3/5 Of A Human Being

[Leo123]

Behavior is still behavior. Why are confederate statues coming down after over a hundred years?

Behavior is dictated by the morays of society at the time. In order to understand history you have to actually study it instead of relying on idiots who decide they hate America for something that happened hundreds of years ago. Yes, when we look back now, we see Slavery was an abomination and it took time and battles to overcome that institution. Tearing down statues effectively erases history and future generations will likely repeat what they are ignorant of.

 

[danielpalos]

So here's the thing: Leftist jurists long ago declared that all benefits made available to residents of a state were to be made available to all PERSONS residing there. Hence, ALL of the Social Safety Net MUST be made available to people who are ILLEGALLY IN THE COUNTRY. Free public school for their children (a dubious benefit to be sure, but whatever...), food stamps, welfare, housing subsidies, in-state college tuition rates, MEDICAID, and on and on. ILLEGALS GET THEM ON THE SAME BASIS AS CITIZENS AND LEGAL RESIDENTS, because of Leftists judges who declared it.

So now, the states can say with a straight face that the illegals should be counted for census purposes because THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE FOR THEM WITH TAX DOLLARS.

But it goes further than that. Democrats WANT to provide for illegals, because they plan to LEGALIZE then NATURALIZE them the minute they take over the Federal government. Then the former-illegals will be guaranteed Democrat votes for GENERATIONS.

There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution. This would not be a problem if the right wing were not illegal to our own laws. We should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass and should be making money from foreign nationals not losing money; only lousy Capitalists do that.

 

[danielpalos]

Behavior is still behavior. Why are confederate statues coming down after over a hundred years?

Behavior is dictated by the morays of society at the time. In order to understand history you have to actually study it instead of relying on idiots who decide they hate America for something that happened hundreds of years ago. Yes when we look back we now see Slavery was an abomination and it took time and battles to overcome. Tearing down statues effectively erases history and future generations will likely repeat what they are ignorant of.

The South was Illegal in rebelling. It was not a moray but bigotry and made up racism to cover their bigotry. The North was gradually emancipating their slave population because blacks were citizens after 1808. Black codes were also illegal and eventually overturned. Why do we have problems now if not for Behavior?

 

[Leo123]

Behavior is still behavior. Why are confederate statues coming down after over a hundred years?

Behavior is dictated by the morays of society at the time. In order to understand history you have to actually study it instead of relying on idiots who decide they hate America for something that happened hundreds of years ago. Yes when we look back we now see Slavery was an abomination and it took time and battles to overcome. Tearing down statues effectively erases history and future generations will likely repeat what they are ignorant of.

The South was Illegal in rebelling. It was not a moray but bigotry and made up racism to cover their bigotry. The North was gradually emancipating their slave population because blacks were citizens after 1808. Black codes were also illegal and eventually overturned. Why do we have problems now if not for Behavior?

People back then generally did not think slavery was bigotry. That is a modern term that we LEARNED from our history. You want to erase history which is ignorant and stupid. No one is celebrating slavery today. I know it's hard for some people like you to understand that evil lies within every human being. Even you. The way we curb it is understanding the bad things that went before. Tearing down our History is a guarantee to repeat that evil. We have problems today because there is power to be had in the term 'racism' which largely no longer exists in any great extent America today.

 

[danielpalos]

Behavior is still behavior. Why are confederate statues coming down after over a hundred years?

Behavior is dictated by the morays of society at the time. In order to understand history you have to actually study it instead of relying on idiots who decide they hate America for something that happened hundreds of years ago. Yes when we look back we now see Slavery was an abomination and it took time and battles to overcome. Tearing down statues effectively erases history and future generations will likely repeat what they are ignorant of.

The South was Illegal in rebelling. It was not a moray but bigotry and made up racism to cover their bigotry. The North was gradually emancipating their slave population because blacks were citizens after 1808. Black codes were also illegal and eventually overturned. Why do we have problems now if not for Behavior?

People back then generally did not think slavery was bigotry. That is a modern term that we LEARNED from our history. You want to erase history which is ignorant and stupid. No one is celebrating slavery today. I know it's hard for some people like you to understand that evil lies within every human being. Even you. The way we curb it is understanding the bad things that went before. Tearing down our History is a guarantee to repeat that evil.

You need to learn some history and actually study it. Europeans voluntarily gave up slavery as did the North. The Dred Scott decision was nothing but bigotry since any Jurist understood our declaration of Independence and blacks were citizens after 1808.

