PDA

View Full Version : Our progressive crowd`s three-fifths attack upon our Constitution




johnwk
10-30-2010, 02:47 PM
It is so sad to see how government school teachers have been getting away with lying to our nation’s children for years about our founding fathers being evil White men, and in particular with regard to our Constitution’s three-fifths clause which they assert made Blacks three-fifths of a person. This propagandist narration of history reflects that which is taught in government operated schools by our progressive domestic enemy crowd.


The truth is, the injustice of slavery was not an injustice inflicted or perpetrated by our Constitution. Quite the contrary! Upon the creation of the United States Constitution, as witnessed by Article 1, Sec. 2, Clause 3, an aversion to slavery was expressed by the founding fathers, and a specific penalty was imposed upon those states having state sponsored slavery! Unfortunately, the constitutional penalty for state-sponsored slavery has been distorted and mischaracterized over the years by progressives who have seized control over our government schools and falsely teach our nation’s children the provision in question made " blacks three-fifths of a person."., and they do so for no other reason but to discredit our Constitution and bring shame to our founding fathers.


But a review of the actual words of Article 1, Sec. 2, clause 3, which progressives continually use as a weapon to discredit our Constitution, reveals slave holding states were penalized by this provision which denied them full representation in Congress in proportion to their actual population size---the population of slaves not being fully counted when apportioning representatives among the states, which diminished the voting strength of slave holding states in Congress!


In addition, our founding fathers provided a specific provision in the Constitution allowing Congress to tax the importation of slaves after the year 1808, which was specifically intended to be used to discourage and bring an end to slavery! But heck, why would our progressive government school teachers want to teach the truth to children when their job is to delude them with propaganda, turn our nation’s young against our federal Constitution and the documented intentions under which it was adopted, in order to impose a vision of government upon these children which turns out to be a federal plantation with children viewed as future tax slaves, there to financially support folks in government who live large by confiscating the bread which business and labor has produced?


In reference to our founding fathers it is also interesting to note that after the Revolutionary War and the people of America gained their independence from foreign domination [the real culprit of slavery on American soil] the people within a number of the states, exercising their newly found freedom, quickly moved to share the blessings of liberty to all by abolishing slavery! For example, the people of Vermont took this immediate action in its 1777 declaration of rights, which declared "no...person born in this country, or brought here over sea, ought to be holden by law to serve any person as a servant, slave, or apprentice". Likewise, the Massachusetts constitution of 1780 declared that "all men are born free and equal" and was used by the court a few years after its adoption to legally forbid any person to be held as a slave. And, in 1787, the Northwest Ordinance stated "there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said Territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." By the year 1788 all the states north of Maryland , except New York and New Jersey, had legislated to extinguish slavery, and by 1804 the remaining two northern states [ N.Y. and N.J.] had put slavery to rest.


Aside from the above historical facts, we now find our progressives have taken their propaganda to a new level, and are using the government school system and a captive defenseless audience to actually engage children in classroom rituals singing praising to and glorifying a president whose actions now border on acts of sedition, and violate the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.


JWK


America, we have a problem, we have been attacked from within! We are being destroyed from within by a group of DOMESTIC ENEMIES (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164) who have managed to seize political power and whose mission is in fact to bring “change” to America ___ the dismantling of our military defensive power; the allowance of our borders to be overrun by foreign invaders, the diluting of our election process by allowing ineligible persons to vote; the destruction of our manufacturing capabilities; the strangulation of our agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity; the destruction of our nation’s health care delivery system, the looting of both our federal treasury and a mandatory retirement pension fund; the brainwashing of our nation’s children in government operated schools; the trashing of our nation’s traditions and moral values; the creation of an iron fisted control unauthorized by our written Constitution over America’s businesses and industries; the devaluation of our nation’s currency, and, the future enslavement of our children and grand children via unbridled debt and inflation, not to mention an iron fisted government which intends to rule their very lives!

Promontorium
10-30-2010, 05:25 PM
Give me a break. I am so god damn tired of you people.

WE HAD LEGAL SLAVERY, HUMANS WERE OBJECTS, the constitution did not abolish it..

The Constitution was established as the supreme law. To omit the abolition of slavery was to sanction its continued existence.

You must confront, admit, and denounce the evils of the past to learn from them, and assure they do not recur.



The truth is, the injustice of slavery was not an injustice inflicted or perpetrated by our Constitution. Quite the contrary! Upon the creation of the United States Constitution, as witnessed by Article 1, Sec. 2, Clause 3, an aversion to slavery was expressed by the founding fathers, and a specific penalty was imposed upon those states having state sponsored slavery!

OH MY! an "aversion"? An "AVERSION"? Not that! And a penalty too! Well I stand corrected (that's how they abolished cigarettes too, worked out great).

THEY WERE 3/5s BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT EVEN HUMANS BY LAW. The 3/5 rule was a GIFT, it would be like giving SHEEP 3/5 representation!!

You make me sick.


Your logic:

Right to bear arms: "Shall not be infringed"
Freedom of men: "three fifths of all other Persons"

There's something missing there. That extra overtness that one might expect, oh that's right SLAVERY WAS FUCKING LEGAL AND THE CONSTITUTION DID NOTHING TO STOP IT!!!

