3/5 of a person?

[a777pilot]

I am curious. How many of you know the history behind the counting of slaves as 3/5 of a person?

I am listening to the cable news channels and they and their guests have got it backward. These are suppose to be highly educated people. I find this sad.

 

[fskimospy]

Tell us how you think they have it backwards.

 

[a777pilot]

Tell us how you think they have it backward.

The general thought o this is the this country considered the black slaves as less than a whole person, specifically 3/5 of a person. When that is not the case at all.

The southern slave holding states wanted to count all the slaves as a whole person. Those in the anti-slave states didn't want to count them at all. Why should those held as slaves be counted toward that state's total population for the purpose of Representatives in the Congress.

The country was not saying black people were not whole people, not at all. This country, you know the country that died by the hundreds of thousand to free those salves, was trying to right an incredible wrong.

I assume you know that, but I could be wrong.

 

[LegendKiller]

The general thought o this is the this country considered the black slaves as less than a whole person, specifically 3/5 of a person. When that is not the case at all.

The southern slave holding states wanted to count all the slaves as a whole person. Those in the anti-slave states didn't want to count them at all. Why should those held as slaves be counted toward that state's total population for the purpose of Representatives in the Congress.

The country was not saying black people were not whole people, not at all. This country, you know the country that died by the hundreds of thousand to free those salves, was trying to right an incredible wrong.

I assume you know that, but I could be wrong.

When, exactly, do you think the Compromise was initiated that you put it in relation to the sacrificing of lives?

The only reason why the South wanted them to be counted was to gain an advantage over the north so the north couldn't abolish slavery and the south would immediately lose their economic AND political advantage. Why should they be counted at all if they weren't free and they only were being proxy voted by their owners? In fact, they weren't even considered 3/5, they were considered nothing but a tool by racists to keep power, so the 3/5 is even more disgusting than not counting them as a whole.

 

[comptr6]

The general thought o this is the this country considered the black slaves as less than a whole person, specifically 3/5 of a person. When that is not the case at all.

The southern slave holding states wanted to count all the slaves as a whole person. Those in the anti-slave states didn't want to count them at all. Why should those held as slaves be counted toward that state's total population for the purpose of Representatives in the Congress.

The country was not saying black people were not whole people, not at all. This country, you know the country that died by the hundreds of thousand to free those salves, was trying to right an incredible wrong.

I assume you know that, but I could be wrong.

This is 100% true. You can learn about it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUVONzyPRhU

 

[matt0611]

Yeah, people think the racists wanted black men to be counted as 3/5 of a person because they were racists and thought blacks were inferior. This is false.

 

[LegendKiller]

This is 100% true. You can learn about it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUVONzyPRhU

3/5 was far from "anti" slavery. In fact, it was pro-slavery in that it preserved it for many more decades before it was forcefully removed. Without the CW it would have continued, despite the 3/5 compromise. To call it "Anti-slavery" patently false.

 

[fskimospy]

The general thought o this is the this country considered the black slaves as less than a whole person, specifically 3/5 of a person. When that is not the case at all.

The southern slave holding states wanted to count all the slaves as a whole person. Those in the anti-slave states didn't want to count them at all. Why should those held as slaves be counted toward that state's total population for the purpose of Representatives in the Congress.

The country was not saying black people were not whole people, not at all. This country, you know the country that died by the hundreds of thousand to free those salves, was trying to right an incredible wrong.

I assume you know that, but I could be wrong.

As LK said, the South wanted to count them in their entirety not because they wanted to give them the rights of human beings, it was a cynical attempt to get themselves extra representation in Congress on the backs of those they enslaved. ie: they didn't want to count them as people any way other than what could be used to get their owners more stuff.

Blacks were considered 3/5ths of a person, but it had nothing to do with them, it was just part of a political argument between white people. In addition, the Civil War was not initially about freeing the slaves, the North would have accepted Southern re-entry without abolishing slavery. The South left because they were afraid the North would later get a large enough advantage to abolish slavery, but the North didn't view it that way until about halfway through.

