3/5 of a person?

[classy]

First of all, the civil wasn't fought to free the slaves. It was fought to save the union. The north took a dislike to the south's wealth and blamed it on the fact slavery afforded the south free labor. When the south wanted to secede, Lincoln made the decision to go to war to keep the country whole. The side effect was the ending of slavery. The truth is the civil war was nothing more but the same old story time and time again through history. It was about money.

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley

http://www.classicallibrary.org/lincoln/greeley.htm

 

[fskimospy]

He makes a good point. The northerns weren't doing it to be noble and the southerns weren't doing it to be noble.
As stated many times and what seems to be over looked is the North didn't begin the war over slavery and didn't really care about it until midway through the war.
If the north was so noble about it why did they make the black soldiers fight in segregated units led by a white man, while the South had black soilders that fought along side of white soldiers. Slavery has been made out to be about blacks being slaves and whites owning them, when in fact there were Native American slaves and White slaves, mostly Irish, and the children of mixed races. The most overlooked part was there were freed slaves that inturn bought slaves of their own.
It wasn't institutionalized racism. It was institutionalized slavery.

The South most certainly did not have black soldiers that fought along the side of whites, at least not in any meaningful capacity. It's a myth, but one that unfortunately made it into some southern textbooks.

Not only can you take the quotes from Confederate leadership dismissing that very idea, but to the best of my knowledge the Union never captured a single confederate black soldier, which is pretty strong evidence that they never fought any. The Confederacy did eventually pass a law to require states to submit a levy of black soldiers, but it was 3 weeks before Lee's army surrendered and it was never really put into place.

 

[a777pilot]

Oh, for fuck's sake....how did this, my thread, get to be about the Civil War? Mostly stupidity on the part of the posters....to include myself.

All I was saying is that there seems to be a total misunderstanding of what that 3/5 shit was all about.

Get a life people. Go hunting, or fishing or just get outside. It's a beautiful spring day here in north central Texas. The only reason I keep posting is to take a break from yard work. I don't like yard work. I would rather be out in my boat, the "Major Mistake", fishing.

Want to see me and my boat. It's a great little boat. It's an eight foot Jon boat. I am not tied to any dock. I can move that little thing by hand.

Here tis.....

 

[wuliheron]

I disagree that the 3/5ths compromise was an 'attempt to avoid a fight', as far as a fight over ending slavery.

IMO, it was merely a negotiation only over who got how much a share of the pie while forming the country, and not to do with the ending of slavery.

It was part of the parties agreeing to form the US.

But it wasn't a 'step to ending slavery', that I've seen, correct me if you have info.

There was no pie to divide among them. The federal government was flat broke from the beginning and much weaker then it is today. There were no "entitlement" programs, no navy, no nothing. It was largely a nation of small farmers. The issue was state sovereignty amongst a collection of very independent minded states some of which objected to the institution of slavery.

It was only after mechanization made cotton so profitable and created an industrialized north that how to divide up the pie became an issue and to this day remains a major bone of contention.

 

[ElFenix]

Ah, Texas history, to go along with the Texas logic.

LK and Eskimospy got it right.

The two-fifths reduction in slaves being counted for representation had nothing to do with that being a 'two-fifths start to recognizing them as people'.

This was simply two groups of states - slave and non-slave - fighting over how much representation in the federal government slave states would get.

More representation gave slave states more power, less representation gave non-slave states a larger share.

The treatment of slaves as people wasn't affected - that was still 'zero' either way.

The north's interest wasn't in protecting the 'rights' of slaves, in 'starting their freedom that would end in the civil war'; it was just negotiating for more power.

Both sides had some interest in forming the United States; the South was apparently willing to not form it, if not given more power, based on its slave population.

The three-fifths is nothing but naked negotiation compromise making no more sense than Solomon actually chopping a baby in half for each of two claims to it.

The actual part of the constitution addressing slavery is much less well-known - it's a provision that the importation of new slaves could not be banned for 20 years.

As that 20 year mark approached, President Thomas Jefferson and Congress passed a law banning slave importation to take effect on the first day the constitution allowed.

That was 1808.

we were actually taught that stuff in school here in texas. maybe 777 here was out that day. or maybe he didn't grow up here at all.

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

i was going to get in a dig about a school started by a 2 bit preacher from oklahoma. then i went and looked, it's actually a fairly well respected research university.

 

[Craig234]

we were actually taught that stuff in school here in texas. maybe 777 here was out that day. or maybe he didn't grow up here at all.

Way back when you were in school, it was probably before the big shift to the radical right. Remember what state LBJ was from?

