3/5 Of A Human Being

[danielpalos]

" Should Be Deported For Treason "

* Anti-Racist Racist Liar *

There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution. We should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass with a Naturalization clause because, all foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes, including tax purposes.

Are you so blatantly retarded as to not understand the entire purpose of a legal immigration system and that non jurisdiction migrants do not have permission to be in the us ?

The irs is prohibited by law from disclosing any information about itin filings to the general government .

No doubt you would be thrilled for the 800 million latin americans , who have bred themselves into poverty , to show up in the us and demand the occupation and theft of the us people .

https://www.gao.gov/assets/230/221495.pdf

Illegal aliens are a concern not only because they are breaking B-252730 immigration laws but for various other reasons.

https://www.congress.gov/104/crpt/hrpt828/CRPT-104hrpt828.pdf

I understand right wingers have difficulty being legal to the laws, but are hypocritical enough to blame the less fortunate. Natural rights means nothing to the right wing outside of abortion threads, either. There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution. We have an express Establishment clause for an Uniform rule of Naturalization right wingers; Obey the law!

We have a Commerce Clause and a central bank; only right wingers prefer their socialism on a national basis instead of Capitalism, well regulated.

 

[danielpalos]

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

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

Northern STATES began emancipating their slaves. Southern STATES didn't. Unlike today, the Federal government had very little direct power over the states.

The Union was starting to abolish the slave trade after 1808.

Not really Daniel. In fact the number of slaves increased by 1,000 percent between the years 1808 until emancipation. Slave breeding became an industry after 1808.

Illegals refusing to bear true witness to our own supreme law of the land?

African Slave Trade Patrol[1] was part of the suppression of the Atlantic slave trade between 1819 and the beginning of the American Civil War in 1861. Due to the abolitionist movement in the United States, a squadron of U.S. Navy warships and Cutters were assigned to catch slave traders in and around Africa. In 42 years about 100 suspected slave ships were captured.[2][3]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Slave_Trade_Patrol

The abolitionist movement "gained steam" after 1808.

 

[danielpalos]

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

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

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

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

Tell that to the states that became the Confederacy, not to us. You can claim anything you want, the reality was something different.

Levying War against the Union was Treason. Why did the South not insist on Eminent Domain which was a Legal right; why did the South prefer to be Illegal?

It's called states rights, not eminent domain and the states did claim that right.

States had no rights over Entry into the Union after 1808.

 

[danielpalos]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not disagreeing that they did not get citizenship rights.
But I also agree with "danielp", that they should have had citizenship rights.
Their ancestors were taken as slaves and shipped her under the power of the crown, not US law.
And the whole point of the rebellion was a rejection of the arbitrary authority of the crown.
There really never was any ability under US law then for slavery to ever exist or for people born here to be slaves just because their parents or other ancestors had illegally been treated as slaves.
The founders really had no authority to allow slavery from British rule to continue.
I realize it was really a state issue back then.
But we really should not have needed a 14th amendment.
It should already have been intuitive.
Which is what I think "danielp" is saying.
That those born here should have been full US citizens, regardless of he status of their parents.

It's not about should've would've could've laws prevented it from happening laws deemed constitutional by the supreme court supported by their Dread Scott decision. Until the 14th amendment ratification and the creation of the civil rights act of 1866 that would've should've could've is moot.

Just saying that the SCOTUS had to be wrong.
The Dread Scott decision had to be wrong.
Which just shows how we still need more progressive reform, most likely.
And that is why I disagree with those who support Originalism, like Scalia.
The Founders did not get it all perfect, and we still need to fix some things that we always interpreted wrong.

shrugs again not would've should've could've what did the laws say at the time?

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

you're quoting the 14th amendment it wasn't ratified until 1868 the civil rights act of 1866 gave citizenship rights to blacks

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. I cited Article the Fourth, Section the Second.

