Defiant Oath Keepers founder:18yrs in prison for seditious conspiracy

[*Nately120*]

(05-26-2023, 12:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: Our founding fathers made a deal to count black people as 3/5 of a person so they weren't always caring about much but about about doing whatever they could to keep the country "together".

I'm not saying they are infallible, I'm just saying when a republican wins an election by a landslide with fewer votes it's "because democracy" and now I guess it is "because democracy" that we're going to get authoritarianism.  Ah but I'm a liberal nut so anything other that flat-out communism is authorities to me, isn't it?

[GMDino]

(05-26-2023, 12:29 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm not saying they are infallible, I'm just saying when a republican wins an election by a landslide with fewer votes it's "because democracy" and now I guess it is "because democracy" that we're going to get authoritarianism.  Ah but I'm a liberal nut so anything other that flat-out communism is authorities to me, isn't it?

Kinda my point.  They did whatever they could to have a democracy...including not providing a way to keep the democracy if the minority tried to end it by playing "within the rules".

That's why the gop wants more "originalists"...any changes to reflect the change in times since the 1770's is sacrilegious!   

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

The ignorance about the 3/5th's compromise here is as sad as it is predictable.

https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/slavery/experience/legal/docs2.html

The exact text;

which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons

There is no mention of black people at all, in fact, a free black person was counted just the same a free person of any other ethnicity. Also, this was done to prevent the southern states from having an outsized political influence by increasing their populations of enslaved people. Is their racism inherent in the clause? Absolutely, especially in reference to the indigenous population. Were the vast majority of enslaved people black at the time of this writing? Also, yes. But to state the constitution only counted "black people" as 3/5th's of a person is a flat out falsehood and an insult to free black US citizens of the time and up to the end of slavery. I don't think people like Frederick Douglass would appreciate this falsehood.

[GMDino]

(05-26-2023, 02:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The ignorance about the 3/5th's compromise here is as sad as it is predictable.

https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/slavery/experience/legal/docs2.html

The exact text;

which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons

There is no mention of black people at all, in fact, a free black person was counted just the same a free person of any other ethnicity.  Also, this was done to prevent the southern states from having an outsized political influence by increasing their populations of enslaved people.  Is their racism inherent in the clause?  Absolutely, especially in reference to the indigenous population.  Were the vast majority of enslaved people black at the time of this writing?  Also, yes.  But to state the constitution only counted "black people" as 3/5th's of a person is a flat out falsehood and an insult to free black US citizens of the time and up to the end of slavery.  I don't think people like Frederick Douglass would appreciate this falsehood.

Lot of words to say the founding fathers were fine with slaves being 3/5 of a person.  Or, as you would prefer, two out of every five didn't count as a person at all.

My apologies for over simplifying on a message board...lol.

How many free blacks were there in 1776?

Quote:Before the American Revolutionary War of 1775–1783, few slaves were manumitted; on the eve of the American Revolution, there was an estimated 30,000 free African Americans in Colonial America which accounts for about 5% of the total African American population with most of free African Americans being mixed race.

So congrats on finding the exception to the rule. It only accounted for 95% of Blacks in the US at that time.

Same link:
https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/slavery/experience/legal/docs2.html

Quote:

Although the Constitution did not refer directly to slaves, it did not ignore them entirely. Article one, section two of the Constitution of the United States declared that any person who was not free would be counted as three-fifths of a free individual for the purposes of determining congressional representation. The "Three-Fifths Clause" thus increased the political power of slaveholding states. It did not, however, make any attempt to ensure that the interests of slaves would be represented in the government.

[Belsnickel]

(05-26-2023, 02:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: Lot of words to say the founding fathers were fine with slaves being 3/5 of a person.  Or, as you would prefer, two out of every five didn't count as a person at all.

My apologies for over simplifying on a message board...lol.

How many free blacks were there in 1776?



So congrats on finding the exception to the rule. It only accounted for 95% of Blacks in the US at that time.

Same link:
https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/slavery/experience/legal/docs2.html

I'm not going to lie, 5% being free is higher than I was expecting.

[GMDino]

(05-26-2023, 02:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm not going to lie, 5% being free is higher than I was expecting.

"Mostly mixed race".  I'm gonna assume they were with monied families too...lol.

And I wonder how many became slaves in their lifetime?

And, it's an estimate.

And then not a big change up until the civil war.

