If the Smithsonian Institution was more interested in promoting a patriotic version of U.S. history, would it put the Abolitionist Founding Fathers on display?

"And you are trying to pretend each of these has equal weight and numbers"

They do not have to have equal weight and numbers in terms of souls present on the mainland.

They just have to have equal recognition as a matter of legality.

Article 4 section 2 does not exclude indentured servants. Nor remptioners. That makes all three classes equal in the eyes of the law.

You are so full of crap. Show the data, not you fuzzy math. Show the data..

My math just shows how unfair the situation is *IF* I am correct about the Southerners producing 72% of the taxes.

If that isn't true, then my math doesn't matter. Only what is true matters.

So let me ask you, where did the taxes come from in 1860?

You continue to refuse to show your data. I can only assume that you have none and you are just repeating an old Lost Cause myth on the cause of the Civil War.

No one was arguing about tariffs in 1860. They argued about Kansas/Nebraska, Dred Scott, and Popular sovereignty. No one even claimed that the South paid 72% of taxes. No one. That’s just another one of your myths.

They do not have to have equal weight and numbers in terms of souls present on the mainland.

Do you not grasp the Horse/Zebra analogy?

It comes from the Tv show "House M.D."

He is diagnosing a patient. He notes that the symptoms of disease are like seeing hoofprints. It is natural to assume the hoofprints mean "Horse" because Horses are common.

But he points out it could be a Zebra, because Zebras make similar hoofprints, but the safe way to bet is "Horse."

So when a language describes a situation that fits 4 million slaves, but it also fits a few dozen "indentured servants", it is safe to assume the Framers were talking about the 4 million slaves, and not the few dozen "indentured servants."

Article IV, Section 2 means "slave."

No one even claimed that the South paid 72% of taxes.

They were probably unaware at the time of what percentage they were paying, they just knew it was a lot, and they didn't like it.

I wouldn't like it either.

I haven’t seen the show House. Huge Laurie looks like a Trump hater to me, like everybody else in Hollywood. I don’t need ‘em.

As for Zebra and Horse, yes I understand the two have differences. You’re forgetting that both are equine.

It’s not like we’re talking about a Giraffe here, which is not an equine and is more like a Tapir and especially like an Okapi.

When talking about equine, you’re trying to keep the Zebra and omit the Horse. You can’t pretend the horse doesn’t exist and isn’t included. Or, fine, keep the horse and omit the zebra. Either way it doesn’t matter.

Article IV, Section 2 means all equine, not just Zebras. To stop speaking in an unnecessary code lingo, Article IV, Section 2 means all non-free labor, not just slaves.

That includes slaves, yes. That also includes other equine such as redemptioners. And yes, it also includes other equine such as indentured. Regardless of the larger or smaller populations. You may not like it but the fact remains, an indentured servant is an equine too. Hey its your analogy.

Your need is to omit this, but that omission is historical malpractice.

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.