(03-14-2019 09:23 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 09:15 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 08:36 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 07:31 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 04:33 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

Tossing red meat to his followers. Booker apparently feels no need to explain what bigotries he’s talking about.


LInk

3/5 compromise by definition.

Either you don’t know why they did it or you are an America hater. I tend to hope you are simply ignorant.

Peruse the rest of his posting history and you'll find your hopes are granted.

You’re still a stick in the mud I see.

Sorry that the truth offends you so much.

Tactic the left plays better than the right is use of baseless rhetoric

(03-14-2019 09:25 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 04:43 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  They should have been bigoted. The British/Ancestors in the colonies here and elsewhere were superior. They built the largest global empire on Earth. They really were the smartest people in the room. What is so bad about that?

Ohhhh, you let that elephant out of the room

Looking for the great Republics that SSA countries built.

Can you imagine Native Americans trying to write a constitution? LOL.

(03-14-2019 08:36 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 08:06 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 07:31 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  3/5 compromise by definition.

You do realize the 3/5th compromise was an attempt to limit the power of slave states right? Reps in the Fed government were assigned to states by population. Slaves were be counted as people, but did not have any enfranchisement. This would have given southern slave states proportionally more power than non slave states at the Federal level.

Do yourself a favor and educate yourself on things before you speak on them. The 3/5th compromise was NOT something against blacks. It was actually the opposite. It was put in place to limit the power of slave states. It was an Anti-Slavery compromise that non slave states forced on slave states.

Written like a true confederate that wants his cake and eat it too. The south viewed slaves as property but only wanted to count them in order to usurp power and strengthen the institution of slavery. I don’t know how you rationalize those who consider humans as property to not be against blacks.

SMFH. I TRULY do not understand how someone can see the 3/5ths compromise as anti-slave. So let me get this straight... you would have rather the slave owners been able to (as an example if a slave owner had 100 slaves) cast 101 votes the way HE wanted to vote? It is as if you do not understand English.

(03-14-2019 11:00 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 08:36 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 08:06 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 07:31 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  3/5 compromise by definition.

You do realize the 3/5th compromise was an attempt to limit the power of slave states right? Reps in the Fed government were assigned to states by population. Slaves were be counted as people, but did not have any enfranchisement. This would have given southern slave states proportionally more power than non slave states at the Federal level.

Do yourself a favor and educate yourself on things before you speak on them. The 3/5th compromise was NOT something against blacks. It was actually the opposite. It was put in place to limit the power of slave states. It was an Anti-Slavery compromise that non slave states forced on slave states.

Written like a true confederate that wants his cake and eat it too. The south viewed slaves as property but only wanted to count them in order to usurp power and strengthen the institution of slavery. I don’t know how you rationalize those who consider humans as property to not be against blacks.

SMFH. I TRULY do not understand how someone can see the 3/5ths compromise as anti-slave. So let me get this straight... you would have rather the slave owners been able to (as an example if a slave owner had 100 slaves) cast 101 votes the way HE wanted to vote? It is as if you do not understand English.

bigotry
noun [ U ] US /ˈbɪɡ·ə·tri/
strong, unreasonable ideas, esp. about race or religion:

The fact that anyone would consider 1 white man who has the right to vote equal to 1 black man (property) who does not have the right to vote equal only for representation for the white man’s benefit is bias and prejudice.

The fact that anyone would consider 1 white man the equivalent of 1/2,3/5,3/4 (all proposals) is bias and prejudice.

Full representation for slaves is not pro-slave (black), it’s pro-slavery.

(03-14-2019 08:36 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 07:31 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 04:33 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

Tossing red meat to his followers. Booker apparently feels no need to explain what bigotries he’s talking about.

Quote:Democratic presidential candidate Cory Booker bemoaned the shortcomings of America’s Founding Fathers in an interview with National Public Radio.

“The founders were imperfect geniuses. They wrote a lot of our bigotries into (the Constitution),” Booker said.

The New Jersey senator did not elaborate about those “bigotries” in the NPR interview, which was published Thursday.

However, he made it clear that he sees his presidential campaign as modeled along the lines of those who have fought “bigotries.”

“If you think about how we have overcome those things, it’s always been by creating, first, calls to consciousness, speaking truth about the injustices, and then bringing together those uncommon coalitions,” Booker said.

His comment about the Constitution created a heated debate on social media.

LInk

3/5 compromise by definition.

Either you don’t know why they did it or you are an America hater. I tend to hope you are simply ignorant.

A direct reference to the slave trade...
Article I, Section 9:
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.

(03-15-2019 04:58 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 11:00 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 08:36 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 08:06 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 07:31 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  3/5 compromise by definition.

