|
Post by HolyMoly on Apr 12, 2023 2:37:54 GMT
What garbage. None of that is true, but we know we rarely get the truth from leftists, do we?
Nope, the war was not about slavery and it's historically ignorant to claim it was. Slavery was a part of it all, a fuse, a spark, a tipping point, but not what either secession or the war were primarily about. Objections to Lincoln went far deeper than your shallow tale about slavery; tariffs, infrastructure and government centralization were much bigger issues.
All you're doing is spewing your memorized Northern talking points. Do you not realize that you're being used as a lemming, a pawn.... as a mindless conduit for that simplistic narrative? After all, like a good little liberal, you've been trained/indoctrinated/brainwashed never to question the NARRATIVETM
And is math a challenge for you? Only three states out of ELEVEN with a slavery centered declaration and those few spoke of the causes of SECESSION, not the cause of the war. Just three....and that's supposed to represent the entire South's motivation....all based on your laughably thin "evidence" that you've evidently latched onto to massage your confirmation biases.
The only loser here is any leftist spewing false Yankee garbage who has either been brainwashed or isn't intelligent enough to seek out the truth. Because what you posted ain't it.
You lose, either way. But step up any time you want to be schooled on this subject. That I can do.
Yep, we get the truth from leftists like Trumpy the all time lying champ POTUS.
Nothing was bigger than losing cheap labor and thereby destroying a large part of the southern economy. That's what scared southerners about Lincoln's election. The funny part was that Lincoln had no intention of abolishing slavery, but the clueless southerners seceded and ended slavery in four years. If they hadn't seceded they could have kept their human property for a longer time. What a bunch of idiots. Of the four states that issued declarations, three had slavery as the most mentioned issue. Slavery. States rights was basically the same thing. Sometimes, narratives are relatively simple and this is one of those times, which is why most historians agree that slavery was the main cause of the war, not as a northern narrative but as objective history. Your school is just the old Lost Cause narrative that will go to any lengths to deny that slavery was the cause of the Civil War. I suppose the silver lining is that some southerners are now ashamed to admit that slavery was the cause.
|
|
|
Post by runswithscissors on Apr 12, 2023 3:04:51 GMT
And let's give an honorable mention to the fact that the states admitted to the union in the period prior to the civil war were admitted or not on the sole basis of whether or not they would be a slave state or a free state. If trump were alive back then, his name would be paleocon, the denier of worlds.
|
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,156
|
Post by bama beau on Apr 12, 2023 3:17:19 GMT
PaleLeo jerks off to pictures of Harlan Crow.
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 12, 2023 5:08:42 GMT
On April 12th, 1861... 162 years ago.....Confederate forces in the sovereign and independent state of South Carolina defended themselves against the terroristic threats from armed Union occupiers that were infesting the unfinished (and long unoccupied) Fort Sumter.
For four long months after the legal secession of South Carolina, the Confederates had asked these foreign invaders to leave peacefully.
During that same period, right up to the week previous to April 12th, the Confederates had actually supplied food to the fort's occupants, despite the fact that the Yankees had their cannon trained on the sovereign waters and defenses of their very patient hosts.
