info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: "Why the 3/5ths Compromise Was Anti-Slavery"
7 views
Skip to first unread message
Mitch
Nov 27, 2021, 4:17:46 PM11/27/21
to
On 27 Nov 2021, Rudy Canoza <j...@phendrie.con> posted some
news:oSvoJ.60618$lz3....@fx34.iad:
> On 7/20/2020 4:46 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 7/20/20 6:04 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 7/20/2020 2:26 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 7/20/20 3:36 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 7/20/2020 1:12 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/20/20 2:57 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/20/2020 12:54 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No. The 3/5 compromise was *not* anti-slavery. Your subject
>>>>>>> line is a lie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It gave the slavers something they didn't deserve. It was
>>>>>>> pro-slavery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would you rather that the slaves had been counted for
>>>>>> representation
>>>>>
>>>>> If they didn't get to vote, they should not have been counted for
>>>>> representation at all.
>>>>
>>>> Then most of the people in the northern states should not have been
>>>> counted.
>>>
>>> They should have been the same as similarly situated people in the
>>> south.
>>>
>>> Just stop with the bullshit that the 3/5 compromise was
>>> "anti-slavery." It was not. It was pro-slavery.
>>
>> As I said, on this subject you are stupid.
>
> No. Concession of defeat noted.
>
> The "compromise" was pro-slavery, in that it gave the slavers
> political power they didn't deserve.
The slavers were profiteering slaves and white Democrats!
During the era of Reconstruction, federal troops stationed in the south
helped secure rights for the newly freed slaves. Hundreds of black men
were elected to southern state legislatures as Republicans, and 22 black
Republicans served in the US Congress by 1900. The Democrats did not elect
a black man to Congress until 1935.
But after Reconstruction ended, when the federal troops went home,
Democrats roared back into power in the South. They quickly reestablished
white supremacy across the region with measures like black codes – laws
that restricted the ability of blacks to own property and run businesses.
And they imposed poll taxes and literacy tests, used to subvert the black
citizen’s right to vote.
And how was all of this enforced? By terror -- much of it instigated by
the Ku Klux Klan, founded by a Democrat, Nathan Bedford Forrest.
news:oSvoJ.60618$lz3....@fx34.iad:
> On 7/20/2020 4:46 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 7/20/20 6:04 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 7/20/2020 2:26 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 7/20/20 3:36 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 7/20/2020 1:12 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/20/20 2:57 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/20/2020 12:54 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No. The 3/5 compromise was *not* anti-slavery. Your subject
>>>>>>> line is a lie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It gave the slavers something they didn't deserve. It was
>>>>>>> pro-slavery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would you rather that the slaves had been counted for
>>>>>> representation
>>>>>
>>>>> If they didn't get to vote, they should not have been counted for
>>>>> representation at all.
>>>>
>>>> Then most of the people in the northern states should not have been
>>>> counted.
>>>
>>> They should have been the same as similarly situated people in the
>>> south.
>>>
>>> Just stop with the bullshit that the 3/5 compromise was
>>> "anti-slavery." It was not. It was pro-slavery.
>>
>> As I said, on this subject you are stupid.
>
> No. Concession of defeat noted.
>
> The "compromise" was pro-slavery, in that it gave the slavers
> political power they didn't deserve.
The slavers were profiteering slaves and white Democrats!
During the era of Reconstruction, federal troops stationed in the south
helped secure rights for the newly freed slaves. Hundreds of black men
were elected to southern state legislatures as Republicans, and 22 black
Republicans served in the US Congress by 1900. The Democrats did not elect
a black man to Congress until 1935.
But after Reconstruction ended, when the federal troops went home,
Democrats roared back into power in the South. They quickly reestablished
white supremacy across the region with measures like black codes – laws
that restricted the ability of blacks to own property and run businesses.
And they imposed poll taxes and literacy tests, used to subvert the black
citizen’s right to vote.
And how was all of this enforced? By terror -- much of it instigated by
the Ku Klux Klan, founded by a Democrat, Nathan Bedford Forrest.
Hal Chamberlain
Jun 18, 2022, 11:24:14 PM6/18/22
to
In article <XRtrK.138551$X_i....@fx18.iad>, notg...@gmail.com says...
>didn't deserve based on their committing of a monstrous evil.
>
>It was pro-slavery.
Wrong. Seats and taxes. Learn to read.
>On 7/20/2020 4:46 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 7/20/20 6:04 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 7/20/2020 2:26 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 7/20/20 3:36 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 7/20/2020 1:12 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/20/20 2:57 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/20/2020 12:54 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No. The 3/5 compromise was *not* anti-slavery. Your subject line
>>>>>>> is a lie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It gave the slavers something they didn't deserve. It was
>>>>>>> pro-slavery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would you rather that the slaves had been counted for representation
>>>>>
>>>>> If they didn't get to vote, they should not have been counted for
>>>>> representation at all.