 

[fskimospy]

Oh, for fuck's sake....how did this, my thread, get to be about the Civil War? Mostly stupidity on the part of the posters....to include myself.

All I was saying is that there seems to be a total misunderstanding of what that 3/5 shit was all about.

Get a life people. Go hunting, or fishing or just get outside. It's a beautiful spring day here in north central Texas. The only reason I keep posting is to take a break from yard work. I don't like yard work. I would rather be out in my boat, the "Major Mistake", fishing.

Want to see me and my boat. It's a great little boat. It's an eight foot Jon boat. I am not tied to any dock. I can move that little thing by hand.

Here tis.....

I'm sorry, but your interpretation of the 3/5th compromise as being anti-slavery doesn't hold water. The South viewed slaves as property in every way except when it might help them at the ballot box, basically they were asking for their equivalent of livestock to be given weight in congressional representation.

The argument that treating each slave as a full person for congressional representation purposes is anti-slavery is nonsensical, as the only result of that would have been to give more legislative power to those who wished to perpetuate the institution of slavery.

 

[Craig234]

There was no pie to divide among them. The federal government was flat broke from the beginning and much weaker then it is today. There were no "entitlement" programs, no navy, no nothing. It was largely a nation of small farmers. The issue was state sovereignty amongst a collection of very independent minded states some of which objected to the institution of slavery.

It was only after mechanization made cotton so profitable and created an industrialized north that how to divide up the pie became an issue and to this day remains a major bone of contention.

There was a pie of representation in the new country they were forming's congress.

They were very careful about that representation, it mattered and they cared.

 

[a777pilot]

we were actually taught that stuff in school here in texas. maybe 777 here was out that day. or maybe he didn't grow up here at all.





i was going to get in a dig about a school started by a 2 bit preacher from oklahoma. then i went and looked, it's actually a fairly well respected research university.

You are right. I was having my head filling with stupidity by the Gestapo nuns in Nebraska and Iowa. I have never fully recovered.

 

[a777pilot]

I'm sorry, but your interpretation of the 3/5th compromise as being anti-slavery doesn't hold water. The South viewed slaves as property in every way except when it might help them at the ballot box, basically they were asking for their equivalent of livestock to be given weight in congressional representation.

The argument that treating each slave as a full person for congressional representation purposes is anti-slavery is nonsensical, as the only result of that would have been to give more legislative power to those who wished to perpetuate the institution of slavery.

That's not what I was saying nor the purpose of my thread, but you can't see beyond what you are told to think. Too bad. So sad.

 

[ElFenix]

Way back when you were in school, it was probably before the big shift to the radical right. Remember what state LBJ was from?

i'm not that old and i'm definitely younger than 777.

 

[a777pilot]

Way back when you were in school, it was probably before the big shift to the radical right. Remember what state LBJ was from?

Yup, when LBJ was the Senate Leader, you couldn't find a Republican office holder anywhere in the Great State of Texas.


Hey, Craig234, ya still love me?

 

[a777pilot]

i'm not that old and i'm definitely younger than 777.

Give me a few weeks and I will be 66. That's not all that old, but old enough.

 

[fskimospy]

That's not what I was saying nor the purpose of my thread, but you can't see beyond what you are told to think. Too bad. So sad.

Maybe you should clarify what you were trying to say. The media as I have seen it has portrayed the 3/5ths compromise as being pro-slavery due to the extra representation it gave the South. I'm quite comfortable with what I think on this issue, because it's backed up by quite a large number of historians.

Maybe you should get outside now.

 

[a777pilot]

Maybe you should clarify what you were trying to say. The media as I have seen it has portrayed the 3/5ths compromise as being pro-slavery due to the extra representation it gave the South. I'm quite comfortable with what I think on this issue, because it's backed up by quite a large number of historians.

Maybe you should get outside now.

You have it wrong, even to what you say the MSM is saying about the 3/5 thing. I agree. I should get out side, but then so should we all....especially you. Not Craig234.

 

[Craig234]

Question for Craig234: Are you for or against slavery? You seem to be all over the place in your musings.

Me? I'm totally against the institution. It's an abomination. Anything that helps put an end to it is a good thing. If only it were a dead issue today, but it isn't.

So help me out here....Are you for or against the practice of slavery?

That's a remarkable question. I'm against slavery.

What did I say that made you have to ask?

 

[a777pilot]

That's a remarkable question. I'm against slavery.

What did I say that made you have to ask?

Nothing. I knew that, I'm just palyin with ya. You make a pretty good toy.