You do realize the 3/5th compromise was an attempt to limit the power of slave states right? Reps in the Fed government were assigned to states by population. Slaves were be counted as people, but did not have any enfranchisement. This would have given southern slave states proportionally more power than non slave states at the Federal level.

Do yourself a favor and educate yourself on things before you speak on them. The 3/5th compromise was NOT something against blacks. It was actually the opposite. It was put in place to limit the power of slave states. It was an Anti-Slavery compromise that non slave states forced on slave states.

Written like a true confederate that wants his cake and eat it too. The south viewed slaves as property but only wanted to count them in order to usurp power and strengthen the institution of slavery. I don’t know how you rationalize those who consider humans as property to not be against blacks.

SMFH. I TRULY do not understand how someone can see the 3/5ths compromise as anti-slave. So let me get this straight... you would have rather the slave owners been able to (as an example if a slave owner had 100 slaves) cast 101 votes the way HE wanted to vote? It is as if you do not understand English.

bigotry
noun [ U ] US /ˈbɪɡ·ə·tri/
strong, unreasonable ideas, esp. about race or religion:

The fact that anyone would consider 1 white man who has the right to vote equal to 1 black man (property) who does not have the right to vote equal only for representation for the white man’s benefit is bias and prejudice.

The fact that anyone would consider 1 white man the equivalent of 1/2,3/5,3/4 (all proposals) is bias and prejudice.

Full representation for slaves is not pro-slave (black), it’s pro-slavery.

Sounds like you defined yourself as a bigot. Or ignorant. The slave states wanted 5/5.

Slaves and non-property owners didn't have full "representation." They couldn't vote.

(03-15-2019 04:58 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  bigotry
noun [ U ] US /ˈbɪɡ·ə·tri/
strong, unreasonable ideas, esp. about race or religion:
The fact that anyone would consider 1 white man who has the right to vote equal to 1 black man (property) who does not have the right to vote equal only for representation for the white man’s benefit is bias and prejudice.
The fact that anyone would consider 1 white man the equivalent of 1/2,3/5,3/4 (all proposals) is bias and prejudice.
Full representation for slaves is not pro-slave (black), it’s pro-slavery.

So, basically, no matter what they did, it was bias and prejudice. No matter what they did, it was wrong. Got it. You're not my ex-wife, are you?

(03-15-2019 09:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 04:58 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  bigotry
noun [ U ] US /ˈbɪɡ·ə·tri/
strong, unreasonable ideas, esp. about race or religion:
The fact that anyone would consider 1 white man who has the right to vote equal to 1 black man (property) who does not have the right to vote equal only for representation for the white man’s benefit is bias and prejudice.
The fact that anyone would consider 1 white man the equivalent of 1/2,3/5,3/4 (all proposals) is bias and prejudice.
Full representation for slaves is not pro-slave (black), it’s pro-slavery.

So, basically, no matter what they did, it was bias and prejudice. No matter what they did, it was wrong. Got it. You're not my ex-wife, are you?

Do you think it was unbiased and not prejudice?

(03-15-2019 09:48 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 09:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 04:58 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  bigotry
noun [ U ] US /ˈbɪɡ·ə·tri/
strong, unreasonable ideas, esp. about race or religion:
The fact that anyone would consider 1 white man who has the right to vote equal to 1 black man (property) who does not have the right to vote equal only for representation for the white man’s benefit is bias and prejudice.
The fact that anyone would consider 1 white man the equivalent of 1/2,3/5,3/4 (all proposals) is bias and prejudice.
Full representation for slaves is not pro-slave (black), it’s pro-slavery.

So, basically, no matter what they did, it was bias and prejudice. No matter what they did, it was wrong. Got it. You're not my ex-wife, are you?

Do you think it was unbiased and not prejudice?

I don't think it was either one. I don't think bias or prejudice, or the lack thereof, were factors in the decision. It was a pure political decision.

(03-14-2019 08:36 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 08:06 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 07:31 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  3/5 compromise by definition.

You do realize the 3/5th compromise was an attempt to limit the power of slave states right? Reps in the Fed government were assigned to states by population. Slaves were be counted as people, but did not have any enfranchisement. This would have given southern slave states proportionally more power than non slave states at the Federal level.

Do yourself a favor and educate yourself on things before you speak on them. The 3/5th compromise was NOT something against blacks. It was actually the opposite. It was put in place to limit the power of slave states. It was an Anti-Slavery compromise that non slave states forced on slave states.

Written like a true confederate that wants his cake and eat it too. The south viewed slaves as property but only wanted to count them in order to usurp power and strengthen the institution of slavery. I don’t know how you rationalize those who consider humans as property to not be against blacks.