LibertyEagle
10-30-2010, 05:27 PM
Good post, John. :)

Promontorium, I think you are misconstruing what Johnwk said. I also think you are misunderstanding the intent of what our Founders were trying to do by putting the 3/5 provision in the Constitution and why they did it that way. You may want to go study on it a bit, rather than get so personally insulting towards John.

aGameOfThrones
10-31-2010, 12:48 AM
Good post, John. :)

Promontorium, I think you are misconstruing what Johnwk said. I also think you are misunderstanding the intent of what our Founders were trying to do by putting the 3/5 provision in the Constitution and why they did it that way. You may want to go study on it a bit, rather than get so personally insulting towards John.


This! +1

RM918
10-31-2010, 06:38 AM
Wasn't it a compromise? After they couldn't get rid of slavery, the South still wanted to count their slaves fully in order to get more representatives in Congress even though they had no rights. So they instituted the 3/5ths thing in order to cut down on their representatives.

nobody's_hero
10-31-2010, 07:28 AM
Folks like to be critical of the founders and the constitution for not abolishing slavery immediately. Think about it though. We just got out of a long war, it was hard enough to get everyone to come together and agree on the most basic stuff (or that which we take for granted today), and perhaps the founders knew that the issue of slavery was such a hot issue that to try to settle it at the time would have split the nation in half. . .

which is what happened.

ARealConservative
10-31-2010, 08:12 AM
Give me a break. I am so god damn tired of you people.

WE HAD LEGAL SLAVERY, HUMANS WERE OBJECTS, the constitution did not abolish it..

The Constitution was established as the supreme law. To omit the abolition of slavery was to sanction its continued existence.

You must confront, admit, and denounce the evils of the past to learn from them, and assure they do not recur.




OH MY! an "aversion"? An "AVERSION"? Not that! And a penalty too! Well I stand corrected (that's how they abolished cigarettes too, worked out great).

THEY WERE 3/5s BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT EVEN HUMANS BY LAW. The 3/5 rule was a GIFT, it would be like giving SHEEP 3/5 representation!!

You make me sick.


Your logic:

Right to bear arms: "Shall not be infringed"
Freedom of men: "three fifths of all other Persons"

There's something missing there. That extra overtness that one might expect, oh that's right SLAVERY WAS FUCKING LEGAL AND THE CONSTITUTION DID NOTHING TO STOP IT!!!

good post. you nailed it

ARealConservative
10-31-2010, 08:16 AM
the founder hero worship is what gets a bit old.

they were men. fallible men. They did not do nearly enough to speak out against the institution of slavery.

Sure, maybe it was political suicide to do so, but so the hell what!

If Dr. Paul would just go along to get along, we wouldn't respect him for it.

Son of Detroit
10-31-2010, 08:29 AM
Wasn't it a compromise? After they couldn't get rid of slavery, the South still wanted to count their slaves fully in order to get more representatives in Congress even though they had no rights. So they instituted the 3/5ths thing in order to cut down on their representatives.

Exactly. Sums up what I was about to say.

nobody's_hero
10-31-2010, 08:49 AM
the founder hero worship is what gets a bit old.

they were men. fallible men. They did not do nearly enough to speak out against the institution of slavery.

Sure, maybe it was political suicide to do so, but so the hell what!

If Dr. Paul would just go along to get along, we wouldn't respect him for it.

Again, see post 6. It was more than "political suicide". The issue of slavery eventually fractured the nation in half and led to the bloodiest war (in terms of American lives lost) in our history.

Unless you think that the founders were in a position to risk that happening after having just fought a war, I'd say they had done enough. It was up to their posterity (us) to handle the issue of slavery. 600,000+ deaths later, the issue was settled (one way or another). I suppose the founders were right.

paulitics
10-31-2010, 09:06 AM
the founder hero worship is what gets a bit old.

they were men. fallible men. They did not do nearly enough to speak out against the institution of slavery.

Sure, maybe it was political suicide to do so, but so the hell what!

If Dr. Paul would just go along to get along, we wouldn't respect him for it.

The fight to end slavery did not begin with the constitution, but many of the founders were against slavery, and wanted its days to end. Thomas Jefferson called slavery "abominable sin" and a "moral depravity".

You have to realize slavery was entrenched in society, and existed for thousands of years, and there was no way to just snap the fingers and end it overnight.
Most of the founding fathers thought that they were doing the best they could to end it, and that it would just be a matter of time before slavery would end on its own. Any objective reader of history can see the hard fought struggle to abolish slavery, albeit made with many compromises, began in earnest with the founding fathers. Many of them spoke out against slavery.

The problem is that liberal professors love to blame the founding fathers for slavery, and that is the problem. They take it out of the context of time. It is a simplistic world view.

The whole notion that these men only fought for their interests, really belittles the significance of what transpired in this country, and subsequently the rest of the world because of the principles this country was founded on.

