Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The GOP sure knows how to pick'em following Allen Keys, Allen West, Herman Caine and Ben Carson, the Black Knight du jure E.W. Jackson the GOP's candidate for Lt Governor of Virginia is reported to have claimed that the 3/5ths Compromise recognizing slaves for the purpose of determining state representation in the House was a "anti-slavery.
The GOP sure knows how to pick'em following Allen Keys, Allen West, Herman Caine and Ben Carson, the Black Knight du jure E.W. Jackson the GOP's candidate for Lt Governor of Virginia is reported to have claimed that the 3/5ths Compromise recognizing slaves for the purpose of determining state representation in the House was a "anti-slavery.
Glad I don't live in Va. Cuccinelli and Jackson...are you kidding me. It's a women and minorities worst nightmare. But I don't like McAuliffe either....horrible candidates
The GOP sure knows how to pick'em following Allen Keys, Allen West, Herman Caine and Ben Carson, the Black Knight du jure E.W. Jackson the GOP's candidate for Lt Governor of Virginia is reported to have claimed that the 3/5ths Compromise recognizing slaves for the purpose of determining state representation in the House was a "anti-slavery.
The southern states wanted slaves to be counted as full persons so they could have more members in the House of Representatives. The north didn't want to count slaves at all so they would dominate the House.
They Framers thought that slavery would end in a generation or two by House vote. The less representatives from the south, the easier it would be to end slavery peacefully.
They finally agreed on 3/5ths. This was a compromise to get the Constitution ratified. It was clearly put in to shift the power to the north and end slavery more easily. It was anti-slavery.
This is like elementary school history. I can't believe people are dumb enough to want to debate this.
P.S. The article also mentioned something to the effect that Planned Parenthood hurts black people. Since blacks are aborted at 3 times the rate as other races I would say this is true also.
So uh, it would have been "anti-slavery" for them to count millions of enslaved individuals as full democratic constituents, thus greatly inflating the Congressional representation of slave-holding states?
If anything it seems like the 3/5ths clause actually prevented the spread of slavery.
I mean I know we're supposed to go 'DAH 3/5 CLAUSE BAD CUZ RACIS' but it's really not that simple.
This is like elementary school history. I can't believe people are dumb enough to want to debate this.
What elementary school would that be, "Jefferson Davis Elementary"? What a load of crap!
Quote:
The southern states wanted slaves to be counted as full persons so they could have more members in the House of Representatives. The north didn't want to count slaves at all so they would dominate the House.
Where do you get this stuff? The "north" as a political entity didn't exist in 1787! There was as much dissent coming from Delaware and Rhode Island than there was disagreement between Virginia and Pennsylvania! The anti-slave states (if they can even be called that considering that slavery not having been abolished in Delaware, New York, and New Jersey at the signing of the Constitution) was very simply the logical argument that representation should be based upon actual freaking citizens and not chattel property. If blacks slaves could not be citizens much less vote, why would they count for the purpose of representation?
You are right, this is a absurd argument!
Quote:
They Framers thought that slavery would end in a generation or two by House vote.
What Framers thought that? Names and citations please.
Quote:
It was clearly put in to shift the power to the north and end slavery more easily. It was anti-slavery.
How idiotic! How on earth does insuring greater representational despite a smaller population shift power to the north where representation had to actually be base upon a free census? That makes no sense what's so ever which leads me to believe that you are just making this stuff up as you go.
Quote:
The article also mentioned something to the effect that Planned Parenthood hurts black people. Since blacks are aborted at 3 times the rate as other races I would say this is true also.
What are now to suppose that black folks are an endangered species and abortion is bring us to the verge of extinction? I think not.
One would think that white conservatives such as yourself would be thrilled pinker that there are less future welfare recipients to pay for. That deriding the number of black children raised in single family home to mothers too young and too undereducated to give them a proper start in life would be a laudable thing? You would think that conservatives who bemoan having to pay for welfare, early childhood development, and public education in general would be thrilled at the foresightedness of African American women who recognize the fact that they do not have the capacity to raise these yet to be born children.
You conservatives are a strange and fickled breed.
What elementary school would that be, "Jefferson Davis Elementary"? What a load of crap!
Where do you get this stuff? The "north" as a political entity didn't exist in 1787! There was as much dissent coming from Delaware and Rhode Island than there was disagreement between Virginia and Pennsylvania! The anti-slave states (if they can even be called that considering that slavery not having been abolished in Delaware, New York, and New Jersey at the signing of the Constitution) was very simply the logical argument that representation should be based upon actual freaking citizens and not chattel property. If blacks slaves could not be citizens much less vote, why would they count for the purpose of representation?
You are right, this is a absurd argument!
What Framers thought that? Names and citations please.
How idiotic! How on earth does insuring greater representational despite a smaller population shift power to the north where representation had to actually be base upon a free census? That makes no sense what's so ever which leads me to believe that you are just making this stuff up as you go.
What are now to suppose that black folks are an endangered species and abortion is bring us to the verge of extinction? I think not.
One would think that white conservatives such as yourself would be thrilled pinker that there are less future welfare recipients to pay for. That deriding the number of black children raised in single family home to mothers too young and too undereducated to give them a proper start in life would be a laudable thing? You would think that conservatives who bemoan having to pay for welfare, early childhood development, and public education in general would be thrilled at the foresightedness of African American women who recognize the fact that they do not have the capacity to raise these yet to be born children.
You conservatives are a strange and fickled breed.
Sad to say you are a victim of revisionist history.
Anti-slavery is probably a stretch but it was a compromise. Oh well I wish I lived in VA I would gladly vote for him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