 

[Leo123]

You need to learn some history and actually study it. Europeans voluntarily gave up slavery as did the North. The Dred Scott decision was nothing but bigotry since any Jurist understood our declaration of Independence and blacks were citizens after 1808.

OK you are a simpleton.


"Forced labour is the most prevalent form of modern slavery in Europe and Central Asia, according to new data published on Wednesday."

"The rate of forced labour (3.6 per 1,000 people) in both regions — considered as one in the report — was higher than the rate of forced marriage (0.4 per 1,000 people)."

Forced labour 'most prevalent form of modern slavery in Europe'

Even though Europe has the lowest rates of forced marriage, it still has high rates of forced labour, particularly in eastern Europe,

www.euronews.com

"Men working in agriculture, hospitality and fisheries are most at risk of exploitation, according to human rights body."




"Labor trafficking and exploitation is on the rise in Europe, according to a new report by the Council of Europe published Tuesday."

‘Modern-day slavery’ on the rise in Europe: report

Men working in agriculture, hospitality and fisheries are most at risk of exploitation, according to human rights body.

www.politico.eu

Apparently Europe didn't learn their lesson. Go protest over there.

 

[danielpalos]

You need to learn some history and actually study it. Europeans voluntarily gave up slavery as did the North. The Dred Scott decision was nothing but bigotry since any Jurist understood our declaration of Independence and blacks were citizens after 1808.

OK you are a simpleton.


"Forced labour is the most prevalent form of modern slavery in Europe and Central Asia, according to new data published on Wednesday."

"The rate of forced labour (3.6 per 1,000 people) in both regions — considered as one in the report — was higher than the rate of forced marriage (0.4 per 1,000 people)."

Forced labour 'most prevalent form of modern slavery in Europe'

Even though Europe has the lowest rates of forced marriage, it still has high rates of forced labour, particularly in eastern Europe,

www.euronews.com

"Men working in agriculture, hospitality and fisheries are most at risk of exploitation, according to human rights body."




"Labor trafficking and exploitation is on the rise in Europe, according to a new report by the Council of Europe published Tuesday."

‘Modern-day slavery’ on the rise in Europe: report

Men working in agriculture, hospitality and fisheries are most at risk of exploitation, according to human rights body.

www.politico.eu

You are even more of a simpleton. Lousy laws do not make a right.

Victims are often reluctant to come forward as they may fear deportation or retaliation from criminal trafficking networks," according to Mullally. "Prosecutions and convictions of the perpetrators are also very rare."

We have no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution and should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass. All foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes.

 

[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."

One day i will understand you, then promptly jump

It's really easy to understand instead of allowing the slaveholding state unbalanced representation through slaves the actual representation number for slaves was reduced to 3/5th

3/5 of what?

Representation in the house of representatives

Slaves were not 3/5 of anything at the time

did slaves have voting rights before 1866?

 

[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."

One day i will understand you, then promptly jump

It's really easy to understand instead of allowing the slaveholding state unbalanced representation through slaves the actual representation number for slaves was reduced to 3/5th

3/5 of what?

Representation in the house of representatives

Slaves were not 3/5 of anything at the time

did slaves have voting rights before 1866?

They were citizens after 1808. The North was emancipating their slave population.

 

[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."

One day i will understand you, then promptly jump

It's really easy to understand instead of allowing the slaveholding state unbalanced representation through slaves the actual representation number for slaves was reduced to 3/5th

3/5 of what?

Representation in the house of representatives

Slaves were not 3/5 of anything at the time

did slaves have voting rights before 1866?

They were citizens after 1808. The North was emancipating their slave population.

link where slaves in the U.S had voting rights.

 

[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."

One day i will understand you, then promptly jump

It's really easy to understand instead of allowing the slaveholding state unbalanced representation through slaves the actual representation number for slaves was reduced to 3/5th

3/5 of what?

Representation in the house of representatives

Slaves were not 3/5 of anything at the time

did slaves have voting rights before 1866?

They were citizens after 1808. The North was emancipating their slave population.

link where slaves in the U.S had voting rights.

Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by natural born birth because that is when the general Government of the Union assumed supremacy over entry into the Union. Women should have also had the franchise by birth because our federal Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.

 

[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."

