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.
There is irony closer to home. The nation founded on the concept that "all men are created equal" expanded itself at the expense of native tribes whose lands were confiscated and way of life ended on the grounds of theirs being an inferior culture which was standing in the way of a superior one. The thinking went that to extend the blessing of liberty across the entire continent, it was necessary to terminate the liberty of the tribes.
Further, for another 90 years after the Declaration, slavery was exploited to assist in the process of accumulating wealth. They even came up with a mathematical legal formula regarding the worth of those people and codified it in the Constitution....they were worth three fifths of a white person, a bit tough to reconcile with the idea of all being created equally.
Coincidentally, I pointed an irony out in another thread just yesterday. Gutenberg demonstrated his invention by printing a Bible, but movable type didn't really have any influence on culture until heretics got hold of it and exercised the freedom it gave them to dissent, thus threatening the unchallenged authority of the church's monopoly on printing.
They even came up with a mathematical legal formula regarding the worth of those people and codified it in the Constitution....they were worth three fifths of a white person, a bit tough to reconcile with the idea of all being created equally.
By counting slaves as 3/5ths, it actually denied southern states of Representatives in Congress. If slaves had been counted as whole people, it would have given greater power to southern states. If slaves had been counted as 1/100ths of people, it would have been better for them (slaves) because it would have given the pro-slave Representatives less pull in Congress.
By counting slaves as 3/5ths, it actually denied southern states of Representatives in Congress.
I do not agree, it did the opposite. Southerners were overly represented in the House because they didn't really represent any fifths of the slaves. The slaves did not vote, had no rights, were not allowed to own property, had no voice whatsoever in their fates, they certainly were not being represented by anyone. Despite this, they were counted as 60% of a citizen when determining Congressional representation.
I tend to think Hitler being a Jew trumps his marrying a Jew.
Though we have to be careful with definitions, Jewishness is inherited matrilineally, patrilineal Jewishness requires a slight conversion / acceptance dance. Only children who are born of women who themselves are Jews are considered Jews at birth. Though the specifics vary enormously from temple to temple and there are many degrees of what is or isn't acceptable within congregations.
Debates about this stuff go on and on without end.
Actually, originally, being a Jew was transferred via paternal line. They changed it to maternal line somewhere around 4th century I believe. I may be off by a century or 2, but it does not matter in principle.
See, thing is, with females, as they are the ones to physically deliver a child, at least 50% of blood is guaranteed to be same as mother's. With men, you never really know. A woman may claim all she wants to to carry child of Baron Rothschild, but the biological father may be someone else.
I do not agree, it did the opposite. Southerners were overly represented in the House because they didn't really represent any fifths of the slaves. The slaves did not vote, had no rights, were not allowed to own property, had no voice whatsoever in their fates, they certainly were not being represented by anyone. Despite this, they were counted as 60% of a citizen when determining Congressional representation.
Sorry, but you are wrong. The number of Representatives for each state was based on the number of free persons plus three-fifths the number of slaves. Because slaves could not vote, the Representatives that were elected were pro-slavery. Had the slaves counted as whole persons, the southern states would have had greater representation in the House and thus increased the pro-slavery side.
US Constitution: Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3
Sorry, but you are wrong. The number of Representatives for each state was based on the number of free persons plus three-fifths the number of slaves. Because slaves could not vote, the Representatives that were elected were pro-slavery. Had the slaves counted as whole persons, the southern states would have had greater representation in the House and thus increased the pro-slavery side.
US Constitution: Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3
You either failed to understand my previous post, or elected to ignore the points being made. The above supplies me with no reason to repeat it, so I simply reference you to it.
I would also remind you that the Southerners insisted that the Federal government had absolutely no right to regulate slavery within the states. So how could someone sitting in a Congress which has no authority whatsoever over any of the slaves, possibly be representing that person?
See, thing is, with females, as they are the ones to physically deliver a child, at least 50% of blood is guaranteed to be same as mother's. With men, you never really know. A woman may claim all she wants to to carry child of Baron Rothschild, but the biological father may be someone else.
While this was true in the old days, this is no longer true now due to the development and availability of paternity testing.
You either failed to understand my previous post, or elected to ignore the points being made. The above supplies me with no reason to repeat it, so I simply reference you to it.
I would also remind you that the Southerners insisted that the Federal government had absolutely no right to regulate slavery within the states. So how could someone sitting in a Congress which has no authority whatsoever over any of the slaves, possibly be representing that person?
Hogwash. The southern states repeatedly passed laws that reinforced slavery. Ever hear of the Fugitive Slave Laws, Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850, Kansas-Nebraska Act, etc.?
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.
