And since this was before the south even becoming states and territories as we know the south in 1861, the southern colonies proved more suitable climate for African slaves.

The heat and humidity of the south matched that of Africa which these slaves came from, and they became more profitable in the south which both sides of the Union definitely were aware of.

Ok Gravy, i have provided actual info, as well as Stew, where is your sourced information for this?

I have stated common fact and stew has gone into detail.

Absolutely not, they believed in gradual emancipation as franklin proposed and that included deporting freed slaves back to Africa.

That’s how Liberia was born.

It did not poof out of the ether.

And Liberia failed hard

We gave them the same constitution, bill of rights, and we built their capital, all their infrastructure and gave them a army.

And it turned into a hell hole that has a civil war every couple years.

It is because Liberia’s culture the freed slaves had conflicted with the natives already there.

Blacks started slaughtering each other enmasse

Remember these slaves were plucked from all corners of the west African coast. They were not part of the same homogenous group.

The moment we left them Liberia began butchering Africans hostile to them.

And blacks are VERY racially motivated, so they slaughtered any that were not of the same group, if they were a minority.

Africa still does that.

I know two Kenyans who give me lectures on how life is in Africa, it’s a horror show.

Thats why the Bnatu tried killing the original South African natives, The Khoisan, but the whites protected them, fun fact, the modern black Bantu population, is not the native's of south Africa, the blacks tried to kill them and still are.

"we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." "But only if you're white" - the founders.

That law was written by Washington himself.

It restricted ALL IMMIGRATION TO WHITE PEOPLE.

Colored people were not even allowed to come and become citizen's.

I have a piece of a speech I gave that includes a portion of Calhoun’s speech. @Graviter

Here:

Now you should immediately notice, Calhoun's first section: "We have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race.", at first you'd probably find it intriguing, as slaves of this time were not of Caucasian stock but Capoid-Negroid stock from the Ivory Coast of Africa. So you may then ask: "Is he delusional?", I say **no!**, you see, the Southern version of slavery as an institution drastically altered the previous ideals of the institution from up north. Mr. Calhoun, protested the annexation of the entirety of Mexico, "This debate brought to the forefront one of the contradictions of manifest destiny: on the one hand, while identitarian ideas inherent in manifest destiny suggested that Mexicans, as non-whites, would present a threat to white racial integrity and thus were not qualified to become Americans" from my selected source: **Promised Land, Crusader State by Walter A. McDougall**.

Thus for, Manifest Destiny is at a very sharp crossroad astowhere it's direction lay be up for debate at that point in time, where Southern political opposition rejecting total annexation of Mexico, compared to the folk preaching for the absorbing the entirety of it. Now, you may laugh as the main motivation for opposition against annexation of all Mexico has ties to white supremacy; but I say it be a good thing for USA as a whole. But the cessions from Mexico did not cease with 1848, and persisted until later on in the Gadsden Purchase of 1853. Fun fact, the Jefferson Davis [currently a remarkably successful U.S. Senator], proposed limited annexation of specifically most of northeastern Mexico. While the Southern opposition protested total annexation for sake of white racial integrity, It is clear that Manifest Destiny **still** continued despite even **Southern** opposition!

But i guess George Washington isnt a founding father.

It was also appealed five years later while Washington was still the president.

I have an entire speech I have given regarding the particular institutions reality, compared to abolitionist rhetoric.

It is quite verbose, but I can attempt to paste the entirety of it here. @Justin Burger (Major-GA)

This is the history of laws concerning immigration and naturalization in the United States. Immigration is distinct from naturalization. For the first century of the United States' history, Anyone who wanted to vote or hold elective office had to be naturalized. That is, anyone could immigrate in, but only those who were white and went through the naturalization process and became a citizen could vote or hold elective office.

This set of policies, in which open immigration was permitted, but naturalization was tightly controlled, persisted until the 1870s and 1880s, when growing support for eugenics eventually drove the US government to adopt immigration laws. These laws were intended to keep the closed immigration policy which the Founding Fathers had permitted, in preventing "racial taint" from immigrants who entered from undesirable countries.

What you described was not naturalization, non-whites could not become naturalized and hold office, or vote.

The United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787. Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the Constitution expressly gives the United States Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

Pursuant to this power, Congress in 1790 passed the first naturalization law for the United States, the Naturalization Act of 1790. The law enabled those who had resided in the country for two years and had kept their current state of residence for a year to apply for citizenship. However it restricted naturalization to "free white persons" of "good moral character".

This second part is what you were talking about Sneeze.

But good try.

The Naturalization Act of 1795 increased the residency requirement to five years residence and added a requirement to give a three years notice of intention to apply for citizenship, and the Naturalization Act of 1798 further increased the residency requirement to 14 years and required five years notice of intent to apply for citizenship.

That is the 1795 law that you mentioned, it did not remove white requirement, it only added more.

@Deleted User go ahead.

https://youtu.be/93U54gprVQA

Jared Taylor has been quoting black crime statistics since we were shitting in diapers or even born.