An Informal Debate on Race Relations in the United States Including Its History

[katsteve2012]

Okay then, you asked a question and I responded. You objected to that response and I didn't give a shit.

Have I correctly summarized things so far?

I didn't object to your response.....but I did give you feedback regarding it. You concluded that I objected.

So no, you did not "summarize correctly", IMO.

But if you believe that you did, there is no point in beating a dead horse.

I don't care one way or another.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The very first article IM put up says that blacks have had a HUGE increase in economic and educational achievement since 1968. That to me means they DID have those problems prior to the 1950's. I'm not a black historian--I'll let others here who know more about it speak to it.
But I think to say blacks were all hunky dory in the 50's and 60's is probably inaccurate. If they were doing so well they wouldn't have been eligible for welfare or public housing to begin with.

Good lord woman you sure love to change the context of what people type.
I did not say blacks were hunky dory before the 50s... obviously not. I said they did not have this self-defeating amoral culture that inner city blacks have; before liberal social policies gave them the handouts and free housing that bunched them together like caged animals.
Prior to this social engineering, blacks were a proud race of people that were hard working - VERY - family oriented, VERY religious and self disciplined. But they were plagued by genuine racism that prevented them from being able to be what they could be.
Early post civil rights, legally they were on level ground, but systemic white racism still plagued them. That continued really until the baby boomers retired/died off and my generation took over. Genuine racism began to quickly erode. And indeed suburban blacks were beginning to catch up with whites as early as the 1980s. But the inner city blacks were the ones the Democrats housed together away from the rest of society and gave them barely enough money to just survive. How the hell anyone thought this would work is insane. And thus, the great decline of inner city blacks was sealed.
Meanwhile, suburban blacks have made tremendous gains in every facet of our society.

Until Democrats can at the very least admit the social engineering was a colossal failure instead of continuing the same policies that created generational dependence in the first place! They do everything they can to encourage perceived racism and victimization that imprisons blacks into depending on their social programs to survive - and REFUSE to address all of the massive problems this creates.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I see that you are 7 pages into this discussion and most of what I'm going to post has been posted on this board at one time or another. It is accurate and you will find objective:

In 1620 the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock and once there they issued the first governing document of the New World. It contains these words:

In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.
Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid;

Mayflower Compact (Modern Version)

In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of …

faithandfreedomfootnotes.wordpress.com

Within a year approximately half of those that had made that voyage had died of starvation or disease. Yet the white people kept coming. In 1630, John Winthrop delivered a sermon aboard the Arbella as it made its voyage to this new land. The title of that sermon is A Model of Christian Charity and I bring that up because all the way up to JFK and Ronald Reagan, statesmen and presidents have referenced that sermon. In that sermon are many quotes to prove my thesis, but I'm only going to use one in order to make my point:

"Thus stands the cause between God and us. We are entered into covenant with Him for this work. We have taken out a commission. The Lord hath given us leave to draw our own articles. We have professed to enterprise these and those accounts, upon these and those ends. We have hereupon besought Him of favor and blessing. Now if the Lord shall please to hear us, and bring us in peace to the place we desire, then hath He ratified this covenant and sealed our commission,...."

https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A%20Model%20of%20Christian%20Charity.pdf

Winthrop made the case that the Puritans were in a covenant relationship with God and they saw this new land as the New Jerusalem of the Bible. This sermon shows that the Puritans believed that they were the Israelites mentioned in Jeremiah 31 - 31 through 34 that entered into a covenant with God for a monumental undertaking. In short, the Puritans swallowed up the Pilgrims who held that same basic presupposition and the rest is history. For more information on that aspect, see this:

What’s the Difference Between Puritans and Pilgrims? | HISTORY

Both the Pilgrims and Puritans sought a different religious practice than what the Church of England dictated, but they were otherwise distinct groups of people.

www.history.com

With respect to race, the colonists believed inter-racial marriage to be a sin and it was outlawed. According to Wikipedia:

"At first, in the 1660s, the first laws in Virginia and Maryland regulating marriage between whites and blacks only pertained to the marriages of whites with black (and mulatto) slaves and indentured servants. In 1664, Maryland enacted a law which criminalized such marriages—the 1681 marriage of Irish-born Nell Butler to an African slave was an early example of the application of this law. Virginia (1691) was the first English colony in North America to pass a law forbidding free blacks and whites to intermarry, followed by Maryland in 1692. This was the first time in American history that a law was invented that restricted access to marriage partners solely on the basis of "race", not class or condition of servitude.[10] Later these laws also spread to colonies in the Thirteen Colonies with fewer slaves and free blacks, such as Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. Moreover, after the independence of the United States had been established, similar laws were enacted in territories and states which outlawed slavery."

Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm leaving out a lot of history lest this quick glance back at history becomes too lengthy. But, let's fast forward to the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Right away, one would think this is the liberals dream of an integrated America; however, you read the Declaration of Independence a little closer and you see language like "the ravages of the savages" and there is no mistake WHO that document was intended to represent. We have Rights being bestowed upon us by a Creator; we read of a firm reliance on Divine Providence (language that is synonymous with a Christian God.) In any event, the Declaration of Independence lays out specific reasons we went to war. And so, the basic points I want to make in this short synopsis:

1) America was founded by whites who came here with little more than the shirts on their back to build a "shining city on a hill"

2) America's first governing document was for the advancement, protection, and furtherance of the Christian faith, NOT as a theocracy, but a land where colonists would seek religious Liberty

3) Just as any other people, the white Christians who were building their idea of a Great Nation, sought the Right of self determination. Insofar as the taking of land, they were guided by the prevailing law of Right of Conquest. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, that is the basis by which the colonists took America from uncivilized people and built a nation on the land they contend that God had preordained them to have in order to establish this New Jerusalem wherein all the nations of the earth would be blessed.

 

[freyasman]

"Maybe whites are still doing better because we come from a superior culture, with superior values. Maybe adopting those values and that culture would go a long way towards equalizing outcomes. But if folks choose not to use tactics proven to succeed, and instead keep on doing shit that has failed for generations, then that's on them.
And that's not systemic racism, that's a wide-scale failure to get one's shit together. "

And 243 years of laws and public policy say that whites are doing better because they created laws and policies that excluded blacks. That is not evidence of a superior culture or values. Now I am quite certain you don't want us to use the "sucessful" tactics whites used to do so much better.

But if you get into power, you are going to act no better than the people you hate, and I expect you will probably be a lot worse. Because you will be motivated by hatred and revenge for wrongs you believe done you and yours, some real, some not..... but it won't matter, because you will feel justified and righteous in the evil you will do.

 

[freyasman]

If the shoe don't fit, don't wear it. Your responses are consistently rude, disrespectful and triggered as if I had made a personal attack, where none is meant.
Maybe Coyote can empathize with how you're feeling, but this is getting pretty old.

Well, shit lady..... who did you think you were inviting?
I'm a mean, profane, violent Heathen bastard who has killed more people than a plane crash and doesn't really give a shit what anyone else thinks about anything, as long as they leave me alone.

What were you expecting?

 

[freyasman]

I didn't object to your response.....but I did give you feedback regarding it. You concluded that I objected.

So no, you did not "summarize correctly", IMO.

But if you believe that you did, there is no point in beating a dead horse.

I don't care one way or another.

If I misconstrued your response, then I apologize.

 

[OldLady]

Well, shit lady..... who did you think you were inviting?
I'm a mean, profane, violent Heathen bastard who has killed more people than a plane crash and doesn't really give a shit what anyone else thinks about anything, as long as they leave me alone.

What were you expecting?

I didn't invite you; Mariyam did. I'm just trying to keep the thing floating 'til she gets here.