After Lincoln's promise to the S.C. Governor that the Yankees would force the harbor with an armed convoy (first Union ship arrived at 3 am on the 12th), the Confederates were finally forced, after four months of seeking a peaceful solution, to end the illegal Northern menace with the April 12th barrage. No one was killed on either side during the bombardment. Actually, the Union commander, Major Anderson, killed the first Yankees of the war by insisting on a 100 gun salute after the surrender. During the salute, two of his own Yankee troops in the fort were killed. On this day, remember all of those brave Southern soldiers and their defense of their homes and their rights against the Yankee occupiers and against Dear Leader Lincoln, who was determined to subjugate anyone who dared to break away from the overreach of the monstrous central authority that he dreamed of creating (he succeeded). And now you know.....the rest of the story (apologies to Paul Harvey). History sure is messy and complex, ain't it, ya'll? interesting that anyone claiming themselves to be such a highly self-regarded valuable facts of war super-expert of that episode of our war idiocy, would at least know when and where it started.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,946
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 12, 2023 12:13:49 GMT
Yep, we get the truth from leftists like Trumpy the all time lying champ POTUS. Nothing was bigger than losing cheap labor and thereby destroying a large part of the southern economy. That's what scared southerners about Lincoln's election. The funny part was that Lincoln had no intention of abolishing slavery, but the clueless southerners seceded and ended slavery in four years. If they hadn't seceded they could have kept their human property for a longer time. What a bunch of idiots. Of the four states that issued declarations, three had slavery as the most mentioned issue. Slavery. States rights was basically the same thing. Sometimes, narratives are relatively simple and this is one of those times, which is why most historians agree that slavery was the main cause of the war, not as a northern narrative but as objective history. Your school is just the old Lost Cause narrative that will go to any lengths to deny that slavery was the cause of the Civil War. I suppose the silver lining is that some southerners are now ashamed to admit that slavery was the cause. The only thing "simple here is your weak minded understanding of that era. Your narrative is like a cartoon, made worse by the injection of your sad little Trump obsession when I've said nothing about him.
Just three documents prominently mentioning slavery out of how many seceded states? You lose at math and history and wouldn't recognize "objective" history if it was right in front of you. You've been suckered in (or brainwashed) by the lies of the "Righteous Cause" narrative that mandates absolute belief of the lie that slavery was the cause....and go to any lengths to protect that lie. Care to guess what percentage of Southerners were slave owners? Hoe many families owned slaves? How few were plantation owners?
You just foolishly helped prove that slavery was NOT the cause. Do you actually think the Southerners didn't know that slavery would be ended if they lost an inevitable war, yet they went ahead with secession anyway? They knew that after secession, escaped slaves could no longer be requested from Nortern states nor would they ever have any chance of taking slaves into U.S. territories. THEY KNEW ALL OF THAT. They KNEW slavery as an institution would be damaged by leaving the Union.
In March 1861, the U.S. Congress passed the Corwin Amendment, the original 13th amendment, and sent it to the states for ratification. It was passed by Northen interests, since seven states had already seceded and were no longer represented. Here's what it said:
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.
All the seceded Southern states had to do was end their secession and pass this amendment in their state legislatures....IF slavery was the issue, the South had just won what they wanted. But it wasn't about slavery and they didn't take this bait.
Every step made was damaging to slavery and it would be stupid to think that they didn't know that it would be. Slavery was not the cause.
I know that you can't help it that you are ignorant on this subject, but that's no reason to remain so.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,946
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 12, 2023 12:32:59 GMT
And let's give an honorable mention to the fact that the states admitted to the union in the period prior to the civil war were admitted or not on the sole basis of whether or not they would be a slave state or a free state. If trump were alive back then, his name would be paleocon, the denier of worlds. Ah, the stupidity of liberals is boundless. Those were fights over the balance of legislative power in the U.S Congress, especially the number of Senators.
