in the republican party at that time. This is part of the history republicans on the right won't tell black people. It is safe to say that no one in the current republican party matches the radical republican faction of the party who freed us.

 

[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.

 

[danielpalos]

Everything I wrote, as always, is 100% true, correct and accurate.

Like the 5-10 million illegal votes in california?

You ever find them?

Kris Kobach looked for them, and couldn't find them.

So claiming you're 100% right, is 100% wrong.

From the leftists go to fact checker snopes
What's True
Estimates of voter rolls in the counties of some states, including California, tally more registered voters than eligible adults.
What's False
Such estimates do not encompass the entire U.S., are based on questionable methodologies, and may include voters who are listed on state rolls as "inactive."

Does the U.S. Have Millions More Registered Voters Than Eligible Adults?

A persistent claim about widespread voter fraud is based on problematic tallies of registered and eligible voters.

www.snopes.com

Is that how your guy lost the popular vote but won the electoral college?

 

[danielpalos]

" No Representation For Non Jurisdiction Sojourners "

* Imagine Seeding A Foreign Country With Loyalist Agents *

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.

The non jurisdiction sojourner is not enslaved and have objectives and social structures that do not include population control as a consideration , especially when having citizen children includes a stipend and a seeding of cause by familial citizens to rally numerical and political representation .

Irrespective of public policy for aggressive deportation of non jurisdiction sojourners to their country of origin , a non jurisdiction sojourner is not entitled from any numerical incidence to representation by a vote in any legislative body .

A census would only be useful to indicate where to target resources for the deportation of non jurisdiction sojourners .

* Stuck In The Middle Of Saying Know To Not Knot Make It Our Problem *

There are certainly enough economic libertarians willing to import non jurisdiction labor to lower wages and operating costs while offloading responsibilities of over population and its low socioeconomic conditions to the public .

There are also the secular humanists seeking to sacrifice taxpayer finances for saving the world by on boarding anyone from anywhere regardless of merit , intentionally lowering barriers to implement its authoritarian socialist controls for pilfering free enterprise and for implementing political correctness that it promotes by fomenting race based and class based conflicts .

* Jus Sanguinin For Children Of Non Jurisdiction Sojourners *

The " non jurisdiction " sojourner remains subject to jurisdiction by the country of its citizenship ; and , by not being a subject of a title in us legal immigration system an offspring of a non jurisdiction sojourner is to be provided birth to the country of maternal citizenship , by jus sanguinin .

While non violence principles for individualism is an ethical standard among hue mammon and a basis for liberty in social civil agreements for which one exchanges natural freedoms to become a citizen of a greater individual of state , to an extent , national sovereignty is individual sovereignty , and non jurisdiction sojourners can be deported .

I wish that were the case.

Here, we have Democrat Presidents who tell illegal aliens to go and vote in our elections.

Another lie.

And, she is a right winger citing the Bible. Why should anyone take right wingers morally seriously? It could be immoral.

 

[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."

This is a lie. Your post is disingenuous. But that SOP for you.

oh yes, the propagator of all lies speaks. So racist where was the lie?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Everything I wrote, as always, is 100% true, correct and accurate.

Like the 5-10 million illegal votes in california?

You ever find them?

Kris Kobach looked for them, and couldn't find them.

So claiming you're 100% right, is 100% wrong.

From the leftists go to fact checker snopes
What's True
Estimates of voter rolls in the counties of some states, including California, tally more registered voters than eligible adults.
What's False
Such estimates do not encompass the entire U.S., are based on questionable methodologies, and may include voters who are listed on state rolls as "inactive."

Does the U.S. Have Millions More Registered Voters Than Eligible Adults?

A persistent claim about widespread voter fraud is based on problematic tallies of registered and eligible voters.

www.snopes.com

Is that how your guy lost the popular vote but won the electoral college?

illegal votes don't mean someone won the popular vote it's means illegals voted

 

[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

 

[IM2]

"Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866"

You right wingers need to read up on what the civil rights cases really did.

 

[IM2]

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.

 

[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

 

[danielpalos]

Everything I wrote, as always, is 100% true, correct and accurate.

Like the 5-10 million illegal votes in california?

You ever find them?

Kris Kobach looked for them, and couldn't find them.

So claiming you're 100% right, is 100% wrong.

From the leftists go to fact checker snopes
What's True
Estimates of voter rolls in the counties of some states, including California, tally more registered voters than eligible adults.
What's False
Such estimates do not encompass the entire U.S., are based on questionable methodologies, and may include voters who are listed on state rolls as "inactive."

Does the U.S. Have Millions More Registered Voters Than Eligible Adults?

A persistent claim about widespread voter fraud is based on problematic tallies of registered and eligible voters.

www.snopes.com

Is that how your guy lost the popular vote but won the electoral college?

illegal votes don't mean someone won the popular vote it's means illegals voted

You have to prove all illegals voted blue and not red.

 

[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

Not democrats of today. Right wingers were democrats back then and they rebelled to keep slavery. Right wingers bringing up party affiliation now proves y'all are willing to try to confuse the issue with more superficial voters.

 

[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.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Everything I wrote, as always, is 100% true, correct and accurate.

Like the 5-10 million illegal votes in california?

You ever find them?

Kris Kobach looked for them, and couldn't find them.

So claiming you're 100% right, is 100% wrong.

From the leftists go to fact checker snopes
What's True
Estimates of voter rolls in the counties of some states, including California, tally more registered voters than eligible adults.
What's False
Such estimates do not encompass the entire U.S., are based on questionable methodologies, and may include voters who are listed on state rolls as "inactive."

Does the U.S. Have Millions More Registered Voters Than Eligible Adults?

A persistent claim about widespread voter fraud is based on problematic tallies of registered and eligible voters.

www.snopes.com

Is that how your guy lost the popular vote but won the electoral college?

illegal votes don't mean someone won the popular vote it's means illegals voted

You have to prove all illegals voted blue and not red.

Since blue states make it more accommodating for illegals than red states I'd say more happens in blue states than red states