 

[freyasman]

Good lord woman you sure love to change the context of what people type.
I did not say blacks were hunky dory before the 50s... obviously not. I said they did not have this self-defeating amoral culture that inner city blacks have; before liberal social policies gave them the handouts and free housing that bunched them together like caged animals.
Prior to this social engineering, blacks were a proud race of people that were hard working - VERY - family oriented, VERY religious and self disciplined. But they were plagued by genuine racism that prevented them from being able to be what they could be.
Early post civil rights, legally they were on level ground, but systemic white racism still plagued them. That continued really until the baby boomers retired/died off and my generation took over. Genuine racism began to quickly erode. And indeed suburban blacks were beginning to catch up with whites as early as the 1980s. But the inner city blacks were the ones the Democrats housed together away from the rest of society and gave them barely enough money to just survive. How the hell anyone thought this would work is insane. And thus, the great decline of inner city blacks was sealed.
Meanwhile, suburban blacks have made tremendous gains in every facet of our society.

Until Democrats can at the very least admit the social engineering was a colossal failure instead of continuing the same policies that created generational dependence in the first place! They do everything they can to encourage perceived racism and victimization that imprisons blacks into depending on their social programs to survive - and REFUSE to address all of the massive problems this creates.

I know and have known, some truly racist guys. I worked in a nightclub owned by a Klansman years ago. I actually met a white-power crew a few years ago, and I know one person who is related to an ABoT shotcaller up in Huntsville.
And the thing is, hardly any of these folks have any problem at all with regular black folks; they seem to get along just fine with them. But they absolutely hate and despise the ghetto thug/gangsta culture of the inner city blacks. And they aren't inclined to listen to any defense of them either. As far as I can tell, they don't hate black people, they hate a tiny sub-culture of predatory, violent criminals within a much larger group.

 

[freyasman]

I didn't invite you; Mariyam did. I'm just trying to keep the thing floating 'til she gets here.

That's right; sorry.... it was her.

 

[OldLady]

I see that you are 7 pages into this discussion and most of what I'm going to post has been posted on this board at one time or another. It is accurate and you will find objective:

In 1620 the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock and once there they issued the first governing document of the New World. It contains these words:

In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.
Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid;

Mayflower Compact (Modern Version)

In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of …

faithandfreedomfootnotes.wordpress.com

Within a year approximately half of those that had made that voyage had died of starvation or disease. Yet the white people kept coming. In 1630, John Winthrop delivered a sermon aboard the Arbella as it made its voyage to this new land. The title of that sermon is A Model of Christian Charity and I bring that up because all the way up to JFK and Ronald Reagan, statesmen and presidents have referenced that sermon. In that sermon are many quotes to prove my thesis, but I'm only going to use one in order to make my point:

"Thus stands the cause between God and us. We are entered into covenant with Him for this work. We have taken out a commission. The Lord hath given us leave to draw our own articles. We have professed to enterprise these and those accounts, upon these and those ends. We have hereupon besought Him of favor and blessing. Now if the Lord shall please to hear us, and bring us in peace to the place we desire, then hath He ratified this covenant and sealed our commission,...."

https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A%20Model%20of%20Christian%20Charity.pdf

Winthrop made the case that the Puritans were in a covenant relationship with God and they saw this new land as the New Jerusalem of the Bible. This sermon shows that the Puritans believed that they were the Israelites mentioned in Jeremiah 31 - 31 through 34 that entered into a covenant with God for a monumental undertaking. In short, the Puritans swallowed up the Pilgrims who held that same basic presupposition and the rest is history. For more information on that aspect, see this:

What’s the Difference Between Puritans and Pilgrims? | HISTORY

Both the Pilgrims and Puritans sought a different religious practice than what the Church of England dictated, but they were otherwise distinct groups of people.

www.history.com

With respect to race, the colonists believed inter-racial marriage to be a sin and it was outlawed. According to Wikipedia:

"At first, in the 1660s, the first laws in Virginia and Maryland regulating marriage between whites and blacks only pertained to the marriages of whites with black (and mulatto) slaves and indentured servants. In 1664, Maryland enacted a law which criminalized such marriages—the 1681 marriage of Irish-born Nell Butler to an African slave was an early example of the application of this law. Virginia (1691) was the first English colony in North America to pass a law forbidding free blacks and whites to intermarry, followed by Maryland in 1692. This was the first time in American history that a law was invented that restricted access to marriage partners solely on the basis of "race", not class or condition of servitude.[10] Later these laws also spread to colonies in the Thirteen Colonies with fewer slaves and free blacks, such as Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. Moreover, after the independence of the United States had been established, similar laws were enacted in territories and states which outlawed slavery."

Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm leaving out a lot of history lest this quick glance back at history becomes too lengthy. But, let's fast forward to the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Right away, one would think this is the liberals dream of an integrated America; however, you read the Declaration of Independence a little closer and you see language like "the ravages of the savages" and there is no mistake WHO that document was intended to represent. We have Rights being bestowed upon us by a Creator; we read of a firm reliance on Divine Providence (language that is synonymous with a Christian God.) In any event, the Declaration of Independence lays out specific reasons we went to war. And so, the basic points I want to make in this short synopsis:

1) America was founded by whites who came here with little more than the shirts on their back to build a "shining city on a hill"

2) America's first governing document was for the advancement, protection, and furtherance of the Christian faith, NOT as a theocracy, but a land where colonists would seek religious Liberty

3) Just as any other people, the white Christians who were building their idea of a Great Nation, sought the Right of self determination. Insofar as the taking of land, they were guided by the prevailing law of Right of Conquest. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, that is the basis by which the colonists took America from uncivilized people and built a nation on the land they contend that God had preordained them to have in order to establish this New Jerusalem wherein all the nations of the earth would be blessed.

Okay. How does that relate to the topic at hand?

 

[IM2]

But aren’t you lumping all whites together...doing what they do to you?

Why shouldn’t we both change our group assumptions?

This is the problem with this discussion. Number 1, I consistently refer to white racists. That eliminates whites who are not racist. Secondly, I refer to laws and policies made by the government because the government is responsible for creating the conditions. We are talking about a system that is predicated on white supremacy and when we do that whites lose their minds and start talking about what they did not do and who they did not own instead of looking at the policies and understanding what kind of damage they caused. Those policies benefited all white people regardless if you are racist or not. However recognizing who wrote and voted for the implementation of those laws gives you the names of the whites who created the problem.

Again we do not have the same experience here. White racists group us based upon a set of false beliefs. We do so as result of observed incidents and lived experience. But if we want to come together, we look at the laws and policies that allowed the individual acts to happen.

 

[IM2]

That was a real eye opener about the Enlightenment philosophers, by the way. Holy shit.

I felt the same way when I was researching this.

 

[IM2]

Fingers will be pointed until the damage is fixed.

 

[IM2]

IM2 Apparently Green & Blue has me on ignore. Would you tell him to stop posting here?

He won't listen to me. But I will the next time he posts.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POST # 152

In standing up to King George, the colonists presented to him the Declaration of Independence and subsequently we went to war (the War of Independence) and thirteen years later, the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. In the Constitution, the Americans began to wage a political war against slavery. The Constitution required:

"Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." Article I Section 9

" In 1807, the international slave trade was blocked and no more slaves were allowed to be imported legally into the United States."

What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts

Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution defines the legal limitations on Congress' powers. It covers habeas corpus, taxes, and foreign gifts.

www.thoughtco.com

So, in 1807 the newly formed United States began the process of dismantling slavery. I do want to say something that is honest and blunt here. There is nothing in the Bible that prohibits slavery. So, it posed no moral issue for the colonists from that perspective. OTOH, we had entered the age where everything was being questioned and slavery was on the minds of a lot of people. But, being wholly objective, the people of the United States have been brainwashed to believe that they are now "Gentiles" (goyim - meaning non human, cattle, heathen) and the Jews are God's chosen people. So, we give the Israelis everything they want from toothpicks to intercontinental ballistic missiles. NOBODY seems to have an issue with displacing native people in the Middle East to make way for the self determination of Jews laying a false claim to the land... and the liberals will tell you about the mythical "separation of church and state." I don't see the problem with white people seeking the Right of their own homeland and the Right of self determination. If we left the Middle East, quit guaranteeing the Israelis a lifestyle and minded our own business, I could not make a case for the whites having their own homeland....