|
|
|
Post by runswithscissors on Apr 12, 2023 13:06:06 GMT
And let's give an honorable mention to the fact that the states admitted to the union in the period prior to the civil war were admitted or not on the sole basis of whether or not they would be a slave state or a free state. If trump were alive back then, his name would be paleocon, the denier of worlds. Ah, the stupidity of liberals is boundless. Those were fights over the balance of legislative power in the U.S Congress, especially the number of Senators. Well, shit my britches.....^ here's some half right history. Yeah, legislative representation was a big concern. It was so much of a concern with regard to these new states that the issue of how each slave counts as 3/5 of a person was the main issue in this new state business. Slavers were much in favor of having their (non voting) free labor counted as being part of the population for legislative representation purposes. After all, every hundred non voting slaves count as sixty people. And for that same reason, free staters were against it. The main issue was "slave" or "free." The legislative representation aspect is secondary to the main point of how many bodies get counted.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 19,285
|
Post by thor on Apr 12, 2023 13:13:47 GMT
And let's give an honorable mention to the fact that the states admitted to the union in the period prior to the civil war were admitted or not on the sole basis of whether or not they would be a slave state or a free state. If trump were alive back then, his name would be paleocon, the denier of worlds. Ah, the stupidity of liberals is boundless. Those were fights over the balance of legislative power in the U.S Congress, especially the number of Senators. A spectacular Self-own. Paleo kicked his own ass.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,946
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 12, 2023 13:31:39 GMT
Ah, the stupidity of liberals is boundless. Those were fights over the balance of legislative power in the U.S Congress, especially the number of Senators. Well, shit my britches.....^ here's some half right history. Yeah, legislative representation was a big concern. It was so much of a concern with regard to these new states that the issue of how each slave counts as 3/5 of a person was the main issue in this new state business. Slavers were much in favor of having their (non voting) free labor counted as being part of the population for legislative representation purposes. After all, every hundred non voting slaves count as sixty people. And for that same reason, free staters were against it. The main issue was "slave" or "free." The legislative representation aspect is secondary to the main point of how many bodies get counted. If you shit your britches, it would be the same stuff that's between your ears, evidently. It was Northern interests that concocted the 3/5ths rule, not Southerners. Free staters were "against" slaves because they were racists that didn't want the competition in new states. What was the Republican reasoning in those days....why don't I let ole' Abe Lincoln tell you:
Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.
There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas.
"but “where there is a will there is a way,” and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be."
In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, “It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and in their places be, pari passu [on an equal basis], filled up by free white laborers.”
By the way, 3/5ths has nothing to do with the election of Senators for each of those new states. They only got two no matter how many or how few slaves there were. As far as the U.S House, those new states were so sparsely populated that it would have taken a huge number of slaves to make any difference in the number of house seats allowed to a new state.
You need to go back for remedial instruction on civics and history.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,946
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 12, 2023 13:32:26 GMT
Ah, the stupidity of liberals is boundless. Those were fights over the balance of legislative power in the U.S Congress, especially the number of Senators. A spectacular Self-own. Paleo kicked his own ass. Nope, just yours and the rest of the liberal morons that have appeared here.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,946
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 12, 2023 13:34:14 GMT
Well, why don't you enlighten us if you think an error has been made. You seem to know it all, so let's see what you've got.
|
|
|
Post by runswithscissors on Apr 12, 2023 13:47:45 GMT
Well, shit my britches.....^ here's some half right history. Yeah, legislative representation was a big concern. It was so much of a concern with regard to these new states that the issue of how each slave counts as 3/5 of a person was the main issue in this new state business. Slavers were much in favor of having their (non voting) free labor counted as being part of the population for legislative representation purposes. After all, every hundred non voting slaves count as sixty people. And for that same reason, free staters were against it. The main issue was "slave" or "free." The legislative representation aspect is secondary to the main point of how many bodies get counted. If you shit your britches, it would be the same stuff that's between your ears, evidently. It was Northern interests that concocted the 3/5ths rule, not Southerners. Free staters were "against" slaves because they were racists that didn't want the competition in new states. What was the Republican reasoning in those days....why don't I let ole' Abe Lincoln tell you:
Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.
There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas.
"but “where there is a will there is a way,” and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be."
In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, “It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and in their places be, pari passu [on an equal basis], filled up by free white laborers.”
By the way, 3/5ths has nothing to do with the election of Senators for each of those new states. They only got two no matter how many or how few slaves there were. As far as the U.S House, those new states were so sparsely populated that it would have taken a huge number of slaves to make any difference in the number of house seats allowed to a new state.
You need to go back for remedial instruction on civics and history.
