Posted on 12/15/2009 3:24:26 PM PST by Shellybenoit
A discussion on the Glenn Beck show has now spilled onto the internet. The discussion surrounds Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:
“ Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
To the liberals, the 3/5th figure is an indication that our founding fathers were a bunch of racists who thought that the African Slaves were less than human (and I am sure some did).
On the other hand, Beck argues that the Northern Founders who opposed Slavery, insisted on counting the slaves as less than "full persons." The reason for the insistence, is to prevent the slave states from getting too many congressman and electoral votes as to dominate the government and prevent Slavery from being abolished.
So which is it? Are Glenn Beck and the founding fathers racists, who believe that the black slaves were somehow less than a person. Or are the liberal wing-nuts...well wing-nuts? Well unfortunately for people such as Alex Seitz-Wald of Think Progress, the wing-nuts are indeed wing-nuts.
(Excerpt) Read more at yidwithlid.blogspot.com ...
interesting dilemma. Nowadays, conservatives could seek liberals to abort themselves out of existance, but rather conservatives hope everyone chooses life.
Kind of a nonsense argument really. Trying to apply the standards and norms of today to the issues of then usually do end up with nonsense.
We could point out that slavery was OK in the British colonies for a very long time prior to the Revolution but it really has nothing to do with the realities of today. The British outlawed slavery in the colonies when they decided they needed men to hold weapons in a hurry. On the other hand the Brits were OK with slavery in other parts of the world for a few more years.
I’m not trying to beat up on our British friends, only pointing out the utter foolishness of pointing to our nation’s founders as a source of the problem.
Look at Africa today. Even with firm African control, they still claim all problems there are our fault.
???
Uh... freaking duh...
This is junior high school stuff. I cannot believe somebody wasted an entire column/blog post "proving" basic history. How ignorant do you have to be to think the northern states demanded the three-fifths clause for any other reason than to keep the southern states' census down and prevent them from dominating the House with an overwhelming number of congresscritters?
On the other hand, Beck argues that the Northern Founders who opposed Slavery, insisted on counting the slaves as less than "full persons." The reason for the insistence, is to prevent the slave states from getting too many congressman and electoral votes as to dominate the government and prevent Slavery from being abolished.To me there are 2 issues here.
1. The issue at hand, the meaning of the 3/5 clause, which Beck has completely right.
2. The growing idea among the left-tards that Beck is so "over the top" that he should be banned from the air -- an idea that Ariana Huff'n'Puff is vigorously promoting.
The amazing thing about this second issue is that here is a guy who talks in historical detail, talks about the federalist papers, talks about the founding fathers and what they wrote and how they voted in congress and their reasons for doing so, and all the left-tards can do is scream and wail "take him off the air! take him off the air!"
If it wasn't so deadly serious -- if we didn't have a President and Attorney General who agreed with them so completely -- I would be tempted to laugh at them as spoiled children spinning around on the floor in a frenzied fit about not getting their way.
But it's not a laughing matter. They really do want to end free speech. They really don't want us discussing what it was the founding fathers did and how they did it.
I’m acquainted with several reasonably well-educated people, and not all of them Democrat, who believe that southerners demanded it, because they thought blacks were only 3/5 human.
The looks that I get, when I attempt to explain to them the political calculus behind this came from the north. Southerners would have liked nothing better than to have had a higher population for purposes of apportionment.
Very few people are taught accurate history anymore, and of those who are, it appears not too many paid attention.
Glenn Beck is correct. The Founders wanted to limit the influence of the slave holding states so they did the 3/5ths stuff.
I was very important to count a slave as one person. In some West Tennesee counties, slaves made up more than half the total population in 1850.
I like every show that Beck puts on.
I find many of them hot, but today he’s smoking hot.....
I absolutely love his “in your face” style and critical approach to anything about Obama and his criminal enterprise.
“The reason for the insistence, is to prevent the slave states from getting too many congressman and electoral votes as to dominate the government and prevent Slavery from being abolished.”
I agree with Beck overrall, but it’s a bit too facile to say it was to prevent the South from blocking the abolition of slavery. The notherners didn’t want southern states to have an advantage for more reasons than some of them really didn’t like slavery.
btt
My problem is that nothing nowhere says 3/5th person. It was 3/5th the population. Yes, it makes a difference.
It should be, but too many people seem to have a vested interest in rewriting this history. Usually when I hear a reference to the three-fifths compromise, it is presented as proof of AmeriKKKa's long history of racism. Even Condi Rice reportedly said, "In the original U.S. Constitution, I was only three-fifths of a person."
Good for Glenn Beck. It is important to keep restating the obvious.
How ignorant do you have to be...
Ignorant enough to elect Obama.
I don't doubt that it may have been "reported", but I would have to hear that idiocy straight from Condi's mouth before I believe she, of all people, could be stupid enough to make such an ignorant statement.
How about a transcribed speech? Second to last paragraph in Condi's speech to the Community of Democracies in Santiago, Chile:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r109:1:./temp/~r109zLSvWg::
More:
Even if she didn't say it, people believe that she did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.