But, our intentions were to have a homeland for the whites. The Constitution of the United States begins with a preamble. It reads:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I bolded that part about "secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" for a reason. The Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of the United States were written by white men appealing to a white Christian populace. In the Constitution of the United States, the framers gave Congress one and only ONE area of jurisdiction relative to foreigners. In Article I Section 8 of the Constitution:

"Congress shall the power ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"

Within months of the ratification of the Constitution, Congress fulfilled that duty:

"United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof..."

Of course, people on all sides of the political spectrum cannot fathom the meaning of what I just said. People conflate unalienable Rights of man with the benefits of citizenship as contemplated in the Constitution as originally written and intended. Who came and went within a state was a state's right. Slavery was a state's right. Today, the right cannot understand that concept and demand the federal government rely on unconstitutional laws to deal with foreigners. It is within the state's purview and NOT in federal jurisdiction. As evidence of that, although from our inception, non-whites could not become citizens, they were able to go most anywhere they wanted and engage in free market enterprise, subject to the state laws where they were.

I would only take up a really lot of bandwidth to explain this and it's been done by a legal mind far superior to mine. Judge Roger Taney laid out the history in his majority opinion in the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision (the ruling that inspired the illegally ratified 14th Amendment.) Taney wrote approximately 20 to 25 pages of laws that confirm what I've posted in this posting. I've not known anyone to actually read that ruling, but I continue to post a link to it just in case you want to see whether I am factually right or not:

DRED SCOTT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. JOHN F. A. SANDFORD.

www.law.cornell.edu

Here is a little excerpt from Taney's ruling:

"The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.
27
It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or law-making power; to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is, to interpret the instrument they have framed, with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted."

Taney is despised today for doing his job. He could not legislate and he didn't try to. He didn't get to play God and decide if the intent was acceptable or not. He merely upheld the law in spite of any political persuasion he had either way.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Okay. How does that relate to the topic at hand?

Read my second posting. Patience. You asked for history and all is relevant.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Can we get rid of uninvited people who are only going to troll?

There apparently are no moderators working presently.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Can I invite him in?

No

 

[IM2]

THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POST # 152

In standing up to King George, the colonists presented to him the Declaration of Independence and subsequently we went to war (the War of Independence) and thirteen years later, the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. In the Constitution, the Americans began to wage a political war against slavery. The Constitution required:

"Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." Article I Section 9

" In 1807, the international slave trade was blocked and no more slaves were allowed to be imported legally into the United States."

What the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 Restricts

Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution defines the legal limitations on Congress' powers. It covers habeas corpus, taxes, and foreign gifts.

www.thoughtco.com

So, in 1807 the newly formed United States began the process of dismantling slavery. I do want to say something that is honest and blunt here. There is nothing in the Bible that prohibits slavery. So, it posed no moral issue for the colonists from that perspective. OTOH, we had entered the age where everything was being questioned and slavery was on the minds of a lot of people. But, being wholly objective, the people of the United States have been brainwashed to believe that they are now "Gentiles" (goyim - meaning non human, cattle, heathen) and the Jews are God's chosen people. So, we give the Israelis everything they want from toothpicks to intercontinental ballistic missiles. NOBODY seems to have an issue with displacing native people in the Middle East to make way for the self determination of Jews laying a false claim to the land... and the liberals will tell you about the mythical "separation of church and state." I don't see the problem with white people seeking the Right of their own homeland and the Right of self determination. If we left the Middle East, quit guaranteeing the Israelis a lifestyle and minded our own business, I could not make a case for the whites having their own homeland....

But, our intentions were to have a homeland for the whites. The Constitution of the United States begins with a preamble. It reads:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I bolded that part about "secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" for a reason. The Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of the United States were written by white men appealing to a white Christian populace. In the Constitution of the United States, the framers gave Congress one and only ONE area of jurisdiction relative to foreigners. In Article I Section 8 of the Constitution:

"Congress shall the power ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"

Within months of the ratification of the Constitution, Congress fulfilled that duty:

"United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof..."

