3/5 of a person?

[wuliheron]

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.

That's just so much semantic splitting of hairs. Next you'll be telling me a sow's ear is really called a silk purse.

 

[Craig234]

That's just so much semantic splitting of hairs. Next you'll be telling me a sow's ear is really called a silk purse.

I don't think it's semantic - they were negotiating for a share of representation in the new country. You said there was nothing, they were broke, I disagree.

Poor people kill each other over a few dollars. Look at the history, the discussions, they cared very much about who got how much representation in the country they made.

 

[a777pilot]

The real reason I started this stupid thread is that the MSM is saying that this "3/5" thing is all racial and is what the whites said a black person was worth compared to a white person. If this is what you wish to believe, then by all means stay ignorant.

Idiots.

 

[fskimospy]

The real reason I started this stupid thread is that the MSM is saying that this "3/5" thing is all racial and is what the whites said a black person was worth compared to a white person. If this is what you wish to believe, then by all means stay ignorant.

Idiots.

This is true. Most people back then thought that a black person was worth far less than that.

The Dredd Scott decision, though coming about 70 years later, gives their opinion as to the motivations of the founders and how they viewed blacks:

[the founders viewed blacks as] beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.

 

[a777pilot]

This is true. Most people back then thought that a black person was worth far less than that.

The Dredd Scott decision, though coming about 70 years later, gives their opinion as to the motivations of the founders and how they viewed blacks:

That may be true but it had no relationship to the 3/5 thingie, now did it?

 

[fskimospy]

That may be true but it had no relationship to the 3/5 thingie, now did it?

It most certainly did, it speaks to the opinion of those who wrote the constitution on what they considered the social and legal status of blacks to be.

 

[waggy]

a777: stay its fun here!

what you learned in school is not always right. the shit the force kids to learn about the civil war, Lincoln (lol really i read how they are claiming he wanted to be president just to free the slaves!) and other bullshit is so far off its funny. wich is why i asked the questions i asked you. but you seemed to have a (by the looks of the picture!) a fishing pole stuck up your ass. good to see in later post it seems like you removed it.

it seems the last 20 years we have been rewriting history to fit what we want and not fitting the truth..the civil war is a good example of that.

 

[CallMeJoe]

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

Once started, P&N threads can take on a life of their own and plumb depths the OP never contemplated.
Learn to roll with the changes; sometimes the derailed threads are the most interesting.

 

[a777pilot]

Once started, P&N threads can take on a life of their own and plumb depths the OP never contemplated.
Learn to roll with the changes; sometimes the derailed threads are the most interesting.

I know that, but I had hope. Silly me.

 

[wuliheron]

I don't think it's semantic - they were negotiating for a share of representation in the new country. You said there was nothing, they were broke, I disagree.

Poor people kill each other over a few dollars. Look at the history, the discussions, they cared very much about who got how much representation in the country they made.

There was no pie idiot. A slice of pie refers to something that is finite, limited, and is shared. These guys could have asked for the right of their grandmothers to whisper in the presidents ear or their children to have his job every other Sunday. There was no limit to how much representation they could have asked for and no pie to be sliced up.

They asked for more representation and it was given expressly for the purpose of avoiding a fight.

 

[Linflas]

There was no pie idiot. A slice of pie refers to something that is finite, limited, and is shared. These guys could have asked for the right of their grandmothers to whisper in the presidents ear or their children to have his job every other Sunday. There was no limit to how much representation they could have asked for and no pie to be sliced up.

They asked for more representation and it was given expressly for the purpose of avoiding a fight.

And in return got the Connecticut compromise. It was nothing more than a balancing of different sectional interests.

 

[a777pilot]

There was no pie idiot. A slice of pie refers to something that is finite, limited, and is shared. These guys could have asked for the right of their grandmothers to whisper in the presidents ear or their children to have his job every other Sunday. There was no limit to how much representation they could have asked for and no pie to be sliced up.

They asked for more representation and it was given expressly for the purpose of avoiding a fight.

I agree. It was just delayed.

 

[fskimospy]

There was no pie idiot. A slice of pie refers to something that is finite, limited, and is shared. These guys could have asked for the right of their grandmothers to whisper in the presidents ear or their children to have his job every other Sunday. There was no limit to how much representation they could have asked for and no pie to be sliced up.

They asked for more representation and it was given expressly for the purpose of avoiding a fight.

Of course there's a finite limit to how much representation you can ask for. As to the delineated powers of the federal government, the slaveholding states could control between 0% and 100% of those powers and how they were used, depending on their level of representation.

 

[wuliheron]

Of course there's a finite limit to how much representation you can ask for. As to the delineated powers of the federal government, the slaveholding states could control between 0% and 100% of those powers and how they were used, depending on their level of representation.

Dude, there is no limit to what you can ask for. Give it try, write your congressmen for whatever you send. Send him your list of Christmas presents you want. I know its a hard concept to understand, but you really, really, can ask for whatever your little heart desires.

 

[wuliheron]

And in return got the Connecticut compromise. It was nothing more than a balancing of different sectional interests.