 

[Rigby5]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not disagreeing that they did not get citizenship rights.
But I also agree with "danielp", that they should have had citizenship rights.
Their ancestors were taken as slaves and shipped her under the power of the crown, not US law.
And the whole point of the rebellion was a rejection of the arbitrary authority of the crown.
There really never was any ability under US law then for slavery to ever exist or for people born here to be slaves just because their parents or other ancestors had illegally been treated as slaves.
The founders really had no authority to allow slavery from British rule to continue.
I realize it was really a state issue back then.
But we really should not have needed a 14th amendment.
It should already have been intuitive.
Which is what I think "danielp" is saying.
That those born here should have been full US citizens, regardless of he status of their parents.

It's not about should've would've could've laws prevented it from happening laws deemed constitutional by the supreme court supported by their Dread Scott decision. Until the 14th amendment ratification and the creation of the civil rights act of 1866 that would've should've could've is moot.

Just saying that the SCOTUS had to be wrong.
The Dread Scott decision had to be wrong.
Which just shows how we still need more progressive reform, most likely.
And that is why I disagree with those who support Originalism, like Scalia.
The Founders did not get it all perfect, and we still need to fix some things that we always interpreted wrong.

shrugs again not would've should've could've what did the laws say at the time?

The basis for law then as now, is that in a democratic republic, all legal authority comes from inherent rights of individuals only, and government only borrows or acts on delegated authority by defending the rights of those individuals.

The only problem then with the SCOTUS decision making process is that states then were considered superior to the federal government when it came to everything the feds were not specifically given jurisdiction over.
And the feds were never given jurisdiction over protecting individuals from things like slavery, until the 14th amendment.

The specific task facing the SCOTUS over Dred Scott case was that to end slavery would mean taking from slave holders without compensation, which violates another section of the constitution. But at least the SCOTUS should have ruled that anyone born in this country was a citizen and not a slave, at the very least.

 

[Rigby5]

There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution and we should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass.

You are right.
We shouldn't have an illegal problem.
Thats why we are building the wall, and deporting those that shouldn't be here.

But who then should be here, since the European immigrants that killed native Americans don't have a right to be here, nor their descendants. You don't get rightful ownership by murdering the previous owner.

 

[Billiejeens]

There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution and we should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass.

You are right.
We shouldn't have an illegal problem.
Thats why we are building the wall, and deporting those that shouldn't be here.

But who then should be here, since the European immigrants that killed native Americans don't have a right to be here, nor their descendants. You don't get rightful ownership by murdering the previous owner.

Why don't you?

 

[Rigby5]

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

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

Northern STATES began emancipating their slaves. Southern STATES didn't. Unlike today, the Federal government had very little direct power over the states.

The Union was starting to abolish the slave trade after 1808.

Not really Daniel. In fact the number of slaves increased by 1,000 percent between the years 1808 until emancipation. Slave breeding became an industry after 1808.

You are both right.
Slavery was on the decline, UNTIL the invention of the cotton gin in 1794.
Then cotton became much more valuable and slavery greatly increased again.

 

[Rigby5]

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

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

Northern STATES began emancipating their slaves. Southern STATES didn't. Unlike today, the Federal government had very little direct power over the states.

The Union was starting to abolish the slave trade after 1808.

just because a state abolished slavery did not give rights to slave and free blacks

The Declaration of Independence does say that all individuals are endowed with inherent rights.
There was no way to prevent citizenship of Blacks born here without violating the principles Jefferson documented.

 

[Rigby5]

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

www.cbsnews.com

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats

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

www.breitbart.com

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

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

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

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

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

You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.

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

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

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

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



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

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

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






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

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

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

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

www.cbsnews.com

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.

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

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

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

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

no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats

More disingenuous white racist bullshit.

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

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

You've been nothing but a dribbling pile of fallacy

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

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

Except you didn't have the facts son.

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

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

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

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

Except black slaves weren't citizens, legally they were PROPERTY like a horse or a cow.

Not all blacks were slaves.

You are correct some bought their freedom and still didn't have citizenship rights.

But many escaped slaves did have US citizenship rights, such as Frederick Douglas.
{...
Frederick Douglass (born Frederick Augustus Washington Bailey; c. February 1818 – February 20, 1895)[1][4] was an American social reformer, abolitionist, orator, writer, and statesman. After escaping from slavery in Maryland, he became a national leader of the abolitionist movement in Massachusetts and New York, becoming famous for his oratory[5] and incisive antislavery writings. Accordingly, he was described by abolitionists in his time as a living counter-example to slaveholders' arguments that slaves lacked the intellectual capacity to function as independent American citizens.[6][7] Likewise, Northerners at the time found it hard to believe that such a great orator had once been a slave.[8]
...}

Frederick Douglass - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He had to have a passport to be able to travel and return to the US.
And we know he traveled to England many times.