Despite ample available evidence, to include relevant studies published online, you literally have no idea how slave owners and Southern whites viewed African slaves. That fact alone completely undermines pretty much everything you’ve typed in this thread.

(03-16-2019 02:24 AM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 08:36 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 08:06 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 07:31 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  3/5 compromise by definition.

You do realize the 3/5th compromise was an attempt to limit the power of slave states right? Reps in the Fed government were assigned to states by population. Slaves were be counted as people, but did not have any enfranchisement. This would have given southern slave states proportionally more power than non slave states at the Federal level.

Do yourself a favor and educate yourself on things before you speak on them. The 3/5th compromise was NOT something against blacks. It was actually the opposite. It was put in place to limit the power of slave states. It was an Anti-Slavery compromise that non slave states forced on slave states.

Written like a true confederate that wants his cake and eat it too. The south viewed slaves as property but only wanted to count them in order to usurp power and strengthen the institution of slavery. I don’t know how you rationalize those who consider humans as property to not be against blacks.

Despite ample available evidence, to include relevant studies published online, you literally have no idea how slave owners and Southern whites viewed African slaves. That fact alone completely undermines pretty much everything you’ve typed in this thread.

Considering the Founding fathers were not all southern whites or slave owners, your understanding is myopic.

(03-16-2019 05:35 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(03-16-2019 02:24 AM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 08:36 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 08:06 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 07:31 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  3/5 compromise by definition.

You do realize the 3/5th compromise was an attempt to limit the power of slave states right? Reps in the Fed government were assigned to states by population. Slaves were be counted as people, but did not have any enfranchisement. This would have given southern slave states proportionally more power than non slave states at the Federal level.

Do yourself a favor and educate yourself on things before you speak on them. The 3/5th compromise was NOT something against blacks. It was actually the opposite. It was put in place to limit the power of slave states. It was an Anti-Slavery compromise that non slave states forced on slave states.

Written like a true confederate that wants his cake and eat it too. The south viewed slaves as property but only wanted to count them in order to usurp power and strengthen the institution of slavery. I don’t know how you rationalize those who consider humans as property to not be against blacks.

Despite ample available evidence, to include relevant studies published online, you literally have no idea how slave owners and Southern whites viewed African slaves. That fact alone completely undermines pretty much everything you’ve typed in this thread.

Considering the Founding fathers were not all southern whites or slave owners, your understanding is myopic.

Slavery was common in nearly every state in the Colonial period. And not necessarily Black slaves. Georgia was one of the few to ban it at the start. However, they later changed and allowed it in. New York had nearly as many slaves as Georgia in the 1790 census and more than Kentucky or Delaware. Only Maine and Massachusetts had no slaves.

There were still slaves in New Jersey at the time of the Civil War even though it had been outlawed in 1804. There were slaves in Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Wisconsin as late as 1840.

http://www.thomaslegion.net/totalslavesl...state.html

(03-16-2019 09:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-16-2019 05:35 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(03-16-2019 02:24 AM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 08:36 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 08:06 PM)q5sys Wrote:  You do realize the 3/5th compromise was an attempt to limit the power of slave states right? Reps in the Fed government were assigned to states by population. Slaves were be counted as people, but did not have any enfranchisement. This would have given southern slave states proportionally more power than non slave states at the Federal level.

Do yourself a favor and educate yourself on things before you speak on them. The 3/5th compromise was NOT something against blacks. It was actually the opposite. It was put in place to limit the power of slave states. It was an Anti-Slavery compromise that non slave states forced on slave states.

Written like a true confederate that wants his cake and eat it too. The south viewed slaves as property but only wanted to count them in order to usurp power and strengthen the institution of slavery. I don’t know how you rationalize those who consider humans as property to not be against blacks.

Despite ample available evidence, to include relevant studies published online, you literally have no idea how slave owners and Southern whites viewed African slaves. That fact alone completely undermines pretty much everything you’ve typed in this thread.

Considering the Founding fathers were not all southern whites or slave owners, your understanding is myopic.

Slavery was common in nearly every state in the Colonial period. And not necessarily Black slaves. Georgia was one of the few to ban it at the start. However, they later changed and allowed it in. New York had nearly as many slaves as Georgia in the 1790 census and more than Kentucky or Delaware. Only Maine and Massachusetts had no slaves.

You guys are moving off topic. The topic is did the founding fathers write bigotries into the constitution, the answer is yes. That a black man is 3/5ths the representation of a white man regardless of if you are arguing the benefit for northerners or southerners (again off topic) is the definition of inequality.