Yeah, you can say a lot of things about Americans, but we've always been a rough crowd to please. We demand a lot, but we're also willing to work hard to make it happen. Sometimes that leads to great achievements, other times lots of compromises, and sometimes spectacular fights.

 

[fskimospy]

Dude, there is no limit to what you can ask for. Give it try, write your congressmen for whatever you send. Send him your list of Christmas presents you want. I know its a hard concept to understand, but you really, really, can ask for whatever your little heart desires.

/facepalm

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I guess I am not up to the intellectual standards of this forum.

So let me pose a serious question to those that have taken the time to post on this thread: Should I continue to post here or should I just go away?

Thank you.

I'm not sure how to advise you. I'd stay around obviously

I think it best to understand that in general this is a place to express outrage which is often wrapped up in poor reasoning applied for the benefit of an ideology. Once you understand that things get a bit easier although many things are so egregious one wonders how some posters can tie their shoes. For more objective thoughts on subjects like this it's best to look elsewhere.

 

[wuliheron]

I'm not sure how to advise you. I'd stay around obviously

I think it best to understand that in general this is a place to express outrage which is often wrapped up in poor reasoning applied for the benefit of an ideology. Once you understand that things get a bit easier although many things are so egregious one wonders how some posters can tie their shoes. For more objective thoughts on subjects like this it's best to look elsewhere.

You make it sound so traditional.

This is a place for saying almost anything you want for as long as you want in almost any way that you want. Very casual without any moderators ever getting involved until a fight goes on forever. If by some chance the occasional random poster makes you think or embarrasses you its totally up to you to decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

Some people like to be embarrassed. Some like for people to make them think. Some just have a warped sense of humor. The internet is a big place and if you can make it here in the rough and tumble world of anything goes then finding other places that might suit your specific needs should be a snap.

 

[WHAMPOM]

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.

DUH! You are right 3/5 was a compromise to get out of counting a slave same as a free person as those scheming back-stabbing power-grubbing Southeners wanted to. So what is your point? Besides Southern Inferiority Complex ?

 

[Throckmorton]

a777: stay its fun here!

what you learned in school is not always right. the shit the force kids to learn about the civil war, Lincoln (lol really i read how they are claiming he wanted to be president just to free the slaves!) and other bullshit is so far off its funny. wich is why i asked the questions i asked you. but you seemed to have a (by the looks of the picture!) a fishing pole stuck up your ass. good to see in later post it seems like you removed it.

it seems the last 20 years we have been rewriting history to fit what we want and not fitting the truth..the civil war is a good example of that.

Did you know that in the South a lot of people believe the Civil War wasn't about slavery? Even though it's right there in the secession documents? Revisionism is a hell of a thing.

 

[werepossum]

Dude, there is no limit to what you can ask for. Give it try, write your congressmen for whatever you send. Send him your list of Christmas presents you want. I know its a hard concept to understand, but you really, really, can ask for whatever your little heart desires.

This is true, but at the end of the day there is still 100% of the representation to be divided up, somehow. Allowing slave-holding states to count non-free people as 3/5 of a free person allowed them to have greater representation that if they were allowed representation based only on the number of free persons. Even if the number of representatives is not enumerated and finite but is allocated one per X number of persons, at the end of the day all the representatives in aggregate represent 100% of the representation, so allowing slaves to be counted proportionally increased the representation (and therefore power) of the slave-holding states.

The great travesty here is that slave-holding states were allocated greater representation on behalf of slaves, to whom they accorded almost no rights. It's as though a child molester was allowed to count his victims as dependents. I'm very fond of my country and this may well have been a necessary compromise to form it, but it remains an evil thing.

 

[a777pilot]

DUH! You are right 3/5 was a compromise to get out of counting a slave same as a free person as those scheming back-stabbing power-grubbing Southeners wanted to. So what is your point? Besides Southern Inferiority Complex ?

Maybe the South does have an inferiority complex but then to a large degree they have a lot of be inferior about, now don't they. Fighting a war to keep slaves.....real smart, not!

Just because I am a Marine and live in Texas does not make me a supporter of the southern cause. None of my relatives had made it to the New World till well past the Civil War. I am happy the just and right side won that war.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Maybe the South does have an inferiority complex but then to a large degree they have a lot of be inferior about, now don't they. Fighting a war to keep slaves.....real smart, not!

Just because I am a Marine and live in Texas does not make me a supporter of the southern cause. None of my relatives had made it to the New World till well past the Civil War. I am happy the just and right side won that war.

He's just cranky

 

[a777pilot]

He's just cranky

....that too.

 

[First]

The real reason I started this stupid thread is that the MSM is saying that this "3/5" thing is all racial and is what the whites said a black person was worth compared to a white person. If this is what you wish to believe, then by all means stay ignorant.

Idiots.

Southerners didn't believe blacks were equals, they believed they were inferior and it was racism pure and simple. So while we understand that you want to clarify that the 3/5th Compromise didn't come to exist directly because Southern slave owners wanted blacks to be 3/5ths a person out of principle, it's still a well known fact of history Southerners by and large believed blacks were inferior humans. So it's a distinction without a difference that you are trying to peddle as clever. We get what you're trying to do, it makes some sense on the surface but isn't particularly worth all that much discussion.