Declaration of Independence question

[her209]

So what did "men" mean in 1776?

 

[nick1985]

lol

 

[heyheybooboo]

Well.

Whatever it is (or was), in 1776 if you were black you were 2/3's of one.




--

 

[Linflas]

Well.

Whatever it is (or was), in 1776 if you were black you were 2/3's of one.




--

No. The 3/5's refers to "other persons". Obviously it was refering to slaves so that any enslaved black counted as 3/5's for purposes of representation but there were free blacks at that time and they counted for 1 person the same as anyone else. At the time of the Declaration none of this was defined though.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

So what did "men" mean in 1776?

Well, it clearly didn't include liberal males...

 

[ProfJohn]

Well, it clearly didn't include liberal males...

Actually the term liberal did not exist as we know it...

 

[nonlnear]

Well, it clearly didn't include liberal males...

The signatories of the DoI were the most notable liberal males of all time.

 

[Jaskalas]

The signatories of the DoI were the most notable liberal males of all time.

I agree, but while the term actually refers to liberty (against government tyranny) we now use it to refer to the party of government proponents.

 

[piasabird]

You had to be willing to risk your own life and your own property and wealth to sign the declaration of independence. It means standing up for what you say you believe in. These people did not believe in a hand-out.

 

[nonlnear]

I agree, but while the term actually refers to liberty (against government tyranny) we now use it to refer to the party of government proponents.

I know how the word has been transmogrified. It was a joke.

I've got to differ with you on your choice of the singular here: "the party of government proponents". There are two parties of big government. They are both incredibly statist; neither one has done anything to curtail the mandate of the federal government in a very long time.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

You had to be willing to risk your own life and your own property and wealth to sign the declaration of independence. It means standing up for what you say you believe in. These people did not believe in a hand-out.

True, times were tougher back then, in todays western societies we take care of even those who can't take care of themselves.

I doubt they believed in an airforce either. Doesn't mean shit, times change and we have to change with it.

Take a look at societies that haven't, like the Kurdish tribes in Iraq or the Taliban in Afghanistan, it's the 1700's there and they are stuck in it.

 

[MotF Bane]

Well.

Whatever it is (or was), in 1776 if you were black you were 2/3's of one.




--

Haha.

 

[werepossum]

Well.

Whatever it is (or was), in 1776 if you were black you were 2/3's of one.




--

If you were a free black man then you were a whole man, the word meant the same thing. If you were a black male slave then you were none, but the state of the man who owned you got to count you as three-fifths of a person for purposes of representation apportionment. Seems bizarre today, especially in light of our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution's preamble, but it was probably necessary to get the slave-holding states to agree to form the union.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

The signatories of the DoI were the most notable liberal males of all time.

Not in today's terms.

 

[Modelworks]

If you were a free black man then you were a whole man, the word meant the same thing. If you were a black male slave then you were none, but the state of the man who owned you got to count you as three-fifths of a person for purposes of representation apportionment. Seems bizarre today, especially in light of our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution's preamble, but it was probably necessary to get the slave-holding states to agree to form the union.

If they had counted the slaves as 1 person the slave owners would have been outvoted because the slaves outnumbered them. I was watching PBS last night where they trace the DNA of people back to their origins and there was a story of how one slave owner had put in his will that after his death the slaves were to go free. Upon his death, his wife went to court and had it defeated so she could keep the slaves and sell them as property. The judges ruling was somewhat like , they are property and a chair being property has no rights but what those of the current owner give them. Disgusting.