 

[Rigby5]

There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution and we should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass.

You are right.
We shouldn't have an illegal problem.
Thats why we are building the wall, and deporting those that shouldn't be here.

But who then should be here, since the European immigrants that killed native Americans don't have a right to be here, nor their descendants. You don't get rightful ownership by murdering the previous owner.

Why don't you?

Because murdering is a crime, and our laws do not allow one to profit from a crime like murder.
You punish murderers, not reward them.

In general, the point is keeping out immigrants from south of the border is hypocrisy since they are natives and we descendants of Europeans are not.

 

[IM2]

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

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

Northern STATES began emancipating their slaves. Southern STATES didn't. Unlike today, the Federal government had very little direct power over the states.

The Union was starting to abolish the slave trade after 1808.

Not really Daniel. In fact the number of slaves increased by 1,000 percent between the years 1808 until emancipation. Slave breeding became an industry after 1808.

Illegals refusing to bear true witness to our own supreme law of the land?

African Slave Trade Patrol[1] was part of the suppression of the Atlantic slave trade between 1819 and the beginning of the American Civil War in 1861. Due to the abolitionist movement in the United States, a squadron of U.S. Navy warships and Cutters were assigned to catch slave traders in and around Africa. In 42 years about 100 suspected slave ships were captured.[2][3]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Slave_Trade_Patrol

The abolitionist movement "gained steam" after 1808.

We are told how the so-called founders of this country created the way to end slavery when they wrote the constitution. Many will cite the fact they made the importation of slaves illegal by 1808 as evidence. But refusing to stop importing slaves did not end the slaving business in the United States. What it produced was an original American industry-slave breeding.

"During the fifty-three years from the prohibition of the African slave trade by federal law in 1808 to the debacle of the Confederate States of America in 1861, the Southern economy depended on the functioning of a slave-breeding industry, of which Virginia was the number-one supplier."

Ned & Constance Sublette, The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry​

You see, if America had continued to import slaves, it would have diluted the market thereby driving down the price for slaves. Slave sellers could not have this. So instead of the truth, we are told that “our nearer to God than thee” founders in all their benevolent glory, looked towards a future whereby slavery would be no more. According to some, the so-called founders had a dream whereby little black boys and little black girls would no longer be enslaved because of the color of their skin. This is the story we are supposed to believe. However, reality does not show that.

“In fact, most American slaves were not kidnapped on another continent. Though over 12.7 million Africans were forced onto ships to the Western hemisphere, estimates only have 400,000-500,000 landing in present-day America. How then to account for the four million black slaves who were tilling fields in 1860? “The South,” the Sublettes write, “did not only produce tobacco, rice, sugar, and cotton as commodities for sale; it produced people.” Slavers called slave-breeding “natural increase,” but there was nothing natural about producing slaves; it took scientific management. Thomas Jefferson bragged to George Washington that the birth of black children was increasing Virginia’s capital stock by four percent annually.”

Ned & Constance Sublette, The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry​

To be blunt, America had slave breeding “factories” where slaves were forced to breed. I call them factories but in most cases they are described as farms. These “farms” generally had at least a 2:1 female to male ratio. In some states, slave production was the number 1 industry. Virginia led the nation in slave production and PRESIDENT Thomas Jefferson was one of the main producers. The slave breeding industry has been hidden and left out of the annals of American history. This was done on purpose.

This industry included the first employer-based health care program. Female slaves were the first people in America to get free health care. I do not say this to be funny because the reason why that happened was both sad and simple; after the importation of slaves was made illegal, white dependence on slave labor hinged on the continued births of healthy children. After importation was made illegal, the only way left to maintain the system was by increasing the number of slaves through births. Due to this, a black women’s ability to reproduce was of the utmost economic importance to southern planters and to the slave breeders.