(03-16-2019 09:13 AM)bullet Wrote:  There were still slaves in New Jersey at the time of the Civil War even though it had been outlawed in 1804. There were slaves in Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Wisconsin as late as 1840.

http://www.thomaslegion.net/totalslavesl...state.html

What’s hilarious about history is people honestly believe the emancipation proclamation was about ending slavery.

(03-16-2019 09:25 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(03-16-2019 09:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-16-2019 05:35 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(03-16-2019 02:24 AM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 08:36 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  Written like a true confederate that wants his cake and eat it too. The south viewed slaves as property but only wanted to count them in order to usurp power and strengthen the institution of slavery. I don’t know how you rationalize those who consider humans as property to not be against blacks.

Despite ample available evidence, to include relevant studies published online, you literally have no idea how slave owners and Southern whites viewed African slaves. That fact alone completely undermines pretty much everything you’ve typed in this thread.

Considering the Founding fathers were not all southern whites or slave owners, your understanding is myopic.

Slavery was common in nearly every state in the Colonial period. And not necessarily Black slaves. Georgia was one of the few to ban it at the start. However, they later changed and allowed it in. New York had nearly as many slaves as Georgia in the 1790 census and more than Kentucky or Delaware. Only Maine and Massachusetts had no slaves.

You guys are moving off topic. The topic is did the founding fathers write bigotries into the constitution, the answer is yes. That a black man is 3/5ths the representation of a white man regardless of if you are arguing the benefit for northerners or southerners (again off topic) is the definition of inequality.

The founding fathers struggled with slavery. Slavery was already an institution before the constitution was written. There would be no United States of America if the founders had outlawed slavery. They knew it would be an issue moving forward and the 3/5s “bigotry” you speak of was an attempt to tamp down power garnered through power of the population of slaves. If anything it was an attack on slavery and a totally unbigoted action. Don’t be ignorant.

(03-14-2019 11:00 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 08:36 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 08:06 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 07:31 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  3/5 compromise by definition.

You do realize the 3/5th compromise was an attempt to limit the power of slave states right? Reps in the Fed government were assigned to states by population. Slaves were be counted as people, but did not have any enfranchisement. This would have given southern slave states proportionally more power than non slave states at the Federal level.

Do yourself a favor and educate yourself on things before you speak on them. The 3/5th compromise was NOT something against blacks. It was actually the opposite. It was put in place to limit the power of slave states. It was an Anti-Slavery compromise that non slave states forced on slave states.

Written like a true confederate that wants his cake and eat it too. The south viewed slaves as property but only wanted to count them in order to usurp power and strengthen the institution of slavery. I don’t know how you rationalize those who consider humans as property to not be against blacks.

SMFH. I TRULY do not understand how someone can see the 3/5ths compromise as anti-slave. So let me get this straight... you would have rather the slave owners been able to (as an example if a slave owner had 100 slaves) cast 101 votes the way HE wanted to vote? It is as if you do not understand English.

there's nothing better than getting to crux of matters in rebuttal....why waste the time with the butthurt macaroons....

(03-16-2019 09:25 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(03-16-2019 09:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-16-2019 05:35 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(03-16-2019 02:24 AM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 08:36 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  Written like a true confederate that wants his cake and eat it too. The south viewed slaves as property but only wanted to count them in order to usurp power and strengthen the institution of slavery. I don’t know how you rationalize those who consider humans as property to not be against blacks.

Despite ample available evidence, to include relevant studies published online, you literally have no idea how slave owners and Southern whites viewed African slaves. That fact alone completely undermines pretty much everything you’ve typed in this thread.

Considering the Founding fathers were not all southern whites or slave owners, your understanding is myopic.

Slavery was common in nearly every state in the Colonial period. And not necessarily Black slaves. Georgia was one of the few to ban it at the start. However, they later changed and allowed it in. New York had nearly as many slaves as Georgia in the 1790 census and more than Kentucky or Delaware. Only Maine and Massachusetts had no slaves.

You guys are moving off topic. The topic is did the founding fathers write bigotries into the constitution, the answer is yes. That a black man is 3/5ths the representation of a white man regardless of if you are arguing the benefit for northerners or southerners (again off topic) is the definition of inequality.

No, it was "slaves" counted as 3/5. Free Black men counted as 5/5. If there were any white slaves, such as the Irish, they counted as 3/5.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured...e_Americas
"...The consensus view among economic historians and economists is that indentured servitude became popular in the Thirteen Colonies in the seventeenth century because of a large demand for labor there, coupled with labor surpluses in Europe and high costs of transatlantic transportation beyond the means of European workers.[3][4] Between the 1630s and the American Revolution, one-half to two-thirds of white immigrants to the Thirteen Colonies arrived under indentures...."


Indentured servitude continued into the 1900s, even in Britain.

But yes, slavery was mentioned in the Constitution.