One day i will understand you, then promptly jump

It's really easy to understand instead of allowing the slaveholding state unbalanced representation through slaves the actual representation number for slaves was reduced to 3/5th

3/5 of what?

Representation in the house of representatives

Slaves were not 3/5 of anything at the time

did slaves have voting rights before 1866?

They were citizens after 1808. The North was emancipating their slave population.

link where slaves in the U.S had voting rights.

Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by natural born birth because that is when the general Government of the Union assumed supremacy over entry into the Union.

Request number 2 link where slaves in the U.S had voting rights.

 

[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."

One day i will understand you, then promptly jump

It's really easy to understand instead of allowing the slaveholding state unbalanced representation through slaves the actual representation number for slaves was reduced to 3/5th

3/5 of what?

Representation in the house of representatives

Slaves were not 3/5 of anything at the time

did slaves have voting rights before 1866?

They were citizens after 1808. The North was emancipating their slave population.

link where slaves in the U.S had voting rights.

Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by natural born birth because that is when the general Government of the Union assumed supremacy over entry into the Union.

Request number 2 link where slaves in the U.S had voting rights.

They did not have voting rights at the time, and neither did women.

 

[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."

One day i will understand you, then promptly jump

It's really easy to understand instead of allowing the slaveholding state unbalanced representation through slaves the actual representation number for slaves was reduced to 3/5th

3/5 of what?

Representation in the house of representatives

Slaves were not 3/5 of anything at the time

did slaves have voting rights before 1866?

They were citizens after 1808. The North was emancipating their slave population.

link where slaves in the U.S had voting rights.

Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by natural born birth because that is when the general Government of the Union assumed supremacy over entry into the Union.

Request number 2 link where slaves in the U.S had voting rights.

They did not have voting rights at the time, and neither did women.

they didn't have voting rights more did they have a citizenship
They didn't get citizenship until after 1866 with the 1st civil rights act of 1866
The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited naturalization (and citizenship) to "free white persons," ruling out slaves and free blacks, as well.
Slaves did not have rights, Free blacks in the north had some rights within some states until dread scott decision of 1857 that specifically set forth that African slaves (and their descendants) could never be citizens and had no citizenship rights.

 

[Leo123]

You are even more of a simpleton. Lousy laws do not make a right.

I did not say slavery was right. I said at the time slavery was an institution and the social morays were different than now. That doesn't make it right today. Your posts reveal you have a very myopic and monolithic view of history.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are even more of a simpleton. Lousy laws do not make a right.

I did not say slavery was right. Apparently you think you're debating someone else.

you're having a discussion with someone who actually believes slaves in the U.S. had citizenship rights lol

 

[Leo123]

you're having a discussion with someone who actually believes slaves in the U.S. had citizenship rights lol

Yeah and also someone with no real understanding of American history or even world history.

 

[danielpalos]

You are even more of a simpleton. Lousy laws do not make a right.

I did not say slavery was right. I said at the time slavery was an institution and the social morays were different than now. That doesn't make it right today. Your posts reveal you have a monolithic view of history.

Your posts reveal a lack of understanding of simple English.

 

[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."

One day i will understand you, then promptly jump

It's really easy to understand instead of allowing the slaveholding state unbalanced representation through slaves the actual representation number for slaves was reduced to 3/5th

3/5 of what?

Representation in the house of representatives

Slaves were not 3/5 of anything at the time

did slaves have voting rights before 1866?

They were citizens after 1808. The North was emancipating their slave population.

link where slaves in the U.S had voting rights.

Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by natural born birth because that is when the general Government of the Union assumed supremacy over entry into the Union.

Request number 2 link where slaves in the U.S had voting rights.

They did not have voting rights at the time, and neither did women.

they didn't have voting rights more did they have a citizenship
They didn't get citizenship until after 1866 with the 1st civil rights act of 1866
The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited naturalization (and citizenship) to "free white persons," ruling out slaves and free blacks, as well.
Slaves did not have rights, Free blacks in the north had some rights within some states until dread scott decision of 1857 that specifically set forth that African slaves (and their descendants) could never be citizens and had no citizenship rights.

They should have been natural born citizens after 1808. Entry into the Union was a federal matter then.

 

[danielpalos]

You are even more of a simpleton. Lousy laws do not make a right.

I did not say slavery was right. I said at the time slavery was an institution and the social morays were different than now. That doesn't make it right today. Your posts reveal you have a very myopic and monolithic view of history.

Neither did I. You comprehension skills are lacking.