During slavery, more specifically during the 19th century, wealthy slaveowners looking for a way to get additional capital to buy more slaves came up with an idea- slave backed securities. Your eyes are not playing tricks on you. Slaveowners securitized slavery. Cornell professors Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman detailed how it was done in an article published by the Chicago Sun-Times on its website dated March 7, 2014. This is from the article:

In the 1830s, powerful Southern slaveowners wanted to import capital into their states so they could buy more slaves. They came up with a new, two-part idea: mortgaging slaves; and then turning the mortgages into bonds that could be marketed all over the world.

First, American planters organized new banks, usually in new states like Mississippi and Louisiana. Drawing up lists of slaves for collateral, the planters then mortgaged them to the banks they had created, enabling themselves to buy additional slaves to expand cotton production. To provide capital for those loans, the banks sold bonds to investors from around the globe — London, New York, Amsterdam, Paris. The bond buyers, many of whom lived in countries where slavery was illegal, didn’t own individual slaves — just bonds backed by their value. Planters’ mortgage payments paid the interest and the principle on these bond payments. Enslaved human beings had been, in modern financial lingo, “securitized.”

As slave-backed mortgages became paper bonds, everybody profited — except, obviously, enslaved African Americans whose forced labor repaid owners’ mortgages. But investors owed a piece of slave-earned income. Older slave states such as Maryland and Virginia sold slaves to the new cotton states, at securitization-inflated prices, resulting in slave asset bubble. Cotton factor firms like the now-defunct Lehman Brothers — founded in Alabama — became wildly successful. Lehman moved to Wall Street, and for all these firms, every transaction in slave-earned money flowing in and out of the U.S. earned Wall Street firms a fee.

The infant American financial industry nourished itself on profits taken from financing slave traders, cotton brokers and underwriting slave-backed bonds. But though slavery ended in 1865, in the years after the Civil War, black entrepreneurs would find themselves excluded from a financial system originally built on their bodies.

Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves
​

Ned & Constance Sublette, The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry, Chicago, Lawrence Hill Books, 2016, pg.1

Ned & Constance Sublette, The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry, Chicago, Lawrence Hill Books, 2016, pg. 84

William Spivey, The Truth About American Slave Breeding Farms, June 9, 2019, The Truth About American Slave Breeding Farms

Rashid Booker, Slave Breeding Farms of "Africans in North America", https://www.academia.edu/9864206/Slave_Breeding_Farms_of_Africans_in_North_America_

Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936 to 1938, Library of Congress, Articles and Essays | Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936-1938 | Digital Collections | Library of Congress

Elizabeth Keckley, Behind the Scenes: Or, Thirty Years a Slave, and Four Years in the White House, 1868, New York: G. W. Carleton & Co., Publishers, 1868., pp. 38-39, Keckley, Elizabeth, ca. 1818-1907. "Behind the Scenes, or, Thirty years a Slave and Four Years in the White House",

America’s slaves breeding farms: what history books never told you, February 26, 2020, America’s slaves breeding farms: what history books never told you

Isaac Somto, Buck Breaking, How African Male Slaves Were Raped, July 27, 2020, https://vocalafrica.com/buck-breaking-afrcan-male-slaves/

Jason Kottke, A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry in the United States, Feb 02, 2016, https://kottke.org/16/02/a-history-of-the-slave-breeding-industry-in-the-united-states

Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves, Chicago Sun-Times.com March 7, 2014, derived from: https://norbertobarreto.blog/2014/03/14/american-finance-grew-on-the-back-of-slaves/

​

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

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

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

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

Tell that to the states that became the Confederacy, not to us. You can claim anything you want, the reality was something different.

Levying War against the Union was Treason. Why did the South not insist on Eminent Domain which was a Legal right; why did the South prefer to be Illegal?

It's called states rights, not eminent domain and the states did claim that right.

States had no rights over Entry into the Union after 1808.

dumbass 1808 is still the same as 1790 and until 1866
WHICH MEANS YOU'RE WRONG

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

www.cbsnews.com

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats

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

www.breitbart.com

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

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

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

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

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

You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.

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

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

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

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



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

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

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






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

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

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

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

www.cbsnews.com

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.

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

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

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

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

no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats

More disingenuous white racist bullshit.