No, you do. That three fifths of a person has been around since 1787. It is part of the founding principles of this country. "Northern interests" had nothing to do with it. But you can keep believing that. It won't matter. Hell, when you think about it, it would be Southern interests that this primarily served. It was certainly not "Northern interests" that drove this principle. It didn't benefit them.....so, where are these "Northern interests" and what do you think they were? Senators? Hilarious....you're the one who brought up senators in your earlier screed. I never mentioned them and even ignored your comment about them because it made no sense. Now you act as if I were the one to bring up senators. shit
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,946
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 12, 2023 14:16:22 GMT
If you shit your britches, it would be the same stuff that's between your ears, evidently. It was Northern interests that concocted the 3/5ths rule, not Southerners. Free staters were "against" slaves because they were racists that didn't want the competition in new states. What was the Republican reasoning in those days....why don't I let ole' Abe Lincoln tell you:
Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.
There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas.
"but “where there is a will there is a way,” and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be."
In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, “It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and in their places be, pari passu [on an equal basis], filled up by free white laborers.”
By the way, 3/5ths has nothing to do with the election of Senators for each of those new states. They only got two no matter how many or how few slaves there were. As far as the U.S House, those new states were so sparsely populated that it would have taken a huge number of slaves to make any difference in the number of house seats allowed to a new state.
You need to go back for remedial instruction on civics and history.
No, you do. That three fifths of a person has been around since 1787. It is part of the founding principles of this country. "Northern interests" had nothing to do with it. But you can keep believing that. It won't matter. Hell, when you think about it, it would be Southern interests that this primarily served. It was certainly not "Northern interests" that drove this principle. It didn't benefit them.....so, where are these "Northern interests" and what do you think they were? Senators? Hilarious....you're the one who brought up senators in your earlier screed. I never mentioned them and even ignored your comment about them because it made no sense. Now you act as if I were the one to bring up senators. shit Liberals are so stupid it hurts to watch them. Northerners didn't want slaves counted at all, while Southerners wanted them all counted as 1 person each for apportionment. The 3/5ths rule was a compromise agreed upon by Northern interests to solve the impasse during the Convention.
As far as Senators, you ignored them in favor of your whining about the U.S. House and slaves, when the number of Senators from the new states was most critical, not the U.S. House. A new state still got two Senators no matter how sparsely populated it was, which is why in that time, the leanings of new Senators were so important.
I can make you less stupid, but you have to stop resisting.
|
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,156
|
Post by bama beau on Apr 12, 2023 14:34:19 GMT
The only way PaleLeo makes anyone look less stupid is by comparison.
|
|
|
Post by runswithscissors on Apr 12, 2023 14:55:17 GMT
No, you do. That three fifths of a person has been around since 1787. It is part of the founding principles of this country. "Northern interests" had nothing to do with it. But you can keep believing that. It won't matter. Hell, when you think about it, it would be Southern interests that this primarily served. It was certainly not "Northern interests" that drove this principle. It didn't benefit them.....so, where are these "Northern interests" and what do you think they were? Senators? Hilarious....you're the one who brought up senators in your earlier screed. I never mentioned them and even ignored your comment about them because it made no sense. Now you act as if I were the one to bring up senators. shit Liberals are so stupid it hurts to watch them. Northerners didn't want slaves counted at all, while Southerners wanted them all counted as 1 person each for apportionment. The 3/5ths rule was a compromise agreed upon by Northern interests to solve the impasse during the Convention.
As far as Senators, you ignored them in favor of your whining about the U.S. House and slaves, when the number of Senators from the new states was most critical, not the U.S. House. A new state still got two Senators no matter how sparsely populated it was, which is why in that time, the leanings of new Senators were so important.
I can make you less stupid, but you have to stop resisting.
