Moderator: Community Team
Juan_Bottom wrote:yet the founding fathers had no intentions of freeing the slaves
Night Strike wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:yet the founding fathers had no intentions of freeing the slaves
Completely false. Most recognized the need to free the slaves when writing the Constitution, but they knew they could never get the Constitution ratified if they tried as the Constitution was already too much of a federal-centric governance for some. So instead, they put mechanisms in place to keep the slave-owning states from becoming too powerful until the time they could outlaw slavery.
AAFitz wrote:Night Strike wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:yet the founding fathers had no intentions of freeing the slaves
Completely false. Most recognized the need to free the slaves when writing the Constitution, but they knew they could never get the Constitution ratified if they tried as the Constitution was already too much of a federal-centric governance for some. So instead, they put mechanisms in place to keep the slave-owning states from becoming too powerful until the time they could outlaw slavery.
So as he said, they had no intentions of freeing the slaves.
Night Strike wrote:AAFitz wrote:Night Strike wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:yet the founding fathers had no intentions of freeing the slaves
Completely false. Most recognized the need to free the slaves when writing the Constitution, but they knew they could never get the Constitution ratified if they tried as the Constitution was already too much of a federal-centric governance for some. So instead, they put mechanisms in place to keep the slave-owning states from becoming too powerful until the time they could outlaw slavery.
So as he said, they had no intentions of freeing the slaves.
How dense can you be? They had the intent of freeing the slaves, but they couldn't do so AND ratify the Constitution. If they had continued to push for outlawing slavery then, they would have never passed the Constitution that later DID outlaw slavery.
Juan_Bottom wrote:Our founding fathers and the members of the first Congresses after independence actually bent over backward to give slave owners more representative power. That's why we had the 3/5ths compromise, and why prior to the Civil War most of our presidents came from the South even though the North was far more populous.
Night Strike wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:Our founding fathers and the members of the first Congresses after independence actually bent over backward to give slave owners more representative power. That's why we had the 3/5ths compromise, and why prior to the Civil War most of our presidents came from the South even though the North was far more populous.
PLEASE, I BEG of you, just take a few minutes to actually learn the truth about American history. As has been stated numerous times on this very forum, the 3/5ths clause was included in the Constitution because slave-owning states wanted to count slaves as full people without allowing any of them freedom or votes. This would have caused the slave states to have guaranteed slavery-supporting majorities in the House of Representatives, meaning there would have never been a chance to abolish slavery. The 3/5ths clause hastened the abolition of slavery.
Juan_Bottom wrote:Night Strike wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:Our founding fathers and the members of the first Congresses after independence actually bent over backward to give slave owners more representative power. That's why we had the 3/5ths compromise, and why prior to the Civil War most of our presidents came from the South even though the North was far more populous.
PLEASE, I BEG of you, just take a few minutes to actually learn the truth about American history. As has been stated numerous times on this very forum, the 3/5ths clause was included in the Constitution because slave-owning states wanted to count slaves as full people without allowing any of them freedom or votes. This would have caused the slave states to have guaranteed slavery-supporting majorities in the House of Representatives, meaning there would have never been a chance to abolish slavery. The 3/5ths clause hastened the abolition of slavery.
No it did not. Where did you learn this?
The three-fifths ratio, or "Federal ratio", had a major effect on pre-Civil War political affairs due to the disproportionate representation of slaveholding states relative to voters. For example, in 1793 slave states would have been apportioned 33 seats in the House of Representatives had the seats been assigned based on the free population; instead they were apportioned 47. In 1812, slaveholding states had 76 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 instead of 73. As a result, southerners dominated the Presidency, the Speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War.[7]
Juan_Bottom wrote:The three-fifths ratio, or "Federal ratio", had a major effect on pre-Civil War political affairs due to the disproportionate representation of slaveholding states relative to voters. For example, in 1793 slave states would have been apportioned 33 seats in the House of Representatives had the seats been assigned based on the free population; instead they were apportioned 47. In 1812, slaveholding states had 76 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 instead of 73. As a result, southerners dominated the Presidency, the Speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War.[7]
You should have read it. The 3/5 compromise clearly helped the South to continue their slave practices.
Juan_Bottom wrote:New York Has Gun Deal, With Focus on Mental Ills
thegreekdog wrote:http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/238720/guns-walmart-and-crony-capitalism
Did BBS write this article?
BigBallinStalin wrote:thegreekdog wrote:http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/238720/guns-walmart-and-crony-capitalism
Did BBS write this article?
Nope, but I'm glad to see journalists like that.
I hope that some liberals will not turn to superficial excuses in order to dismiss the article, but then again the "Democrat-Big Business Collusion" story does not sync well with their naive assumptions about Democrats.
thegreekdog wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:thegreekdog wrote:http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/238720/guns-walmart-and-crony-capitalism
Did BBS write this article?
Nope, but I'm glad to see journalists like that.
I hope that some liberals will not turn to superficial excuses in order to dismiss the article, but then again the "Democrat-Big Business Collusion" story does not sync well with their naive assumptions about Democrats.
Yeah, but if the liberals in question post a chart, doesn't that take out the rent-seeking argument? I mean, c'mon man, it's a fucking chart!
Robert C. Bransfield, MD wrote:What can we do now to prevent a possible future epidemic of violence? Suggestions include high index suspicion for Lyme disease in rageful people, adequate testing for Lyme disease in those who are enraged, adequate treatment of LD, continued LD advocacy efforts, research into the link between aggression and LD, evaluation of violent offenders who demonstrate some of the aggressive patterns seen with LD prior to their release into the community, and vaccinations. When regional epidemics of violence occur, LD and other causes of encephalopathy should be considered. We should exercise every option to prevent crime with medical treatment.
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:The bacteria that causes Lyme, Borrelia burgdorferi is very similar to the bacteria that causes syphilis (they're both spirochetes) and can indeed affect the nervous system after enough time of chronic infection. It can also hide in biofilms, making detection difficult.
This is actually a very interesting topic; there are a lot of deniers of Chronic Lyme Disease and even of B. burgdorferi's ability to cause other symptoms than the typical ring and intitial fever, aches, etc., and this leads to denial of treatment under many insurance policies. Here in Oregon, there are many docs who refuse to treat anything other than the intitial infection because of fear of reprisal. There was a documentary that followed the careers of a few docs who specialized in CLD who were brought up under malpractice charges because they attempted to treat the disease which was counter to standard practice.
/offtopic
-TG
By a 51%-45% margin, Americans questioned in a new Pew Research Center poll said it was more important to control gun ownership than to protect gun rights.
And by a 52%-35% margin, a new ABC News/Washington Post survey indicates the public says it is more likely to support some forms of gun control after last month's massacre. However, the polls showed continuing divisions on political and gender lines.
Juan_Bottom wrote:Sym do I have to battle you to see who's more Liberal?
Juan_Bottom wrote:Awwww... my heart bleeds for your loss.... you know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna raise taxes to fund your next abortion.
Return to Out, out, brief candle!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users