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

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

You've been nothing but a dribbling pile of fallacy

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

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

Except you didn't have the facts son.

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

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

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

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

Except black slaves weren't citizens, legally they were PROPERTY like a horse or a cow.

Not all blacks were slaves.

You are correct some bought their freedom and still didn't have citizenship rights.

But many escaped slaves did have US citizenship rights, such as Frederick Douglas.
{...
Frederick Douglass (born Frederick Augustus Washington Bailey; c. February 1818 – February 20, 1895)[1][4] was an American social reformer, abolitionist, orator, writer, and statesman. After escaping from slavery in Maryland, he became a national leader of the abolitionist movement in Massachusetts and New York, becoming famous for his oratory[5] and incisive antislavery writings. Accordingly, he was described by abolitionists in his time as a living counter-example to slaveholders' arguments that slaves lacked the intellectual capacity to function as independent American citizens.[6][7] Likewise, Northerners at the time found it hard to believe that such a great orator had once been a slave.[8]
...}

Frederick Douglass - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He had to have a passport to be able to travel and return to the US.
And we know he traveled to England many times.

Have you ever heard of the Dread Scott Decision? that means you're wrong

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

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

Northern STATES began emancipating their slaves. Southern STATES didn't. Unlike today, the Federal government had very little direct power over the states.

The Union was starting to abolish the slave trade after 1808.

just because a state abolished slavery did not give rights to slave and free blacks

The Declaration of Independence does say that all individuals are endowed with inherent rights.
There was no way to prevent citizenship of Blacks born here without violating the principles Jefferson documented.

and slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights that's why you have the 3/5th compromise

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not disagreeing that they did not get citizenship rights.
But I also agree with "danielp", that they should have had citizenship rights.
Their ancestors were taken as slaves and shipped her under the power of the crown, not US law.
And the whole point of the rebellion was a rejection of the arbitrary authority of the crown.
There really never was any ability under US law then for slavery to ever exist or for people born here to be slaves just because their parents or other ancestors had illegally been treated as slaves.
The founders really had no authority to allow slavery from British rule to continue.
I realize it was really a state issue back then.
But we really should not have needed a 14th amendment.
It should already have been intuitive.
Which is what I think "danielp" is saying.
That those born here should have been full US citizens, regardless of he status of their parents.

It's not about should've would've could've laws prevented it from happening laws deemed constitutional by the supreme court supported by their Dread Scott decision. Until the 14th amendment ratification and the creation of the civil rights act of 1866 that would've should've could've is moot.

Just saying that the SCOTUS had to be wrong.
The Dread Scott decision had to be wrong.
Which just shows how we still need more progressive reform, most likely.
And that is why I disagree with those who support Originalism, like Scalia.
The Founders did not get it all perfect, and we still need to fix some things that we always interpreted wrong.

shrugs again not would've should've could've what did the laws say at the time?

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

you're quoting the 14th amendment it wasn't ratified until 1868 the civil rights act of 1866 gave citizenship rights to blacks

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. I cited Article the Fourth, Section the Second.

No I'm not wrong but you are so far from being right you're having to lie to yourself
The way you write tells me you aren't an American
Who in the fuck writes this way?
"I cited Article the Fourth, Section the Second."
You cited what article

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not disagreeing that they did not get citizenship rights.
But I also agree with "danielp", that they should have had citizenship rights.
Their ancestors were taken as slaves and shipped her under the power of the crown, not US law.
And the whole point of the rebellion was a rejection of the arbitrary authority of the crown.
There really never was any ability under US law then for slavery to ever exist or for people born here to be slaves just because their parents or other ancestors had illegally been treated as slaves.
The founders really had no authority to allow slavery from British rule to continue.
I realize it was really a state issue back then.
But we really should not have needed a 14th amendment.
It should already have been intuitive.
Which is what I think "danielp" is saying.
That those born here should have been full US citizens, regardless of he status of their parents.

It's not about should've would've could've laws prevented it from happening laws deemed constitutional by the supreme court supported by their Dread Scott decision. Until the 14th amendment ratification and the creation of the civil rights act of 1866 that would've should've could've is moot.

