Originally posted by Putinbot1
So sparsely populated states never offered people jobs or land to immigrate to them? Really? Of course they did.
^How does this counter this:
Originally posted by SquallX
No one is triggered. It’s just that some of us find your point to be moot, so we call you up on it.Facts is, a sovereign nation has the right to deny entry to anyone no ammeter what.
A person could be the best individual there can be, but a sovereign nation can still refuse said person entry for the sole purpose of not wanting said person.
There’s nothing wrong with that.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
White Christians. The Mormons tried to take advantage of this in Missouri, and were driven out of the state by force.
Because:
1. Of their threat to the Missouri Compromise,
2. Insular and self-sustaining communities (economically)
3. Moral propriety (congregational sabbatical meetings, no tobacco and alcohol use (very anti-Southern, at the time),
4. Educating their children as a knowledge right - culture clash as it was seen as uppity New Englander "Libtard ideal". I know this seems like a made up point but it is legit - Mormons rubbed people the wrong way with their Yankee ideals.
5. Treating Black and Native Americans as humans - they preached to and baptized all humans - this type of anti-racism was extremely controversial and caused the most friction.
The vandalism and violence really got started against the Mormons after the Mormons posted a news article in their paper titled, "Free People of Color", clearly a highly incendiary piece in the North vs. South Slavery debate. But Mormons, especially Joseph Smith, were Abolitionists. Joseph Smith went as far as to say slavery made him burn with rage.
Mormons were driven out of the state for being smarter, more self-sufficient, abolitionists, and more moral than the existing residents. Local evangelists whipped up the locals against the Mormons because Mormons didn't have paid clergy and people were converting which is a direct loss to their paychecks. Despite historical primary accounts stating it was a culture issue, I believe that this is the real reason. It's always about money.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Because:1. Of their threat to the Missouri Compromise,
2. Insular and self-sustaining communities (economically)
3. Moral propriety (congregational sabbatical meetings, no tobacco and alcohol use (very anti-Southern, at the time),
4. Educating their children as a knowledge right - culture clash as it was seen as uppity New Englander "Libtard ideal". I know this seems like a made up point but it is legit - Mormons rubbed people the wrong way with their Yankee ideals.
5. Treating Black and Native Americans as humans - they preached to and baptized all humans - this type of anti-racism was extremely controversial and caused the most friction.The vandalism and violence really got started against the Mormons after the Mormons posted a news article in their paper titled, "Free People of Color", clearly a highly incendiary piece in the North vs. South Slavery debate. But Mormons, especially Joseph Smith, were Abolitionists. Joseph Smith went as far as to say slavery made him burn with rage.
Mormons were driven out of the state for being smarter, more self-sufficient, abolitionists, and more moral than the existing residents. Local evangelists whipped up the locals against the Mormons because Mormons didn't have paid clergy and people were converting which is a direct loss to their paychecks. Despite historical primary accounts stating it was a culture issue, I believe that this is the real reason. It's always about money.
TLDR. Mormons in Missouri in the 1830s are like Muslims in Michigan today. Large numbers of them moved to a community, outnumbering the original residents. They vote as a block, and put themselves in positions of power, which the original residents see as a hostile takeover.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
TLDR. Mormons in Missouri in the 1830s are like Muslims in Michigan today. Large numbers of them moved to a community, outnumbering the original residents. They vote as a block, and put themselves in positions of power, which the original residents see as a hostile takeover.
But you left out the part where the original residents took up arms against the new comers, murdered some, confiscated all their guns, and then used their own guns against them until they were beaten and driven from their own homes.
🙁
Originally posted by dadudemon
But you left out the part where the original residents took up arms against the new comers, murdered some, confiscated all their guns, and then used their own guns against them until they were beaten and driven from their own homes.🙁
No, I did not:
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
White Christians. The Mormons tried to take advantage of this in Missouri, and were driven out of the state by force.
Originally posted by SquallXThat's a different point, and in conjunction with my point it shows rules are flexible and not all times for immigration and not all immigrants are equal. Which is a more nuanced answer than rightists want to understand.
Not the point guy. A sovereign state still has the right to deny entry to anyone if they so chooses.