As for Dr Paul, he would certainly speak out against slavery as did many of the founding fathers, but then would likely be portrayed as a racist at the same time. There is a good chance he would own slaves (as many white folks inherited ) and people would love to portray him as a hypocrite and aristocrat.

erowe1
10-31-2010, 12:26 PM
The truth is, the injustice of slavery was not an injustice inflicted or perpetrated by our Constitution.

I beg your pardon.


Article. IV.

Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

The injustice of slavery was definitely advanced by the Constitution. The nonslave states were not permitted to be places of sanctuary for runaway slaves.

Original_Intent
10-31-2010, 03:19 PM
Good post, John. :)

Promontorium, I think you are misconstruing what Johnwk said. I also think you are misunderstanding the intent of what our Founders were trying to do by putting the 3/5 provision in the Constitution and why they did it that way. You may want to go study on it a bit, rather than get so personally insulting towards John.

Yes, +1!

torchbearer
10-31-2010, 03:22 PM
I beg your pardon.



The injustice of slavery was definitely advanced by the Constitution. The nonslave states were not permitted to be places of sanctuary for runaway slaves.

well, if slaves are considered sub-human property, then the property owner is still the owner, despite the location of the property. that is the reason.
if we had monkeys as house slaves, and your monkey ran into another persons house. that monkey should be returned to you.

erowe1
10-31-2010, 05:30 PM
well, if slaves are considered sub-human property, then the property owner is still the owner, despite the location of the property. that is the reason.
if we had monkeys as house slaves, and your monkey ran into another persons house. that monkey should be returned to you.

And what the Constitution did was require all the states to regard slaves that way.

Slavery persisted not because we had too much states rights, and not enough power centralized in the federal government. It persisted because we had a powerful centralized federal government imposing this rule on all the states. And this centralization of power was not the result of some departure from the Constitution, but from the Constitution itself.

klamath
10-31-2010, 05:48 PM
The founders did many fantastic things however slavery and the flaw in the constitution ended up costing 600 thousand lives. They were men and they had failings, slavery was their greatest failing. They knew at that time that africans were humans and not monkeys.

HOLLYWOOD
10-31-2010, 06:48 PM
And on parity the United States government use that against Draft/Military service dodgers to Canada.

We are all slaves to the government, no matter how comfortable they make it for US.


And what the Constitution did was require all the states to regard slaves that way.

Slavery persisted not because we had too much states rights, and not enough power centralized in the federal government. It persisted because we had a powerful centralized federal government imposing this rule on all the states. And this centralization of power was not the result of some departure from the Constitution, but from the Constitution itself.

Vessol
10-31-2010, 07:03 PM
the founder hero worship is what gets a bit old.

they were men. fallible men. They did not do nearly enough to speak out against the institution of slavery.

Sure, maybe it was political suicide to do so, but so the hell what!

If Dr. Paul would just go along to get along, we wouldn't respect him for it.

Best post of this topic.

The Founder worship is kind of disturbing sometimes. I can only count on one hand how many of the Founding Fathers I have any respect for.

Promontorium
11-01-2010, 01:26 AM
I can't say that the writers and signers of the Constitution should or could have abolished slavery, but i will not accept a rewrite. To paint this peachy perfection theory is to sacrifice every man that endevored to do better in this world. It promotes a religious edict that once and never again people got it right That's not right, that's not honest, and it excuses laziness and crime. If we viewed history as a series of good and bad ideas, men acting as men, it tells people that we may screw up, and survive. It also tells people that differences can always be made. There is no height man has reached that cannot be surpassed by learning from success and failure.

We are not perfect beings. No one ever was. We are not descended from gods, doomed to mediocrity, no, we are capable of reaching the gods through determination and success.

The villainous destroyer always wants us to believe things are inescapably getting worse, and that we must enjoy wallowing in the mire. But this false positivity too is villainous as it seeks to make us believe that we can do no wrong, and never have done wrong.

This is the one truth; each of us wakes into this world as children just as confused and innocemt as everyone else. Our connections are more than in the living, as we can keep, and have kept ideas alive for thousands of years. But there can be no presumption that because they came before us, or because the words were repeated for thousands of years that there's any validity. Give or take some IQ points, every one of those founding fathers came into this world just as ignorant as the rest of is. The advantage is ours, we have everything they had, everything they made, and hundreds of years more.

The lesson is that lessons can be learned. To whitewash the past insults every step of progress, and lends to an idea that only now people have discovered ignorance, failure, and strife.

To pretend all was well from day 1 makes the efforts of abolitionists appear meaningless. It allows <these guys> the comfort of entirely ridiculing Lincoln, or perpetuating this nonsense that killing people who took up arms is a worse crime than raping and killing humans and selling babies for labor for 300 years. I'd hope for 5 fucking minutes they'd at least consider it a tough decision. But in your revisionist world, the civil rights movement was just (eh hem) "acting up".

It's easy to say things were always good, when the witnesses are dead. Easy to cast off the horrific crimes by simply ignoring what little text there is to recount it. The tough course, the responsible course, is to appreciate what we have, and work to make things better. It's not to my benefit to believe the founding fathers were perfect unless I believe I deserve any credit for their actions. I'm all alone, and in this mortal solo existence, lies do not serve me, lies can only harm me. My advantage is in learning how things really work, why things are exactly as they are.