Just saying that the SCOTUS had to be wrong.
The Dread Scott decision had to be wrong.
Which just shows how we still need more progressive reform, most likely.
And that is why I disagree with those who support Originalism, like Scalia.
The Founders did not get it all perfect, and we still need to fix some things that we always interpreted wrong.

shrugs again not would've should've could've what did the laws say at the time?

The basis for law then as now, is that in a democratic republic, all legal authority comes from inherent rights of individuals only, and government only borrows or acts on delegated authority by defending the rights of those individuals.

The only problem then with the SCOTUS decision making process is that states then were considered superior to the federal government when it came to everything the feds were not specifically given jurisdiction over.
And the feds were never given jurisdiction over protecting individuals from things like slavery, until the 14th amendment.

The specific task facing the SCOTUS over Dred Scott case was that to end slavery would mean taking from slave holders without compensation, which violates another section of the constitution. But at least the SCOTUS should have ruled that anyone born in this country was a citizen and not a slave, at the very least.

Dread Scott stated blacks and slaves did not have rights

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Being infidels to our own Constitution was the problem.

It's not your constitution

 

[danielpalos]

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

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

Northern STATES began emancipating their slaves. Southern STATES didn't. Unlike today, the Federal government had very little direct power over the states.

The Union was starting to abolish the slave trade after 1808.

Not really Daniel. In fact the number of slaves increased by 1,000 percent between the years 1808 until emancipation. Slave breeding became an industry after 1808.

Illegals refusing to bear true witness to our own supreme law of the land?

African Slave Trade Patrol[1] was part of the suppression of the Atlantic slave trade between 1819 and the beginning of the American Civil War in 1861. Due to the abolitionist movement in the United States, a squadron of U.S. Navy warships and Cutters were assigned to catch slave traders in and around Africa. In 42 years about 100 suspected slave ships were captured.[2][3]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Slave_Trade_Patrol

The abolitionist movement "gained steam" after 1808.

We are told how the so-called founders of this country created the way to end slavery when they wrote the constitution. Many will cite the fact they made the importation of slaves illegal by 1808 as evidence. But refusing to stop importing slaves did not end the slaving business in the United States. What it produced was an original American industry-slave breeding.

"During the fifty-three years from the prohibition of the African slave trade by federal law in 1808 to the debacle of the Confederate States of America in 1861, the Southern economy depended on the functioning of a slave-breeding industry, of which Virginia was the number-one supplier."

Ned & Constance Sublette, The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry​

You see, if America had continued to import slaves, it would have diluted the market thereby driving down the price for slaves. Slave sellers could not have this. So instead of the truth, we are told that “our nearer to God than thee” founders in all their benevolent glory, looked towards a future whereby slavery would be no more. According to some, the so-called founders had a dream whereby little black boys and little black girls would no longer be enslaved because of the color of their skin. This is the story we are supposed to believe. However, reality does not show that.

“In fact, most American slaves were not kidnapped on another continent. Though over 12.7 million Africans were forced onto ships to the Western hemisphere, estimates only have 400,000-500,000 landing in present-day America. How then to account for the four million black slaves who were tilling fields in 1860? “The South,” the Sublettes write, “did not only produce tobacco, rice, sugar, and cotton as commodities for sale; it produced people.” Slavers called slave-breeding “natural increase,” but there was nothing natural about producing slaves; it took scientific management. Thomas Jefferson bragged to George Washington that the birth of black children was increasing Virginia’s capital stock by four percent annually.”

Ned & Constance Sublette, The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry​

To be blunt, America had slave breeding “factories” where slaves were forced to breed. I call them factories but in most cases they are described as farms. These “farms” generally had at least a 2:1 female to male ratio. In some states, slave production was the number 1 industry. Virginia led the nation in slave production and PRESIDENT Thomas Jefferson was one of the main producers. The slave breeding industry has been hidden and left out of the annals of American history. This was done on purpose.

This industry included the first employer-based health care program. Female slaves were the first people in America to get free health care. I do not say this to be funny because the reason why that happened was both sad and simple; after the importation of slaves was made illegal, white dependence on slave labor hinged on the continued births of healthy children. After importation was made illegal, the only way left to maintain the system was by increasing the number of slaves through births. Due to this, a black women’s ability to reproduce was of the utmost economic importance to southern planters and to the slave breeders.

