ARE WE NUTS?

[Ziggy]

Madison explained the reasoning for the 3/5 in Federalist No. 54 "The Apportionment of Members Among the States" (February 12, 1788)[7] as:

"We subscribe to the doctrine," might one of our Southern brethren observe, "that representation relates more immediately to persons, and taxation more immediately to property, and we join in the application of this distinction to the case of our slaves. But we must deny the fact, that slaves are considered merely as property, and in no respect whatever as persons. The true state of the case is, that they partake of both these qualities: being considered by our laws, in some respects, as persons, and in other respects as property...Let the case of the slaves be considered, as it is in truth, a peculiar one. Let the compromising expedient of the Constitution be mutually adopted, which regards them as inhabitants, but as debased by servitude below the equal level of free inhabitants, which regards the SLAVE as divested of two fifths of the MAN...The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of persons and of property. This is in fact their true character. It is the character bestowed on them by the laws under which they live; and it will not be denied, that these are the proper criterion; because it is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed the negroes into subjects of property, that a place is disputed them in the computation of numbers; and it is admitted, that if the laws were to restore the rights which have been taken away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal share of representation with the other inhabitants.

because it is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed the negroes into subjects of property, that a place is disputed them in the computation of numbers: and it is admitted, that if the laws were to RESTORE the rights which have been TAKEN AWAY, the negroes could no longer be REFUSED an EQUAL share of representation with the other inhabitants.

It's about property rights and taxes. Voting rights and representation.

By excluding two-fifths of slaves in the legislative apportionment based on population (as provided in the constitution), the Three-fifths Compromise provided reduced representation in the House of Representatives of slave states compared to the free states. Viewed the opposite way, by including three-fifths of slaves in the legislative apportionment (even though they had no voting rights), the Three-fifths Compromise provided additional representation in the House of Representatives of slave states compared to the free states, if representation had been considered based on the non-slave population. Based on the latter view, in 1793, for example, Southern slave states had 47 of the 105 seats, but would have had 33 had seats been assigned based on free populations. In 1812, slave states had 76 seats out of 143 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 seats out of 240, instead of 73. As a result, Southern states had additional influence on the presidency, the speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court until the American Civil War.[16]: 56–57  In addition, the Southern states' insistence on equal numbers of slave and free states, which was maintained until 1850, safeguarded the Southern bloc in the Senate as well as Electoral College votes.


If the Southern States had succeeded the Northern States, then slavery would still be alive and well today.

AKA The Civil War.

Hugs

 

[Dan Clarkston]

If the Southern States had succeeded the Northern States, then slavery would still be alive and well today.

That's not true as there were substantial amount of people in the south that did not want slavery to continue

The economy in the south at that time was dependent upon forced labor but as farm machinery came to be which greatly increased productivity, there would be no further need to have slaves

In modern times most states in the south are the ones wanting to honor the US Constitution while the blue states seek to turn the US in to a communist state.

The one world government will happen and all nations will adopt a communistic form of government so they will all come under the head communist... the anti-christ when the time comes.

 

[Ziggy]

We face the same question today. Should illegal immigrants have the right to vote?
Should they be counted in the census?
Should a state be taxed according to it's population?
And if that population is made up of undocumented immigrants then what taxes are levied?
Are they citizens which are taxable, or property which can be written off through tax deductions?
Who wins and who loses?
Who has more rights to representation? The free citizen or the enslaved undocumented immigrant?

Should all illegal aliens be made citizens even though they entered our country illegally?
Now the negroes, they were brought here and not of their own free will. They didn't break any laws.
But today there is a different breed of slaves. And they came against the will of the people.

What a conundrum..

hugs

 

[Ziggy]

That's not true as there were substantial amount of people in the south that did not want slavery to continue

The economy in the south at that time was dependent upon forced labor but as farm machinery came to be which greatly increased productivity, there would be no further need to have slaves

In modern times most states in the south are the ones wanting to honor the US Constitution while the blue states seek to turn the US in to a communist state.

The one world government will happen and all nations will adopt a communistic form of government so they will all come under the head communist... the anti-christ when the time comes.

argue with wikipedia not me. I'm just sharing what is written. And it is written that the Southern Confederates didn't want to give up their "free labor" . But wanted them counted as freeborn to boost their numbers on the census.