Opinionated gibberish ignored. You keep up this Senator nonsense. I never commented on it because as I said before, it made no sense. At the time, Senators were appointed, not elected, so population as it relates to US Senate membership numbers is irrelevant in the subject at hand. And just for that reason, it was MORE important for slaves to be counted as 3/5 of a person with regard to representation in the House. It had no bearing on the Senators. That's why I never commented on your idiotic comment initially. But I will comment on your latest idiotic comment......that the number of new Senators from new states was most critical. No it wasn't. They'd only get two Senators even if Black people were counted as 3 people instead of 60% of one person.....it would make no difference. That's why it didn't matter and certainly wasn't "critical." House and Senate membership numbers collectively make up a states' electoral votes. THAT was what was critical......not the two senators each state has. I can make most people less stupid but I have my doubts about you.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,946
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 12, 2023 15:04:13 GMT
Liberals are so stupid it hurts to watch them. Northerners didn't want slaves counted at all, while Southerners wanted them all counted as 1 person each for apportionment. The 3/5ths rule was a compromise agreed upon by Northern interests to solve the impasse during the Convention.
As far as Senators, you ignored them in favor of your whining about the U.S. House and slaves, when the number of Senators from the new states was most critical, not the U.S. House. A new state still got two Senators no matter how sparsely populated it was, which is why in that time, the leanings of new Senators were so important.
I can make you less stupid, but you have to stop resisting.
Opinionated gibberish ignored. You keep up this Senator nonsense. I never commented on it because as I said before, it made no sense. At the time, Senators were appointed, not elected, so population as it relates to US Senate membership numbers is irrelevant in the subject at hand. And just for that reason, it was MORE important for slaves to be counted as 3/5 of a person with regard to representation in the House. It had no bearing on the Senators. That's why I never commented on your idiotic comment initially. But I will comment on your latest idiotic comment......that the number of new Senators from new states was most critical. No it wasn't. They'd only get two Senators even if Black people were counted as 3 people instead of 60% of one person.....it would make no difference. That's why it didn't matter and certainly wasn't "critical." House and Senate membership numbers collectively make up a states' electoral votes. THAT was what was critical......not the two senators each state has. I can make most people less stupid but I have my doubts about you. You sure get spun up when you're stupidly wrong, don't you? I mentioned senators because that was highly important in a sparsely populated new state that might get ONE House member total, but would still get EQUAL representation in the Senate regardless of population.
You brought up the inane 3/5ths argument as one of your famous strawmen, pretending that that rule was the motivator for Southerners bringing their slaves to new states.
You'd have to be a lot less stupid to have a chance to help anyone else. And since being a liberal requires being stupid, there's not much hope for your recovery. Get well soon.
|
|
Fiddler
Legend
Wasted again ..
Posts: 14,527
|
Post by Fiddler on Apr 12, 2023 15:11:42 GMT
A spectacular Self-own. Paleo kicked his own ass. Nope, just yours and the rest of the liberal morons that have appeared here. Never happened slaver.. Just like every other time you've tried to pawn off your revisionist history you got beat like a rented mule.. .
You know.. if it wasn't for history books.. you might get away with your bullshit. . You don't.
|
|
|
Post by runswithscissors on Apr 12, 2023 15:23:09 GMT
Opinionated gibberish ignored. You keep up this Senator nonsense. I never commented on it because as I said before, it made no sense. At the time, Senators were appointed, not elected, so population as it relates to US Senate membership numbers is irrelevant in the subject at hand. And just for that reason, it was MORE important for slaves to be counted as 3/5 of a person with regard to representation in the House. It had no bearing on the Senators. That's why I never commented on your idiotic comment initially. But I will comment on your latest idiotic comment......that the number of new Senators from new states was most critical. No it wasn't. They'd only get two Senators even if Black people were counted as 3 people instead of 60% of one person.....it would make no difference. That's why it didn't matter and certainly wasn't "critical." House and Senate membership numbers collectively make up a states' electoral votes. THAT was what was critical......not the two senators each state has. I can make most people less stupid but I have my doubts about you. You sure get spun up when you're stupidly wrong, don't you? I mentioned senators because that was highly important in a sparsely populated new state that might get ONE House member total, but would still get EQUAL representation in the Senate regardless of population.
You brought up the inane 3/5ths argument as one of your famous strawmen, pretending that that rule was the motivator for Southerners bringing their slaves to new states.