During slavery, more specifically during the 19th century, wealthy slaveowners looking for a way to get additional capital to buy more slaves came up with an idea- slave backed securities. Your eyes are not playing tricks on you. Slaveowners securitized slavery. Cornell professors Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman detailed how it was done in an article published by the Chicago Sun-Times on its website dated March 7, 2014. This is from the article:

In the 1830s, powerful Southern slaveowners wanted to import capital into their states so they could buy more slaves. They came up with a new, two-part idea: mortgaging slaves; and then turning the mortgages into bonds that could be marketed all over the world.

First, American planters organized new banks, usually in new states like Mississippi and Louisiana. Drawing up lists of slaves for collateral, the planters then mortgaged them to the banks they had created, enabling themselves to buy additional slaves to expand cotton production. To provide capital for those loans, the banks sold bonds to investors from around the globe — London, New York, Amsterdam, Paris. The bond buyers, many of whom lived in countries where slavery was illegal, didn’t own individual slaves — just bonds backed by their value. Planters’ mortgage payments paid the interest and the principle on these bond payments. Enslaved human beings had been, in modern financial lingo, “securitized.”

As slave-backed mortgages became paper bonds, everybody profited — except, obviously, enslaved African Americans whose forced labor repaid owners’ mortgages. But investors owed a piece of slave-earned income. Older slave states such as Maryland and Virginia sold slaves to the new cotton states, at securitization-inflated prices, resulting in slave asset bubble. Cotton factor firms like the now-defunct Lehman Brothers — founded in Alabama — became wildly successful. Lehman moved to Wall Street, and for all these firms, every transaction in slave-earned money flowing in and out of the U.S. earned Wall Street firms a fee.

The infant American financial industry nourished itself on profits taken from financing slave traders, cotton brokers and underwriting slave-backed bonds. But though slavery ended in 1865, in the years after the Civil War, black entrepreneurs would find themselves excluded from a financial system originally built on their bodies.

Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves
​

Ned & Constance Sublette, The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry, Chicago, Lawrence Hill Books, 2016, pg.1

Ned & Constance Sublette, The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry, Chicago, Lawrence Hill Books, 2016, pg. 84

William Spivey, The Truth About American Slave Breeding Farms, June 9, 2019, The Truth About American Slave Breeding Farms

Rashid Booker, Slave Breeding Farms of "Africans in North America", https://www.academia.edu/9864206/Slave_Breeding_Farms_of_Africans_in_North_America_

Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936 to 1938, Library of Congress, Articles and Essays | Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936-1938 | Digital Collections | Library of Congress

Elizabeth Keckley, Behind the Scenes: Or, Thirty Years a Slave, and Four Years in the White House, 1868, New York: G. W. Carleton & Co., Publishers, 1868., pp. 38-39, Keckley, Elizabeth, ca. 1818-1907. "Behind the Scenes, or, Thirty years a Slave and Four Years in the White House",

America’s slaves breeding farms: what history books never told you, February 26, 2020, America’s slaves breeding farms: what history books never told you

Isaac Somto, Buck Breaking, How African Male Slaves Were Raped, July 27, 2020, Buck Breaking, How African Male Slaves Were Raped | Vocal Africa

Jason Kottke, A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry in the United States, Feb 02, 2016, A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry in the United States

Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves, Chicago Sun-Times.com March 7, 2014, derived from: American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves

​

Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was supposed to be a citizen of the Union as well as one of the several States.

 

[danielpalos]

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

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

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

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

Tell that to the states that became the Confederacy, not to us. You can claim anything you want, the reality was something different.

Levying War against the Union was Treason. Why did the South not insist on Eminent Domain which was a Legal right; why did the South prefer to be Illegal?

It's called states rights, not eminent domain and the states did claim that right.

States had no rights over Entry into the Union after 1808.

dumbass 1808 is still the same as 1790 and until 1866
WHICH MEANS YOU'RE WRONG

Only if you appeal to ignorance, like usual for the right wing. Entry into the Union was federal jurisdiction after 1808. Thus, anyone born in the Union after 1808 was supposed to be a citizen. And, if it was true for a person it was supposed to be true for any person.

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