 

[a777pilot]

3/5 was far from "anti" slavery. In fact, it was pro-slavery in that it preserved it for many more decades before it was forcefully removed. Without the CW it would have continued, despite the 3/5 compromise. To call it "Anti-slavery" patently false.

You are right. It was just 2/5 anti-slavery, but it was a start. The Civil War was the end of it.

 

[LegendKiller]

You are right. It was just 2/5 anti-slavery, but it was a start. The Civil War was the end of it.

No, it wasn't 2/5 anti-slavery, it was 2/5 compromise to prevent the south from gaining too much of an advantage. It wasn't a start, it was an utter failure. If it was a "start" it wouldn't have required a war to finish.

You were wrong, the cable show was wrong also. You were both equally as ignorant and equally as full of yourselves as far as your viewpoint of the "truth".

 

[a777pilot]

No, it wasn't 2/5 anti-slavery, it was 2/5 compromise to prevent the south from gaining too much of an advantage. It wasn't a start, it was an utter failure. If it was a "start" it wouldn't have required a war to finish.

You were wrong, the cable show was wrong also. You were both equally as ignorant and equally as full of yourselves as far as your viewpoint of the "truth".

The purpose of the "compromise" at the Constitutional Convention was to bring all the colonies together as a single country. Without this compromise that would not have happened. The Civil War was the results and it, the war, had a good and just outcome.

 

[frostedflakes]

Yeah, people think the racists wanted black men to be counted as 3/5 of a person because they were racists and thought blacks were inferior. This is false.

Well to be fair they probably did think exactly that, but they wanted to have their cake and eat it to. As a southern plantation owner, it doesn't get much sweeter than getting to have slaves with no rights but still getting to have them counted fully in the census like any other citizen to increase your representation in Congress.

 

[jackstar7]

The purpose of the "compromise" at the Constitutional Convention was to bring all the colonies together as a single country. Without this compromise that would not have happened. The Civil War was the results and it, the war, had a good and just outcome.

Not so good for all the dead people.

 

[a777pilot]

Not so good for all the dead people.

We all die. At least they died in the pursuit of a noble cause. Well, at least half of them, that is.

 

[waggy]

We all die. At least they died in the pursuit of a noble cause. Well, at least half of them, that is.

what noble cause?

 

[a777pilot]

what noble cause?

That question is even too stupid for me to answer....and that takes a lot of stupidity.

 

[comptr6]

No, it wasn't 2/5 anti-slavery, it was 2/5 compromise to prevent the south from gaining too much of an advantage. It wasn't a start, it was an utter failure. If it was a "start" it wouldn't have required a war to finish.

You were wrong, the cable show was wrong also. You were both equally as ignorant and equally as full of yourselves as far as your viewpoint of the "truth".

The man from Mr. Glenn Beck's show is named David Barton, an expert in historical and constitutional issues and he holds a Bachelors degree from Oral Roberts University and an honorary Ph.D from Pensacola Christian College. He has millions of dedicated followers including Mike Huckabee. And you think you know more about our nation's history than him?

 

[Doppel]

When, exactly, do you think the Compromise was initiated that you put it in relation to the sacrificing of lives?

The only reason why the South wanted them to be counted was to gain an advantage over the north so the north couldn't abolish slavery and the south would immediately lose their economic AND political advantage. Why should they be counted at all if they weren't free and they only were being proxy voted by their owners? In fact, they weren't even considered 3/5, they were considered nothing but a tool by racists to keep power, so the 3/5 is even more disgusting than not counting them as a whole.

So they buy a slave and then that bought slave is a vote? Vote-buying, sounds like things haven't changed as much as we like to think in the past 150 years after all!

 

[waggy]

That question is even too stupid for me to answer....and that takes a lot of stupidity.

I ask because i don't think you really know why it was started. trying to figure if you really know the facts or what you were force feed in school..

 

[Lemon law]

IMHO, our OP asks a damn good question. Because our constitution is still a living document.

What made sense in 1789, no longer made sense in 1861.

Do we deal with it in violence or in peaceful compromise? And on that hinge history always turns. Not just in the USA but all over the world. And more over at all times in human history.

