Posted on 04/10/2019 1:54:52 AM PDT by blueplum
SALEM, Ore. (AP) — A Republican state senator from Oregon said on Tuesday that the designation of slaves as three-fifths of a person was not racist, drawing condemnation from at least two black lawmakers. Sen. Dennis Linthicum, from Klamath Falls in southern Oregon, said during floor debate that the intent of the Three-Fifths Compromise, which classified a slave as three-fifths of a person in the U.S. Constitution, was a way to prevent slave states from gaining too much power in Congress. "The three-fifths vote was actually to eliminate the overwhelming influence the slave states would have in representative government," he said, adding that the move wasn't because the founders thought "three-fifths was an appropriate measure of a man."...
...At least two black senators personally confronted Linthicum following the hearing. Democrat Sen. James Manning, of Eugene, told reporters that Linthicum provided an "offensive mischaracterization" of events, and that his comments were an example of people trying to rewrite history....
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
They must have been black Democrats because black Republicans aren't ignorant.
Perhaps that has been the case for a long time?
He better not apologize for telling the truth.
As I recall, 3/5 did not pertain to free blacks. Then there is that pesky thing about land ownership which disenfranchised half the whites.
It’s not mutually exclusive, it did have taxation root issues and was also racist....
Wow. One may quibble over the nuances and niceties of what the Founders were precisely doing, but this guy’s comments are basic historic truth. Not racist. The opposite of racist. The people who confronted him should be publicly shamed.
had better stop creating controversy for liberal media attention.
Funny how they accuse the guy of trying to rewrite history.
Rats motto: Lie. Cheat. Steal. Murder.
Do not speak the truth on slavery we are working on reparations
Republicans are good at stating things that are technically correct but will only be understood by about 5% of the population. The race baiters ask a loaded question that has an obscure technicality in it. The Republicans’ way of connecting with people is to impress them with their knowledge, so they begin to speak, Mr. Spock-like, in detail about the obscure, easily misunderstood technicality. The Democrats and the media then scream racist, racist, racist! The Republicans just never see the trap.
Not counting slaves as full people was entirely the North’s idea.
Yet as a Northern delegate in the Constitutional Convention noted, the logic of the three-fifths rule implicitly contradicted the principle of equality that was elsewhere applied even as to slaves. It is that broader sense of Black slaves being treated in any respect in the Constitution as of less consequence and value than free persons that animates the current controversy. I suggest though that such a focus misses the greater point: that the Constitutional Convention failed to end slavery or at least put it on a swift path to extinction.
I know that there were compelling practical reasons why that was not attempted, but there are still times when I wish that I could reach back through time and collectively grab the delegates by the lapels and shout at them: "You fools! Free the slaves! End slavery! Apply the principles of the Declaration!"
Yet we are stuck with history as it is and cannot revise it to suit ourselves. The greater lesson is to always keep our country's fundamental principles in mind and not to infringe or forget them. And who would argue against that?
Well of course it was racist. That was the whole point. Slave owners voted personally for every slave they owned. This allowed slave owners to dominate any election. Only by limiting their electorate power was some equanimity achieved.
How many slave states would have ratified such a constitution?
A Republican state senator in OR? Is that a typo?
And a very good idea too.
Unless, of course, one fully approves of and endorses slavery.
the non-slave states didn’t want to count slaves at all, thus relegating them to non-persons altogether.
What does Coonman think of this?
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.