Of course, people on all sides of the political spectrum cannot fathom the meaning of what I just said. People conflate unalienable Rights of man with the benefits of citizenship as contemplated in the Constitution as originally written and intended. Who came and went within a state was a state's right. Slavery was a state's right. Today, the right cannot understand that concept and demand the federal government rely on unconstitutional laws to deal with foreigners. It is within the state's purview and NOT in federal jurisdiction. As evidence of that, although from our inception, non-whites could not become citizens, they were able to go most anywhere they wanted and engage in free market enterprise, subject to the state laws where they were.

I would only take up a really lot of bandwidth to explain this and it's been done by a legal mind far superior to mine. Judge Roger Taney laid out the history in his majority opinion in the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision (the ruling that inspired the illegally ratified 14th Amendment.) Taney wrote approximately 20 to 25 pages of laws that confirm what I've posted in this posting. I've not known anyone to actually read that ruling, but I continue to post a link to it just in case you want to see whether I am factually right or not:

DRED SCOTT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. JOHN F. A. SANDFORD.

www.law.cornell.edu

Here is a little excerpt from Taney's ruling:

"The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.
27
It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or law-making power; to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is, to interpret the instrument they have framed, with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted."

Taney is despised today for doing his job. He could not legislate and he didn't try to. He didn't get to play God and decide if the intent was acceptable or not. He merely upheld the law in spite of any political persuasion he had either way.

Here comes the christian identity junk. This country was already inhabited. You bought slaves over here. What YOU have done is validate Newsvines introduction. You have lose the debate already.

 

[IM2]

People want to talk about slavery, but years have passed after slavery people are scared to talk about .

Dr. Carol Anderson in her book, “White Rage”, chronicles the many methods whites used in the years after slavery to restrict the right for blacks to move around freely in America. Whites in the south used any means necessary to discourage blacks from moving north. In the north whites terrorized blacks competing for jobs with better pay as well as those trying to live in majority white neighborhoods.

According to Andersons research, “at the time of emancipation 80 percent of Americas GNP was tied to slavery.” This comment refers to the entire nation of America, not just the south. Blacks got none of the money. In January of 1865, Special Field Order 15 was issued.

I. The islands from Charleston south, the abandoned rice-fields along the rivers for thirty miles back from the sea, and the country bordering the Saint John's River, Fla., are reserved and set apart for the settlement of the negroes now made free by the acts of war and the proclamation of the President of the United States.

II. At Beaufort, Hilton Head, Savannah, Fernandina, Saint Augustine and Jacksonville the blacks may remain in their chosen or accustomed vocations; but on the islands, and in the settlements hereafter to be established, no white person whatever, unless military officers and soldiers detailed for duty, will be permitted to reside; and the sole and exclusive management of affairs will be left to the freed people themselves, subject only to the United States military authority and the acts of Congress.

By the laws of war and orders of the President of the United States, the negro is free, and must be dealt with as such. He cannot be subjected to conscription or forced military service, save by the written orders of the highest military authority of the Department, under such regulations as the President or Congress may prescribe; domestic servants, blacksmiths, carpenters, and other mechanics will be free to select their own work and residence, but the young and able-bodied negroes must be encouraged to enlist as soldiers in the service of the United States, to contribute their share toward maintaining their own freedom and securing their rights as citizens of the United States. Negroes so enlisted will be organized into companies, battalions, and regiments, under the orders of the United States military authorities, and will be paid, fed, and clothed according to law. The bounties paid on enlistment may, with the consent of the recruit, go to assist his family and settlement in procuring agricultural implements, seed, tools, boats, clothing, and other articles necessary for their livelihood.

III. Whenever three respectable negroes, heads of families, shall desire to settle on land, and shall have selected for that purpose an island, or a locality clearly defined within the limits above designated, the inspector of settlements and plantations will himself, or by such subordinate officer as he may appoint, give them a license to settle such island or district, and afford them such assistance as he can to enable them to establish a peaceable agricultural settlement.

