Posted on 10/21/2013 7:56:09 AM PDT by rktman
MSNBC's erratic Hardball host, Chris Matthews, has again gone off the deep end with his nonsense talk about the Constitution's three-fifths clause. He's claiming that conservatives believe black people are, or once were, only three-fifths of a person.
Why does a group of people that always loses elections or tends to do lately, why do they call themselves American people because - do they still count blacks as three-fifths? Three-fifths of a vote?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I wonder if he realizes that Southern slaveowners wanted to count them as full people....while Northerners, both abolitionists and nonabolitionists, wanted to them to be zeros?
Three-fifths human; five-fifths nuts.
Thank you. Yes, as soon as I posted I realized I had screwed up. The “3/5 of a person” was strictly for census.
But it was the North that reduced the personhood of a slave to 3/5, not the South.
FRegards,
LH
There is still the spittle factor to consider...
I believe the ever loved by leftists North
wanted “black people” to not be counted as people at all.
Indeed! Hissy Matthews is constantly spewing the spittlegeist, in service to his tingehood.
Duct tape works wonders but I’d rather let him talk to constantly remind us all of just how loony the Left is!
If the slave states had gotten their way, the House would have been profoundly and irrevocably pro-slavery. Unrepresented slaves would have vastly added to the number of slave state congressmen.
The 3/5 compromise prevented slavery from ever being totally accepted as federal established law.
It wasn’t pretty, but it set the stage for emancipation.
Actually slaves didn’t get any vote at all. The place where the slave was located got more representatives for the slaves. Reality was most slaves were on larger plantations, within a single precinct, that gave the slave owner significant control over a representative.
Before 1835, North Carolina gave Freed slaves the vote. After 1835 (when they changed their state constitution) they denied black freedmen the vote.
Jim Crow was started by the Democrats in part to remove the vote from freedmen after the insurrection.
That is absolute nonsense - complete leftist reasoning in service of Confederate special pleading.
Southern slaveowners specifically refused to recognizes slaves as people, even though they were.
Northerners refused to recognize them as qualified voters, because Northerners knew that the slaveowners would never let them vote.
The three-fifths ratio was a compromise between Northern reality and Southern fiction.
If Chris would ever take a trip in a Wayback Machine, next time he starts tippling ‘Rebel Yell’, he would see that his fellow Democrats wanted their personal property to be counted as an entire person.
So they could vote their proxy as well as get more votes in Congress.
Kind of, well no—exactly what they do today. Slave owners.
I think it’s time we all acknowleged that Chris Matthews is an entertainer and not a journalist, and doesn’t believe even half of what he spews to his “amen corner” of an audience.
The best evidence of this is that Matthews is ... still alive. Because anyone who believed what he claims to believe, with the intensity he claims to believe it (all) would have long ago worked themselves into a fatal stroke or heart attack ...
LOL!!!
Good point.
The initial proposition was to have the representatives allocated to the states in proportion to the voters.
Slave states denied the vote to slaves, but wanted the representatives to be in proportion to the total number of persons. The slave power wanted represenation for the slaves to whom they denied the vote.
The compromise was to permit 3/5ths of the slave population to count toward representation. If the slave states wanted more representation than that, they could have freed their slaves.
I know, it's confusing...
All you need to know about Chris Matthews...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kccPhiblpkM
Isn’t it interesting that a racist, misogynist, mouth-breathing Conservative, Fox News anchor, can just blow-the-doors off a Limp-Wristed-Thrill-Up-My-Leg, Flaming Liberal News Canker...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opLiKrw79LI
We should not miss the point that slaves were not allowed to vote but the south wanted them counted to increase representation and in essence, vote as their proxies. The opposing view was since they can’t vote, they can’t be counted.
The whole idea of “personhood” is nonsensical when the south considered them non-persons and the north said basically, if that is your view, non-persons can’t be represented.
It was a classic compromise where neither side got all of what it wanted, but yielded since the formation and survival of a nation was at stake.
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.