Just when thought he could not stoop any lower...

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by garren

My father explained it to me very well when I was younger. There's more evil in selling a man than owning him. He also explained to me how the 3/5th compromise was worked out. The North wanted to abolish slavery. They already got the Southern man's money. They also wanted to Unionize the states. The South didn't agree with Unionizing unless the black slaves in the South could vote but they also wanted to keep their slaves. They paid for them after all. Don't you like to keep the possessions you paid for? I know I do.

You should study a little more before believing what someone tells you. The 3/5 compromise was brought about entirely by the South. First of all, when the slave trade was being routed through Boston, Massachussets was still a slave state. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787 the major issue was representation, whether the people would be represented proportionally or the states would be represented equally. This led to the divided system we have to day, with the lower house supposedly representing the people and the upper house supposedly representing the states. The 3/5 compromise came about when the southern states insisted that they would be under-represented unless slaves were also counted for representative purposes. The northern states objected but the South won, mainly because they believed that, as Franklin had said at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, "We must all hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately." They felt that any state which did not join could not survive on its own, and would sooner or later be forced to make an alliance with Britain or France, giving one of those a new toe-hold on the continent. The compromised was reached strictly to get the southern states to join.

A slave back then was worth what you'd pay for a car today. Imagine if you paid for a car and then the man you bought it from said, "Well, I don't agree with you owning that car anymore I sold you". You'd not like that either. Especially after that same man had already gotten your money and wasn't going to give that money back to you for what you'd already paid him for the car.

A fine sentiment, but a man is not a car.

But once the states became Unionized the North once again wanted to renege on that 3/5th compromise as well and abolish slavery. In turn the Southern states attempted to secede from the Union as that was a condition of the 3/5ths compromise in the first place.

Not even remotely true. Can you show in the Constitution where secession was a part of that compromise? The argument between North and South at that point was the Southern insistence that there be a new Slave State for every new Free State.

But then you know the rest. Lincoln didn't like the South trying to leave his tyrannical control and the War of Union aggression began.

The original seven states seceded before Lincoln even took office. Where was his "tyrannical control" then?

I feel like much of the truth has been covered up by the winner of the war.

And I, who was born a Southerner and am descended from slaveholders, feel that many of the South is looking for any excuse to cover the evils of their ancestors.

So I consider myself an educated black man. I've heard all sides of the story but I go with what my father told me about it because he got it from his father before him and so on. That carries the most weight with me.

More than what the people wrote of their causes and motivations at the time?

There was more evil in those who sold us to the Southern white man. Never forget it.

Only your opinion. I'd say the blame was about equal. Both North and South agreed to stop the importation of slaves in 1808. After that the South continued to sell slaves right up until 1865.

Yep. Notice how most blacks stayed in the South after the war? Most stayed with their owners and worked for them anyways long after the war was over.

Yep. Most of them had nowhere to go, no way to get there and no skills other than plantation work. The South came up with numerous ways to keep them down, not allowing them to vote unless they could read and not allowing them to learn how to read. Meanwhile those evil Northerners were trying to educate free blacks.

I'm not assigning blame to any or all of either side. Yes, the Northerners had plenty to answer for. The fact is that the evil tyrant Lincoln wanted a gentle repatriation, forgiving all and helping everywhere possible. With him dead and out of the way Andrew Johnson was to politically obtuse to stop the carpetbaggers and things went dowhill from there. The North is very responsible for the bad things that happened during reconstruction, but the South did everything they could to keep the blacks enslaved even though they were now technically free.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by garren

I agree. And I'm black. Obama is harping on the race thing. I just pulled it on Steve to see if I could get some sympathy from him but I don't think it worked. He's got a heart of stone that one.

Don't direct your comments to the moderators, it isn't an effective discussion tactic. Just say what you want about the topic.

[yubba]

Originally Posted by Red October1984

+1

And more distractions from bigger problems that should be addressed.

Maybe the ECONOMY!?! In case anybody forgot...

