HISTORIAN --------------------------------------->
Phatscotty wrote:States rights ended slavery in America ya jackass. like I said, you are a backwards individual. You don't want to see that the Constitution ended the evil of slavery that was laid at America's feet by foreigners before America was even born.
And America was never a slave owning country. We had exactly as many non-slaves states at all times, so you can't call it one way or another. You'll have to find another way to troll your hatred and bigotry
State's Rights started the Civil War.
It was fought over slavery.
The "State's Rights" side was the pro-slavery side.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Also, that some states were not slave owning doesn't suddenly mean we were a free country back then, not at all.
Nor in the Territories, where in some Indians or whites could be shot on sight for sport. Though mostly it was Indians.
Or Kansas, where being an Abolitionist, or just owning a house there would get you killed by Pro-Slavery southerners.
Phatscotty wrote:The slave-owners wanted the slave counted as 5/5's, so they could have more representatives, so they could hold onto the old world of slavery as long as possible (through more votes in the house of representatives). Slaves counted as 3/5's make slave states weaker. It has nothing to do with the simple minded BS about not being counted as a full person. All it proves is you are completely uneducated on the issue, which makes your strong opinions on it all the more hilarious.
Slaves counted as 0/5's was the abolitionist position. Slaves counted as 5/5's, "a full person", is what the slave-owners wanted. Now maybe you see what side you are on? How you have been manipulated? Who the real racists and liars are?
That's not accurate. Southerners wanted to count each slave as a person so that they would have more representation in the House, and so that they would get a greater distribution of federal taxes. But they greedily accepted the Compromise, which had actually been proposed years earlier.
Northerners disagreed on the grounds that slaves had no rights and could not even vote. The slaves weren't being represented, but their owners would get extra voting power.
The Compromise gave the South more power than the North. This is why the early Offices of the Presidency, Speaker, and the Supreme Court had unusually high numbers of Southerners.
When the Compromise was passed, there was no immediate threat to the Institution of Slavery, but there was a threat to the Union.
Night Strike wrote:How many times does it have to be proven that the 3/5ths clause was included in the Constitution by the abolitionists?
The Abolitionists in the late 1700s weren't nearly as numerous as they were by 1862. The North, which was made of many smaller states who were dependent on the South, was coerced into making a compromise to avoid a rebellion. Had they refused the numerous North-South Compromises that they made before 1862, then the South would have split earlier and there would have been nothing that the North could do to stop them.
Later Roger Sherman (one of the authors) was one of the two brave men who courageously defended the victims of the Amistad Affair. Southerners were threatening to kill him and threatening Van Buren with Secession.
The Compromise was simply a shrewd political maneuver to help the Abolitionist gain precious time by appeasing the Southern tyrants.
Phatscotty wrote:you can't really do anything about people who have been taught to hate. All we can do is try to prevent it from being spread by holding to the truth.
What I thought you said:
You can't really do anything about people who have been taught to hate. All we can do is try to prevent it from being spread by holding to the North.