>>>>
>>>> Then most of the people in the northern states should not have been
>>>> counted.
>>>
>>> They should have been the same as similarly situated people in the south.
>>>
>>> Just stop with the bullshit that the 3/5 compromise was "anti-slavery."
>>> It was
>>> not. It was pro-slavery.
>>
>> As I said, on this subject you are stupid.
>
>No, I'm right. The 3/5 "compromise" gave the future traitors something they
>> On 7/20/20 6:04 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 7/20/2020 2:26 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 7/20/20 3:36 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 7/20/2020 1:12 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/20/20 2:57 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/20/2020 12:54 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No. The 3/5 compromise was *not* anti-slavery. Your subject line
>>>>>>> is a lie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It gave the slavers something they didn't deserve. It was
>>>>>>> pro-slavery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would you rather that the slaves had been counted for representation
>>>>>
>>>>> If they didn't get to vote, they should not have been counted for
>>>>> representation at all.
>>>>
>>>> Then most of the people in the northern states should not have been
>>>> counted.
>>>
>>> They should have been the same as similarly situated people in the south.
>>>
>>> Just stop with the bullshit that the 3/5 compromise was "anti-slavery."
>>> It was
>>> not. It was pro-slavery.
>>
>> As I said, on this subject you are stupid.
>
>didn't deserve based on their committing of a monstrous evil.
>
>It was pro-slavery.
Wrong. Seats and taxes. Learn to read.
Rudy Canoza
Jun 18, 2022, 11:36:05 PM6/18/22
to
On 6/18/2022 8:24 PM, Neville Chamberlain appeased:
>>>>>>>> is a lie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It gave the slavers something they didn't deserve. It was
> In article <XRtrK.138551$X_i....@fx18.iad>, notg...@gmail.com says...
>> On 7/20/2020 4:46 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 7/20/20 6:04 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 7/20/2020 2:26 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> On 7/20/20 3:36 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/20/2020 1:12 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/20/20 2:57 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2020 12:54 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No. The 3/5 compromise was *not* anti-slavery. Your subject line
>> On 7/20/2020 4:46 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 7/20/20 6:04 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 7/20/2020 2:26 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> On 7/20/20 3:36 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/20/2020 1:12 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/20/20 2:57 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2020 12:54 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is a lie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It gave the slavers something they didn't deserve. It was
>>>>>>>> pro-slavery.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would you rather that the slaves had been counted for representation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If they didn't get to vote, they should not have been counted for
>>>>>> representation at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then most of the people in the northern states should not have been
>>>>> counted.
>>>>
>>>> They should have been the same as similarly situated people in the south.
>>>>
>>>> Just stop with the bullshit that the 3/5 compromise was "anti-slavery."
>>>> It was
>>>> not. It was pro-slavery.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would you rather that the slaves had been counted for representation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If they didn't get to vote, they should not have been counted for
>>>>>> representation at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then most of the people in the northern states should not have been
>>>>> counted.
>>>>
>>>> They should have been the same as similarly situated people in the south.
>>>>
>>>> Just stop with the bullshit that the 3/5 compromise was "anti-slavery."
>>>> It was
>>>
>>> As I said, on this subject you are stupid.
>>
>> No, I'm right. The 3/5 "compromise" gave the future traitors something they
>> didn't deserve based on their committing of a monstrous evil.
>>
>> It was pro-slavery.
>
> Wrong.
No, right. The 3/5 "compromise" was pro-slavery. This is not in rational dispute.
>>> As I said, on this subject you are stupid.
>>
>> No, I'm right. The 3/5 "compromise" gave the future traitors something they
>> didn't deserve based on their committing of a monstrous evil.
>>
>> It was pro-slavery.
>
> Wrong.
governo...@gmail.com
Jun 19, 2022, 11:20:28 PM6/19/22
to
On Sat, 18 Jun 2022 20:24:11 -0700, Hal Chamberlain
<hchamb...@optus.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>> Would you rather that the slaves had been counted for representation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If they didn't get to vote, they should not have been counted for
>>>>>> representation at all.
They were counted for the purpose of assigning representation in the
<hchamb...@optus.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>> Would you rather that the slaves had been counted for representation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If they didn't get to vote, they should not have been counted for
>>>>>> representation at all.
house but had no vote.
Swill
--
Fostergate, CattleFuturesgate, Travelgate,
Filegate, Troopergate, Whitewater, BenghaziGate,
EmailGate, Uraniumgate - the list of GOP manufactured "scandals"
involving Hillary that have never amounted to
anything goes back for decades. The rightwing fear
of her just goes on and on............
- On "Hillarygate" from Usenet poster
0 new messages