Or the 20 to 30 million illegals, they want to give citizenship to, saying that this is going to stimulate the economy by a influx of cheap labor, what is that all about ??????? Why couldn't Obama be the infant that was shot in the head by a black teen in Atlanta, why couldn't he be Barbra Pill a female deputy sherriff that was shot in the face by a black teen here in Cocoa the week Al not so sharpton was in Sanford,, why can't he be one of the thousands of black teens that die in our inner cities to gang violence each year, why can't he be one of the hundreds of Mexican citizens that have been kill by the weapons that walked across the border in the failed ATF operation, fast an furious, why can't he be one of the victims of Ft Hood shooting,,in which he calls work place violence,, why can't he be one of the four americans that died in Bengazia, in which he blamed a video, why can't he be one of 50 million people on foodstamps,, instead of jet setting around the world stuffing his face with lobster on our dime,, in stead he wants to be a gay bashing homo phobe black teen, according to Trayvons female freind in which she stated on CNN Pierce Morgan show that, she lead him to believe that Zimmerman might be a gay rapist, and she also stated that Trayvon was going to give him a whoopin if she had stated that on the stand the jury would have been back in 5 minutes,, wrap your head around that.

[Armistead]

Course I can hardly stand it, but watched Nancy Disgrace for a bit to hear TM's parents speak about his death and race issues. I was rather shocked when Nancy asked about when knowing Tray was missing. The mother said the father called her later morning that he didn't come home, maybe went to a friends or cousins house, that he would call them, then the police. WTH, they keep calling him a child, but the father didn't have concern that he didn't come home that night, didn't worry until the next morning. They both stated he always came home. He went missing about 7PM and no concern until the next day.....If I didn't know where my son was, I couldn't even think of going to bed without knowing where he was. I would be frantic. I'm thinking he had done this several times, maybe why his mother sent him to live with the father.

[yubba]

http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/0...f-gay-bashing/ guess what Steve I'll wear it as a badge of Honor see things haven't changed with you,, can't deal with truth.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Course I can hardly stand it, but watched Nancy Disgrace for a bit to hear TM's parents speak about his death and race issues. I was rather shocked when Nancy asked about when knowing Tray was missing. The mother said the father called her later morning that he didn't come home, maybe went to a friends or cousins house, that he would call them, then the police. WTH, they keep calling him a child, but the father didn't have concern that he didn't come home that night, didn't worry until the next morning. They both stated he always came home. He went missing about 7PM and no concern until the next day.....If I didn't know where my son was, I couldn't even think of going to bed without knowing where he was. I would be frantic. I'm thinking he had done this several times, maybe why his mother sent him to live with the father.

Model parents certainly.

[garren]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You should study a little more before believing what someone tells you. The 3/5 compromise was brought about entirely by the South. First of all, when the slave trade was being routed through Boston, Massachussets was still a slave state. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787 the major issue was representation, whether the people would be represented proportionally or the states would be represented equally. This led to the divided system we have to day, with the lower house supposedly representing the people and the upper house supposedly representing the states. The 3/5 compromise came about when the southern states insisted that they would be under-represented unless slaves were also counted for representative purposes. The northern states objected but the South won, mainly because they believed that, as Franklin had said at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, "We must all hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately." They felt that any state which did not join could not survive on its own, and would sooner or later be forced to make an alliance with Britain or France, giving one of those a new toe-hold on the continent. The compromised was reached strictly to get the southern states to join.


A fine sentiment, but a man is not a car.


Not even remotely true. Can you show in the Constitution where secession was a part of that compromise? The argument between North and South at that point was the Southern insistence that there be a new Slave State for every new Free State.


The original seven states seceded before Lincoln even took office. Where was his "tyrannical control" then?


And I, who was born a Southerner and am descended from slaveholders, feel that many of the South is looking for any excuse to cover the evils of their ancestors.


More than what the people wrote of their causes and motivations at the time?


Only your opinion. I'd say the blame was about equal. Both North and South agreed to stop the importation of slaves in 1808. After that the South continued to sell slaves right up until 1865.


Yep. Most of them had nowhere to go, no way to get there and no skills other than plantation work. The South came up with numerous ways to keep them down, not allowing them to vote unless they could read and not allowing them to learn how to read. Meanwhile those evil Northerners were trying to educate free blacks.

I'm not assigning blame to any or all of either side. Yes, the Northerners had plenty to answer for. The fact is that the evil tyrant Lincoln wanted a gentle repatriation, forgiving all and helping everywhere possible. With him dead and out of the way Andrew Johnson was to politically obtuse to stop the carpetbaggers and things went dowhill from there. The North is very responsible for the bad things that happened during reconstruction, but the South did everything they could to keep the blacks enslaved even though they were now technically free.

