Assignment asks middle schoolers 'How many slaves would equal 4 white people?'

WSOCtv.com ^ | 12/11/2019 | WSOCtv.com

[The people have spoken]

Problem asks for x satisfying x(3/5)=4. Multiply both sides by 5/3 to get x=20/3, or six and two-thirds slaves.

[mmichaels1970]

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.

Thanks for posting. So by their argument, Indians wouldn't be people at all, right?

[bgill]

I posted a thread yesterday or the day before that an AP class at an Austin, TX college prep HS entered a planting tree project to the civic’s version of a science fair. Of course, they hadn’t planted any trees. What the heck do trees have to do with Civics? Prospective colleges should turn down each of these Senior’s applications - yeah, yeah, I know...

[N. Theknow]

With Affirmative Action wouldn’t it be 8?

[glennaro]

Their total obsession with race makes Leftists ... well ... racist.

[Hiddigeigei]

Actually, the northern states didn’t want the slaves to be counted at all because they couldn’t vote. If the slaves weren’t counted, we would have had a very different political history.

[bgill]

That’s right. Of course, the demonrats turn every thing upside down and 180 degrees so after re-writing US history it’ll be the mean ol’ Southern slave beaters who didn’t want them counted at all.

[FroedrickVonFreepenstein]

Thanks for posting. So by their argument, Indians wouldn't be people at all, right?

Only the ones they didn't tax. :-)

[pepsionice]

Part of this goes to the population in the 1790 era (total US population at 3.5-million, of which...681,000 were slaves (note, in 12 states at that time, with Mass having zero). If you didn’t count the slave population....states like Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina would have had less representation with the House.

[Dr. Sivana]

The question was asked as part of a lesson on the Three-Fifths Compromise, which is a 1700's law to count slaves as less than white people.

That "Law" is known as the U.S. Constitution. Although that section is abrogated, the text is still in there.

I think the question (as the teacher intended) could be answered two ways: either the mathematical 4/(3/5)=6 2/3 or you could argue the answer should be 7, with rounding up needed as there is no such thing as a fractional person.

[Buckeye McFrog]

It's not 3/5 of a person. They would include 3/5 of the population held in bondage for purposes of representation and the apportionment of taxes. They didn't believe the slaves to be only 3/5 of a person. They simply would only count 3/5 of that population. This 3/5 of a person nonsense is pure leftist revisionism. Read the relevant portion of the Constitution for yourselves.

Let's not get bogged down in Clintonesque parsing. 3/5 of a population of 100,000, divided down to the individual, is 3/5 of a person. Clearly at the time they were not regarded as full persons or the whole proposal would never have been made. We just make ourselves look STOOOOOPID by denying obvious historical facts.

[Augie]

Useless pussies. They don’t like history so they cry to have it changed.

[Kickass Conservative]

A compromise made to get the he Slave States to join the Union without them using the number of Slaves they owned to give them over Representation in the new Government.

Kind of like today’s Liberals making sure Illegal Invaders are counted in the Census. Maybe we can compromise and count the Illegal Invaders as 3/5’s of an American Citizen.

[Jess Kitting]

The Republicans wanted them to be counted as a full person like anyone else.

Only if the slaves were given the right to vote.

If Southern states had counted the slaves as full persons and let them vote, the slaves would have outnumbered the white population and put abolitionists--Republicans--into office in the South.

Southern Democrats did not want that. But they wanted to have their cake and eat it too. By counting the slaves as humans (and not letting them vote), the Southern Dems would have had larger populations for census purposes, and thus greater representation for the slaveholders in the U.S. Congress.

Thus, the 3/5 compromise.

We see something similar happening today with illegal aliens. By counting them in the census (we can probably do nothing to stop that), states like California have ballooning populations and more representation and power in congress.

[I want the USA back]

My answer would be “The question is invalid. It assumes that all “white people” are not slaves. Second, your use of “equal” is invalid and undefined. Third, go to hell.”

[shelterguy]

How many white guys does it take to support tons of _____?

[Little Ray]

Six and 2/3 slaves have the same representation as four freemen.
Simple math.
Don’t see the controversy.
That fact that slaves only counted 3/5s of a free man for representation kept slave states from dominating Congress - which was its intent.

[bert]

given the inequality, there can never be an equation to calculate a value of equality

[oldasrocks]

I would say the answer is one. At todays education level and laziness of all kids, who have no idea of how to work one good man could do the work of 4 kids at least.

Now take into account each kid would need at least 3 supervisors to tell the kid what to do and how to do it.

[mmichaels1970]

Actually, the northern states didn’t want the slaves to be counted at all because they couldn’t vote. If the slaves weren’t counted, we would have had a very different political history.

Right. As I always understood it the more slaves you counted, the more power you gave to the slave states, thereby further empowering the institution of slavery.

Had you counted slaves as 0, you would have granted more power to the abolitionist northern states and could have possibly ended slavery earlier...right?

Had you counted slaves as 1 (or 5/5ths), you would have granted more power to the slave states and would have strengthened and lengthened the institution of slavery.

Am I getting that right?