Quote:In the antebellum period many slaves escaped to freedom in the North and in Canada by running away, assisted by the Underground Railroad, staffed by former slaves and by abolitionist sympathizers. Census enumeration found a total of 488,070 "free colored" persons in the United States in 1860.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-26-2023, 02:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: Lot of words to say the founding fathers were fine with slaves being 3/5 of a person.  Or, as you would prefer, two out of every five didn't count as a person at all.

My apologies for over simplifying on a message board...lol.

How many free blacks were there in 1776?



So congrats on finding the exception to the rule. It only accounted for 95% of Blacks in the US at that time.

Same link:
https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/slavery/experience/legal/docs2.html

Lots of words to say you were wrong.  Again, they didn't count as 3/5th's of a person except for representation in the HoR, something done to prevent an expansion of the slave trade from giving southern states undue political power.  Odd that you would gloss over that.  As for it only counting for 5% of the blacks at the time, does that make it less relevant to the number of free blacks then or that expanded over time?  Prior to the start of the Civil War there were close to 500,000 free blacks in the US.  I don't think they found this important distinction of unimportance.


You said the Constitution counts "black people" as 3/5th's of a person.  This is demonstrably false.  Own it and move on.

[GMDino]

Anyone else hear that?

I couldn't see anything but I swear I heard something.  Like an  echo from long ago...whispering...

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

[SunsetBengal]

(05-26-2023, 03:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Lots of words to say you were wrong.  Again, they didn't count as 3/5th's of a person except for representation in the HoR, something done to prevent an expansion of the slave trade from giving southern states undue political power.  Odd that you would gloss over that.  As for it only counting for 5% of the blacks at the time, does that make it less relevant to the number of free blacks then or that expanded over time?  Prior to the start of the Civil War there were close to 500,000 free blacks in the US.  I don't think they found this important distinction of unimportance.


You said the Constitution counts "black people" as 3/5th's of a person.  This is demonstrably false.  Own it and move on.

Hmm, people in power on "his side" of history want to limit slave owners from counting owned people as citizens for purposes of limiting their power to expand such, yet he claims that you were wrong for pointing that out??

Interesting..  

Or should I say, how convenient..  

[Lucidus]

(05-26-2023, 02:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: Lot of words to say the founding fathers were fine with slaves being 3/5 of a person.  Or, as you would prefer, two out of every five didn't count as a person at all.

My apologies for over simplifying on a message board...lol.

How many free blacks were there in 1776?

So congrats on finding the exception to the rule. It only accounted for 95% of Blacks in the US at that time.

Same link:
https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/slavery/experience/legal/docs2.html

(05-26-2023, 08:31 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Hmm, people in power on "his side" of history want to limit slave owners from counting owned people as citizens for purposes of limiting their power to expand such, yet he claims that you were wrong for pointing that out??

Interesting..  

Or should I say, how convenient..  

Consider the alternative: Slave holding states would have been rewarded with increased power via increased representation; therefore, benefiting from the continued ownership of other humans.

[SunsetBengal]

(05-26-2023, 08:40 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Consider the alternative: Slave holding states would have been rewarded with increased power via increased representation; therefore, benefiting from the continued ownership of other humans.

Thank you for reiterating what I said.

[*Nately120*]

I didn't mean to derail things...have Trump and DeSantis promised to pardon this guy yet?

[samhain]

(05-26-2023, 10:15 AM)Dill Wrote: Not sure this is over.

The guy who led the coup could be our next president. 

That's still the main threat--millions who believe the lie, or don't care, an just want an autocratic leader.

Until he is back in power, the party's job now is

to create "whistleblower" distractions, gum up investigations, harass the FBI, use control of Congress to protect him.

Not gonna lie, I'm starting to prefer him to DeSantis if that's the only choice I get.  I don't love saying that, but I almost prefer a mentally unstable egomaniac to a serious autocratically-minded, hard-right president with decent legislative chops.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-26-2023, 08:31 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Hmm, people in power on "his side" of history want to limit slave owners from counting owned people as citizens for purposes of limiting their power to expand such, yet he claims that you were wrong for pointing that out??

Interesting..  

Or should I say, how convenient..  

Careful, he'll start pretending you don't exist as well. 

(05-26-2023, 08:40 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Consider the alternative: Slave holding states would have been rewarded with increased power via increased representation; therefore, benefiting from the continued ownership of other humans.

Yes, which is exactly what I pointed out.  You're agreeing with me and Sunset and disagreeing with Dino here.  I think we can all agree that being factually accurate, especially about such important topics, is important.  Some in this thread appear to disagree.