This is entirely offensive to me Steve. First off, I was responding to someone else's off topic question because they asked nicely. I'm not even going to bother arguing with you about it because you are obviously more knowledgeable about my black history than I am. It's obvious your side won the war. Your side wrote history the way they wanted to. Telling me that I should look more into my own history is very offensive.

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by garren

This is entirely offensive to me Steve. First off, I was responding to someone else's off topic question because they asked nicely. I'm not even going to bother arguing with you about it because you are obviously more knowledgeable about my black history than I am. It's obvious your side won the war. Your side wrote history the way they wanted to. Telling me that I should look more into my own history is very offensive.

Okay...I am not insulting you or taking sides...

This looks to me like Steve is just telling you to slow down and double check your facts. To me, it sounds like you're just putting stuff out there and not even making sure you're right. I do the same thing sometimes.

Don't be offended when somebody tells you to double check you're history.

[Armistead]

Garren obviously isn't black, doesn't know history, etc., just a troll. I thought he said he was leaving for good, guess that was someone else.
When is enough going to be enough.......

[garren]

Originally Posted by Red October1984

Okay...I am not insulting you or taking sides...

This looks to me like Steve is just telling you to slow down and double check your facts. To me, it sounds like you're just putting stuff out there and not even making sure you're right. I do the same thing sometimes.

Don't be offended when somebody tells you to double check you're history.

I stand by my original post that wasn't even directed to him. He claims he's ashamed of his white ancestors from the South. Well, he shouldn't be. That's disgraceful as hell to me to talk down on your own blood like that. There was a lot of ignorance all around back then and that includes the blacks. There were black men who sold other black men as well. Nobody was really innocent.

Also, down in the South, most white men were poor and doing the same work as the black folks. They weren't really free to go anywhere before or after the war just the same. Most white men didn't even have the right to vote either unless they were property owners and most white men were not property owners.

But anyways, back then nobody really knew what was truly right or wrong. Folks just did what they had to do to survive, no different than they do today. It's easy to sit here today and cast judgment on those from long ago but had you grown up in that era you would have been no different than most of them not knowing what you now know about it today.

But once again, here we are today, some 40 years into legalized abortion and already 50+ million dead in just that amount of time in the US alone.

I wonder if one day the people of the future will cast judgment on all of us for allowing such evil to go on?

[caspofungin]

lol, the hard-core conservative hearing what he likes from an allegedly black civil war and slavery apologist. this thread takes the cake.

[garren]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Garren obviously isn't black,

Is this supposed to be a compliment or racism?

doesn't know history, etc.,

I don't support Steve's version of history. He's the one who claimed he looks down on his own ancestry from the South. He's adopted the Northern version of history. Not me. I go with what my father passed down to me.

just a troll.

Pot... kettle...

[CaptainMattJ.]

So you're telling me to forget the countless firsthand accounts, primary sources, and written history that tell a much much different story about slavery in the south, so i can adopt your version that then turns the sentiment on its head so its those evil northerners fault for freeing people that didn't want to be free?

Wasn't it that in the south the black vote was mercilessly suppressed through lynching, killing, beating, scare tactics and intimidation? Wasn't it in the south where it took the 101st airborne JUST to integrate schools? Wasn't it the south where a peaceful bus protest was firebombed and countless rallies disbanded violently? Wasn't it in the south where the biggest leaders of the civil rights movement cried for their rights? This is all RECENT history. My mother and father grew UP in it. Try to make up your own version about televised events and people who are still alive and were there.

[HunterICX]

So basically...this thread is just to continue that garbage from the recently closed zimmerman case thread.

Great....

HunterICX

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

So basically...this thread is just to continue that garbage from the recently closed zimmerman case thread.

Great....

HunterICX

I would lock this one, but not infract the OP, although the subject was similar in terms of the Zimmerman topic, it was not originally intended to go down those lines, but more to criticise Obama for getting involved in a particular case. Naturally though, with the situation as it is at the moment, it swiftly derailed into territory already covered in countless other posts.

I wonder if I need to start an argument with someone else from the UK here who is a Tudor supporter or a parliamentarian.