All I know is that I am a Republican born in the State of Massachusetts in the city of Boston. And I have never been for slavery nor have any of my ancestors owned slaves. I believe the Constitution which says ALL men are created equal and All men are entitled to Liberty and Justice.

Ye shall know them by their fruits.

Hugs

 

[Ziggy]

 

[Dan Clarkston]

Ye shall know them by their fruits.

If someone today who is not in favor of slavery and never has been, but their ancestors owned slaves... they should somehow be held accountable for something their ancestors did?

Christians would not take that belief because it's scripturaly wrong

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Deuteronomy 24:16
Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin.

 

[Ziggy]

The legal institution of human chattel slavery, comprising the enslavement primarily of Africans and African Americans, was prevalent in the United States of America from its founding in 1776 until 1865, predominantly in the South. Slavery was established throughout European colonization in the Americas. From 1526, during the early colonial period, it was practiced in what became Britain's colonies, including the Thirteen Colonies that formed the United States. Under the law, an enslaved person was treated as property that could be bought, sold, or given away. Slavery lasted in about half of U.S. states until abolition in 1865, and issues concerning slavery seeped into every aspect of national politics, economics, and social custom.[1] In the decades after the end of Reconstruction in 1877, many of slavery's economic and social functions were continued through segregation, sharecropping, and convict leasing.

By the time of the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), the status of enslaved people had been institutionalized as a racial caste associated with African ancestry.[2] During and immediately following the Revolution, abolitionist laws were passed in most Northern states and a movement developed to abolish slavery. The role of slavery under the United States Constitution (1789) was the most contentious issue during its drafting. The Three-Fifths Clause of the Constitution gave slave states disproportionate political power,[3] while the Fugitive Slave Clause (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3) provided that, if a slave escaped to another state, the other state had to return the slave to his or her master. All Northern states had abolished slavery in some way by 1805; sometimes with completion at a future date, sometimes with an intermediary status of unpaid indentured servant.

Abolition was in many cases a gradual process. Some slaveowners, primarily in the Upper South, freed their slaves, and charitable groups bought and freed others. The Atlantic slave trade was outlawed by individual states beginning during the American Revolution. The import trade was banned by Congress in 1808, although smuggling was common thereafter,[4][5] at which point the U.S. Revenue Cutter Service (Coast Guard) began enforcing the law on the high seas.[6] It has been estimated that before 1820 a majority of serving congressmen owned slaves, and that about 30 percent of congressmen who were born before 1840 (some of whom served into the 20th century) at some time in their lives, were owners of slaves.[7]

The rapid expansion of the cotton industry in the Deep South after the invention of the cotton gin greatly increased demand for slave labor, and the Southern states continued as slave societies. The U.S., divided into slave and free states, became ever more polarized over the issue of slavery. Driven by labor demands from new cotton plantations in the Deep South, the Upper South sold more than a million slaves who were taken to the Deep South. The total slave population in the South eventually reached four million.[8][9] As the U.S. expanded, the Southern states attempted to extend slavery into the new Western territories to allow proslavery forces to maintain power in Congress. The new territories acquired by the Louisiana Purchase and the Mexican Cession were the subject of major political crises and compromises.[10] Slavery was defended in the South as a "positive good", and the largest religious denominations split over the slavery issue into regional organizations of the North and South.

By 1850, the newly rich, cotton-growing South threatened to secede from the Union. Bloody fighting broke out over slavery in the Kansas Territory. When Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 election on a platform of halting the expansion of slavery, slave states seceded to form the Confederacy. Shortly afterward, the Civil War began when Confederate forces attacked the U.S. Army's Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina. During the war some jurisdictions abolished slavery and, due to Union measures such as the Confiscation Acts and the Emancipation Proclamation, the war effectively ended slavery in most places. After the Union victory, the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified on December 6, 1865, prohibiting "slavery [and] involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime."[11]

Slavery in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Dan Clarkston]

And lets not forget that black africans enslaved other black africans long before the crackers came along.

They are still enslaving each other today in africa not to mention the muslims enslave black people in modern times right now!

Where's the outrage for all that???

 

[Ziggy]

If someone today who is not in favor of slavery and never has been, but their ancestors owned slaves... they should somehow be held accountable for something their ancestors did?

Christians would not take that belief because it's scripturaly wrong

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Deuteronomy 24:16
Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin.