You'd have to be a lot less stupid to have a chance to help anyone else. And since being a liberal requires being stupid, there's not much hope for your recovery. Get well soon.
The only one spun up on this is you. You get particularly spun up when anyone points out the errors in your revisionism. Which is more important in the number of electoral votes a state (new or old) gets? Is it the number of non voting slaves in a state or is it the two Senators that each state gets? Take your time.....imagine 100,000 slaves living in a territory about to become a state and that those slaves count as 60,000 "people" for the purposes of establishing how many US House members that state gets. Now imagine another territory about to become a state but it has only 100,000 people living there, all white. Now, the territory with all those slaves plus the white people that owned them plus the white people who didn't own slaves gives that territory more clout as a state than the all white state that has less population. Here's the nut: population affects the number of US House members a state gets.....population does not affect the number of US Senators a state gets. Presidential elections are decided by the number of electoral votes they win. Now what is more "critical" in this scenario? You still think it's the Senators? Really? Strawman? Bullshit. the 3/5 thing was the critical factor. There was no "incentive" to bring slaves anywhere; they would have gone where their owners took them anyway. This is why it was southern interests that this 3/5 thing benefited. It's not a strawman; it's the main issue. The strawman is the one you brough here with the Senators nonsense. yeah, right
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,946
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 12, 2023 15:47:28 GMT
You sure get spun up when you're stupidly wrong, don't you? I mentioned senators because that was highly important in a sparsely populated new state that might get ONE House member total, but would still get EQUAL representation in the Senate regardless of population.
You brought up the inane 3/5ths argument as one of your famous strawmen, pretending that that rule was the motivator for Southerners bringing their slaves to new states.
You'd have to be a lot less stupid to have a chance to help anyone else. And since being a liberal requires being stupid, there's not much hope for your recovery. Get well soon.
The only one spun up on this is you. You get particularly spun up when anyone points out the errors in your revisionism. Which is more important in the number of electoral votes a state (new or old) gets? Is it the number of non voting slaves in a state or is it the two Senators that each state gets? Take your time.....imagine 100,000 slaves living in a territory about to become a state and that those slaves count as 60,000 "people" for the purposes of establishing how many US House members that state gets. Now imagine another territory about to become a state but it has only 100,000 people living there, all white. Now, the territory with all those slaves plus the white people that owned them plus the white people who didn't own slaves gives that territory more clout as a state than the all white state that has less population. Here's the nut: population affects the number of US House members a state gets.....population does not affect the number of US Senators a state gets. Presidential elections are decided by the number of electoral votes they win. Now what is more "critical" in this scenario? You still think it's the Senators? Really? Strawman? Bullshit. the 3/5 thing was the critical factor. There was no "incentive" to bring slaves anywhere; they would have gone where their owners took them anyway. This is why it was southern interests that this 3/5 thing benefited. It's not a strawman; it's the main issue. The strawman is the one you brough here with the Senators nonsense. yeah, right There's no revisionism, just teaching you to be less stupid and you're a poor student.
From 1812 through 1850, maintaining the balance of free and slave state votes in the Senate was considered of paramount importance if the Union were to be preserved, and states were typically admitted in pairs
The balance was maintained until 1850, when California was admitted as a free state. Three more free states were admitted in the final years before the Civil War, disrupting the balance that the slave states had tried to maintain.
I hope you enjoyed your free ass kicking and please come visit us again.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,946
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 12, 2023 15:52:25 GMT
Nope, just yours and the rest of the liberal morons that have appeared here. Never happened slaver.. Just like every other time you've tried to pawn off your revisionist history you got beat like a rented mule.. .
You know.. if it wasn't for history books.. you might get away with your bullshit. . You don't.
Step up or shut up, little racist boy. Not a soul, including you or any of these other leftists, has ever stood a chance on this subject. You, especially, are notorious for contributing nothing while claiming credit when it's not due to you.
Engage and lose, run away and lose....those are your only options and a pretty good history of your past failures.
|
|