Sorry. I will try to behave myself.

 

[Anarchist420]

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.

Maybe the earth once was flat.

Actually I never thought I would post such a thing but Craig essentially has it right in his post as far as the 3/5s compromise and the issues at the start of the Civil War, I don't see how it could be construed as supporting slavery.

Craig has it wrong.

The 3/5 compromise was so that the Tariff couldn't be raised as easily.

The Southern delegates at the Constitutional Convention proposed a clause requiring 2/3 of both houses to raise the Tariff, but the Northern delegates would not budge, so they agreed to give the South more representation, although not as much as power as they would've had if 2/3 of both houses had been required to raise the tariff.

And the North economically exploited the South, not the other way around. The South paid for public works projects in the North. The South protected northern industry against their will. After the Civil War, it was the same. The South paid for a war they didn't start, although some of them kind of deserved to for being stupid enough to invade Gettysburg.

Ultimately, the North is to blame for slavery because they wouldn't budge on the tariff. The South would've been content to have no federal protections for slavery if the tariff was limited to nothing more than revenue raising, and if the South didn't have to subsidize works in the north.

 

[Craig234]

Craig has it wrong.

The 3/5 compromise was so that the Tariff couldn't be raised as easily.

The Southern delegates at the Constitutional Convention proposed a clause requiring 2/3 of both houses to raise the Tariff, but the Northern delegates would not budge, so they agreed to give the South more representation, although not as much as power as they would've had if 2/3 of both houses had been required to raise the tariff.

And the North economically exploited the South, not the other way around. The South paid for public works projects in the North. The South protected northern industry against their will. After the Civil War, it was the same. The South paid for a war they didn't start, although some of them kind of deserved to for being stupid enough to invade Gettysburg.

Ultimately, the North is to blame for slavery because they wouldn't budge on the tariff. The South would've been content to have no federal protections for slavery if the tariff was limited to nothing more than revenue raising, and if the South didn't have to subsidize works in the north.

Funny, the first thing you said is consistent with what I said, and the second thing is restating what I said.

No comment on the details you posted, not feeling the need to wade into the muck of Anarchist420 ideology.

I said the 3/5 was about how much representation the South would get. Whether it was used for a tariff vote and/or other policies isn't the issue.

 

[Craig234]

i was going to get in a dig about a school started by a 2 bit preacher from oklahoma. then i went and looked, it's actually a fairly well respected research university.

Fair enough, I probably mixed it up with Regent University, which has common history with it, the source of much of Bush's terrible justice staff, like Monica Goodling.

 

[werepossum]

Oh, for fuck's sake....how did this, my thread, get to be about the Civil War? Mostly stupidity on the part of the posters....to include myself.

All I was saying is that there seems to be a total misunderstanding of what that 3/5 shit was all about.

Get a life people. Go hunting, or fishing or just get outside. It's a beautiful spring day here in north central Texas. The only reason I keep posting is to take a break from yard work. I don't like yard work. I would rather be out in my boat, the "Major Mistake", fishing.

Want to see me and my boat. It's a great little boat. It's an eight foot Jon boat. I am not tied to any dock. I can move that little thing by hand.

Here tis.....

Cool little boat.

I agree there's a lot of media misstatement (probably intentional) about counting blacks as 3/5 of a person. Only slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person, not free blacks, and only for purposes of apportionment. But I agree with eskimospy and Legendkiller that this supported slavery rather than opposed it, as it gave more political power to the south which had a much higher slave population.

I disagree that the North is primarily responsible for slavery. Those responsible for something bad are those who do it, not those that refuse to do (or not do) another essentially unrelated thing used as justification for the bad thing.

 

[a777pilot]

Cool little boat.

Thanks.

 

[First]

That's not what I was saying nor the purpose of my thread, but you can't see beyond what you are told to think. Too bad. So sad.

Your posts make no sense and are contradictory if you can't admit that's exactly what you were trying to say when you uttered this bullshit: "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."

You should probably clarify what you meant since this sounds like you're saying the 3/5th Compromise was anti-slavery. You're dumb as shit if you believe that.

 

[a777pilot]

Your posts make no sense and are contradictory if you can't admit that's exactly what you were trying to say when you uttered this bullshit: "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."

You should probably clarify what you meant since this sounds like you're saying the 3/5th Compromise was anti-slavery. You're dumb as shit if you believe that.

I'm sure they did. Even I, the OP of this stupid thread, have lost the idea of why I started it.

 

[a777pilot]

p.s., I'm sorry I started it. Forgive me, for I have erred.