 

[a777pilot]

I ask because i don't think you really know why it was started. trying to figure if you really know the facts or what you were force feed in school..

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

I hope these great words puts to rest your question of "What noble cause?".

 

[LegendKiller]

The man from Mr. Glenn Beck's show is named David Barton, an expert in historical and constitutional issues and he holds a Bachelors degree from Oral Roberts University and an honorary Ph.D from Pensacola Christian College. He has millions of dedicated followers including Mike Huckabee. And you think you know more about our nation's history than him?

Do you think I give a flying fuck through a rolling donut that this guy has Huckabee or Beck as a follower? Do you think that justifies his position?

He is wrong, period.

Just because millions follow him doesn't mean dick. Millions agreed that the Earth was flat. Millions agreed that slavery was OK. Millions agree that Obama wasn't born in America. Millions agree that Trump is a good guy that's looking out for them. The fact that "millions" agree AND Beck AND Huck agree is a further disqualifier of his opinions, if anything.

 

[Throckmorton]

It amazes me when people in the media get 3/5 of a person backwards.

 

[Craig234]

The man from Mr. Glenn Beck's show is named David Barton, an expert in historical and constitutional issues and he holds a Bachelors degree from Oral Roberts University and an honorary Ph.D from Pensacola Christian College. He has millions of dedicated followers including Mike Huckabee. And you think you know more about our nation's history than him?

Yes. 'Oral Roberts University' is not the compliment you think it is, either.

Barton’s growing visibility and influence with members of Congress and other Republican Party officials is troubling for many reasons: he distorts history and the Constitution for political purposes; he encourages religious divisiveness and unequal treatment for religious minorities; and he feeds a toxic political climate in which one’s political opponents are not just wrong, but evil and anti-God.

Scholars have criticized Barton for presenting facts out of context or in misleading ways, but that hasn’t stopped him from promoting his theories through books, television, and, yes, the textbooks that will teach the next generation of Americans. He promotes conspiracy theories about elites hiding the truth from average Americans in order to undermine the nation from within. Last summer, he declared that liberal and media attacks on the Tea Party were just like attacks on Jesus. In February, Barton spoke at the Connect 2011 Pastors Conference, where he said that Christians needed to control the culture and media so that “guys that have a secular viewpoint cannot survive.” Said Barton, “If the press lacks moral discrimination, it’s because we haven’t been pushing our people to chop that kind of news off.”

Barton’s work is not just an academic exercise. It is meant to have a political impact. For Barton, “documenting” the divine origins of his interpretations of the Constitution gives him and his political allies a potent weapon. Barton promotes a false reality in which anyone who opposes any element of his political agenda stands in opposition to both the Founding Fathers and to God. He believes that everything in our society – government, the judiciary, the economy, the family – should be governed according to the Bible, and he promotes a view of the Bible and Jesus that many Christians would not recognize. Opponents, even Christians, who disagree with Barton about tax policy or the powers of Congress are not only wrong, they are un-American and anti-religious, enemies of America and of God.

President Obama is a particularly frequent target of Barton’s. In January, one of his WallBuilders Live radio shows was titled “Why is Obama Trying to Remove God from the United States?” In March, right-wing “news” service WND quoted Barton accusing Obama (falsely of course) of being “engaged in a pattern of ‘willfully, deliberately’ repudiating America's Christian heritage.”

Those are the kind of accusations long favored by the Religious Right, and they are destructive. Claims that political opponents are evil and are actively trying to destroy Americans’ freedoms poison the public arena, make constructive civic discourse nearly impossible, and have the potential to incite acts of violence.

Elected officials who endorse Barton give his claims credibility they do not deserve. He in turn gives cover and a veneer of legitimacy to right-wing politicians interested in putting their notions of a nation created by and for Christians into public policy. Both Barton and his backers are undermining understanding of, and respect for, vital American values and constitutional principles like separation of church and state and equal treatment under the law.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Who called the KKK meeting?

I know you guys would go to any lengths to try and discredit the dark man in the whitehouse, but going back 150 years in time and trying to revive and defending the ideals and excuses of your racist colonial heros is just WOW.