[guyofthetiger]

History buffs should know it was Lincoln and the Republican Party that ended slavery. So why do the Democrats represent so many blacks?

[*pally*]

(05-27-2023, 02:52 AM)guyofthetiger Wrote: History buffs should know it was Lincoln and the Republican Party that ended slavery. So why do the Democrats represent so many blacks?

LIBERALS ended slavery regardless of the name of the party in 1865. 

But, frankly, I am far more concerned with the political beliefs of the parties in 2023.

It was a migration from African Amercans towards the Democrats that began during FDR's terms as President and became a flood after Johnson and liberals from each party passed the Civil Rights Act.

It was after that bill passed that liberals/progressives politicians moved to the Democrat Party and conservatives became Repuublican

[GMDino]

(05-26-2023, 08:40 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Consider the alternative: Slave holding states would have been rewarded with increased power via increased representation; therefore, benefiting from the continued ownership of other humans.

What the Invisible Man and the Gatekeeper want to do is pick that I said blacks were 3/5 of a person vs 2 out of every three blacks didn't exist at all as some sort of "win" instead of dealing with the subject at hand.  I've been here a long time and I'm used to posters who would rather makes sure they can point out one "wrong" part of a post rather than deal with the issue being discussed like adults. Heck, I posted a video with the wrong date once and when I admitted it was wrong I was labeled a "troll".  Frankly I'm surprised no one motioned all the "white slaves" by now to point out ow "racist" I am...lol.

-->**EDIT TO ADD** that I did indeed state the 3/5 compromise wrong. To me that didn't matter to the point I was making. And I won't blame my mistake on anything other than that. Just wanted to be clear on that point.<--

Actually my point was the founding fathers were fine with slaves as long as it meant the south stayed in the union.

To bring it back to the original question I was pointing out they didn't care thinking that the minority might one day prefer a wanna be dictator because they figured someone somewhere down the line would fix the problem when they added more amendments or, as some wished, rewrote the whole dang thing every so often.

They made compromises to have a country.

Today too many don't want to change things like the electoral college, number of representatives, number of SC justices because changing the constitution is too much for them....and it also helps a minority continue to wield power.  So no compromises.

[GMDino]

(05-26-2023, 09:39 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I didn't mean to derail things...have Trump and DeSantis promised to pardon this guy yet?

Yep.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/05/25/desantis-says-he-will-look-into-pardoning-jan-6-rioters-if-elected-president/?sh=487d813769bf

Quote:Gov. Ron DeSantis ® said Thursday he would prioritize pardoning “victims” of “political targeting,” potentially including the defendants involved with the January 6 attacks on the capitol, a move that could alter sentences like the 18 years handed to Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes Thursday.




DeSantis said he would consider pardoning those charged in the Jan. 6 attacks.
GETTY IMAGES



KEY FACTS
Speaking on the podcast Clay & Buck’s the day after he announced his presidential bid, DeSantis said the FBI and Department of Justice have been “weaponized” to target certain political groups, after he was asked if he would consider pardoning the January 6 defendants and former President Donald Trump.

From the start of his presidency, he would be “aggressive about issuing pardons” to groups he believes have been politically targeted, such as pro-life demonstrators, he said.

While some cases may involve a true violation of the law, DeSantis said he believes there is an “uneven application of justice” in many incidents—he used the example of a Black Lives Matter protester not getting prosecuted the same as someone involved in January 6.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-pardon-large-portion-jan-6-rioters-rcna83873

Quote:Former President Donald Trump promised Wednesday night that if he is elected he will pardon a "large portion" of the people convicted of federal offenses for their participation in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.


"I am inclined to pardon many of them," Trump said at a town hall hosted by CNN at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire. "I can't say for every single one, because a couple of them, probably they got out of control."

He added that "most likely" he would pardon "a large portion of them."

"And it'll be very early on," Trump said.

[StoneTheCrow]

(05-26-2023, 10:34 PM)samhain Wrote: Not gonna lie, I'm starting to prefer him to DeSantis if that's the only choice I get.  I don't love saying that, but I almost prefer a mentally unstable egomaniac to a serious autocratically-minded, hard-right president with decent legislative chops.  

The next one is ALWAYS worse. How are they going to top “Literally Hitler” though? Literally Thanos? We shall see.

Or are you in the ratings and clicks business?

Or do you prefer Trump because you think his nomination makes whatever democrat is running that much more electable?