The three parties named will subdivide the land, under the supervision of the inspector, among themselves and such others as may choose to settle near them, so that each family shall have a plot of not more than forty acres of tillable ground, and when it borders on some water channel with not more than 800 feet waterfront, in the possession of which land military authorities will afford them protection until such time as they can protect themselves or until Congress shall regulate their title. The quartermaster may, on the requisition of the inspector of settlements and plantations, place at the disposal of the inspector one or more of the captured steamers to ply between the settlements and one or more of the commercial points, heretofore named in orders, to afford the settlers the opportunity to supply their necessary wants and to sell the products of their land and labor.

IV. Whenever a negro has enlisted in the military service of the United States he may locate his family in any one of the settlements at pleasure and acquire a homestead and all other rights and privileges of a settler as though present in person. In like manner negroes may settle their families and engage on board the gun-boats, or in fishing, or in the navigation of the inland waters, without losing any claim to land or other advantages derived from this system. But no one, unless an actual settler as above defined, or unless absent on Government service, will be entitled to claim any right to land or property in any settlement by virtue of these orders.

V. In order to carry out this system of settlement a general officer will be detailed as inspector of settlements and plantations, whose duty it shall be to visit the settlements, to regulate their police and general management, and who will furnish personally to each head of a family, subject to the approval of the President of the United States, a possessory title in writing, giving as near as possible the description of boundaries, and who shall adjust all claims or conflicts that may arise under the same, subject to the like approval, treating such titles altogether as possessory. The same general officer will also be charged with the enlistment and organization of the negro recruits and protecting their interests while absent from their settlements, and will be governed by the rules and regulations prescribed by the War Department for such purpose.

VI. Brig. Gen. R. Saxton is hereby appointed inspector of settlements and plantations and will at once enter on the performance of his duties. No change is intended or desired in the settlement now on Beaufort Island, nor will any rights to property heretofore acquired be affected thereby.

In July 1865, Circular 13 was issued by General Howard fully authorizing the lease of 40 acres plots of land to the newly freed slaves.

All confiscated and abandoned land, and other confiscated and abandoned property, that now and or that may hereafter come under the control of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen & Abandoned Lands, by virtue of said acts and Sections of Acts and order of the President, are and shall be set apart for the use of loyal refugees and freedmen and as much as may be necessary, assigned to them as provided in Sect 4.of the act establishing the Bureau viz: “to every male citizen, whether refugee or freedman, as aforesaid, there shall be assigned not more than forty acres of such land, and the person to whom it was so assigned shall be protected in the use and enjoyment of the land for the term of three years at an annual rent not exceeding six per centum upon the value of such land, as it was appraised by the state authorities in the year eighteen hundred and sixty, for the purpose of taxation, and in case no such appraisal can be found, then the rental shall be based upon the estimated value of the land in said year, to be ascertained in such manner as the commissioner may by regulation prescribe. At the end of said term, or at any time during said term, the occupants of any parcels so assigned may purchase the land and receive such title thereto as the United States can convey, upon paying therefor the value of the land, as ascertained and fixed for the purpose of determining the annual rent aforesaid.”

As a result of this action 40,000 former slaves began work on several hundred thousand acres of land. President Andrew Johnson killed these two orders and his doing so removed those 40,000 blacks from that land while destroying any income they could make. Johnson pardoned most of the confederate leaders and they regained their prior positions of state leadership. By doing this, Johnson unleashed a reign of terror on blacks that really was nothing short of attempted ethnic cleansing. Blacks were beaten, scalped, killed, set on fire with their bodies left in the streets to rot. These atrocities were documented by a representative from the Johnson administration who traveled the region and saw the carnage. He saw mutilated black women floating in rivers. He saw burned up Black men chained to trees. State to state this man witnessed the piles of dead black bodies decomposing all around him. But blacks were free, right?

After slavery, blacks were being killed by whites with no crimes charged while the Supreme Court basically repealed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments with a series of rulings.