[OneVike]

Good grief, you still don’t get why folks are correcting you. It’s NOT the number you stated, it’s because you perpetuate the myth that it was because the founders thought blacks were less than human.

No, the part of your comment I agreed with was the following part;

people who even know about the three fifths compromise think it was intended to denigrate black people in racist America

I wrote it in the way I did because that is what the blacks and liberals perceive as the facts. It is but a small portion of the point, and a side one at that.

The whole article could be written without it and the conclusion of my point would not have changed. I was not wanting to make a long column any longer by getting into the reason for them being counted less, so I left the reason out. In hindsight I now wish I had left the whole sentence out,

Believe me, it was not my intention to start a discussion with any of my fellow Freepers that have obviously become distracted by a unfortunate error in a historical reference I used. However, by far and large, 99% of those who read it will never give that one sentence another moments thought past reading it in the context of the purpose for the column.

Again I apologize for offending anyone's sense of historical significance over the percentage that a black person was counted, or at least black slaves were, but as I said it is but a distraction. One I now wish I had omitted.

Some day I will learn that my fellow Freepers will always point out an error when it is made in an article, regardless of how insignificant to the column the mistake is.

[Scoutmaster]

Good luck with your new column. I sincerely mean that. Respectfully, i quit reading after the first sentence misrepresented the purpose of the Three-Fifths Compromise.

I know others have replied on the same topic. What bothers me is your response:

Some day I will learn that my fellow Freepers will always point out an error when it is made in an article, regardless of how insignificant to the column the mistake is.

Here's the deal. A columnist could start a column by saying: "The Republicans want to kill old people" as fact. Then columnist could write a totally coherent article. The first statement would be a mistake and insignificant to the column. I wouldn't know. I'd likely stop reading that column after the first sentence. Would you have a problem with the columnist's use of the first sentence as fact?

There's no merit in parroting what "black and liberals perceive as the facts" if they're not the facts.

That's just my two cents and mean as constructive criticism.