I agree with you.

And those who are born into a free society should not be seeking reparations from the sins of the past.

You understand the democrats are pushing reparations but not for the benefit of the african americans.
That money may trickle down a little, but the majority of it will end up in their own coffers.
And also to secure their vote so they don't lose their power.

What is the best way to repair the past? Go forward. Forgive and forget. And enjoy our freedom while it lasts.
Hugs

 

[Ziggy]

And lets not forget that black africans enslaved other black africans long before the crackers came along.

They are still enslaving each other today in africa not to mention the muslims enslave black people in modern times right now!

Where's the outrage for all that???

Pray for the Children.

Seriously.. Pray for the children.

In politics, there is no "right" side. They all bow down to their corporate donors.
This has to stop.
Now if a kid wants to sell lemonade or blueberries on the side of the road, they should be allowed to, tax free.
If they want to work on the farm or in construction that is a family business, then hey, it's ok to start early with good work ethics.
But to make slavery look like an opportunity when it only benefits the greedy, that's not ok.
And we need to make changes to the laws.

Hugs

 

[th1b.taylor]

I suppose it depends on how one interprets the argument regarding 3/5ths. I don't think it means what we are told it's supposed to mean.
It's not the "measure" of a man, but a portion of the population which is counted as either a person or property.
In the North.. Yankees... We regarded free men as 100% eligiable to be counted as a WHOLE person and not as pertains to the Confederate South as property.

That's how I read it...

The Three-fifths Compromise was an agreement reached during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention over the inclusion of slaves in a state's total population. This count would determine: the number of seats in the House of Representatives; the number of electoral votes each state would be allocated; and how much money the states would pay in taxes. Slave holding states wanted their entire population to be counted to determine the number of Representatives those states could elect and send to Congress. Free states wanted to exclude the counting of slave populations in slave states, since those slaves had no voting rights. A compromise was struck to resolve this impasse. The compromise counted three-fifths of each state's slave population toward that state's total population for the purpose of apportioning the House of Representatives, effectively giving the Southern states more power in the House relative to the Northern states. It also gave slaveholders similarly enlarged powers in Southern legislatures; this was an issue in the secession of West Virginia from Virginia in 1863.[citation needed] Free blacks and indentured servants were not subject to the compromise, and each was counted as one full person for representation.[1]

In the United States Constitution, the Three-fifths Compromise is part of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) later superseded this clause and explicitly repealed the compromise.

Three-fifths Compromise - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Of course the more slaves you had you would recieve more electoral votes and representation in congress. If slaves were not considered as property "rights" but indeed as individual and free men, they were no less granted 100% representation in the North. Yankees.

Because of the "property rights issue" states were allocated 3/5 ths of the population which included slaves.
It wasn't about the individual, but who had "rights" to that individuals vote and representation.


But hey, what do I know? I only made it to the 6th grade. I just read what is written and take it from there.

Hugs

And it upsets the Backs to this day that any group of squirrels could consider them 3/5 human when every one of the Blacks in my city were just as human as I... and they remain so to this day.

 

[Wrangler]

If the Southern States had succeeded the Northern States, then slavery would still be alive and well today.

No way! Slavery would just have faded away as it did in other countries, through compensated emancipation.

Compare to the cost to rent a car for a day compared to buying a new one outright. The cost difference is a function of the use difference. If someone bought a slave with the expectation of a lifetime of use and the goobermint wants to change the law, they ought to compensate for the loss of use.

Also compare to our compassion for drug users verses the contempt for drug sellers. Ever notice slave sellers don’t get the ire as the slave buyers?

 

[Ziggy]

They have been taught that they were considered only 3/5ths a person. But in truth that was not the intention of what was written.
It had to do with the census and population. That only 3/5ths of the slaves in a state would be counted for representation, because according to those laws in those days they were considered property and not persons.

They had no rights to vote. They couldn't choose their representatives. To the south they were just numbers in the census.

Same thing is happening today. First they bribe them into the country making promises they won't keep. Use them as free labour.
And when they are not needed anymore just toss them to the side until the next election cycle.
We been watching it for years and years, decades even.

 

[Ziggy]

No way! Slavery would just have faded away as it did in other countries, through compensated emancipation.

Compare to the cost to rent a car for a day compared to buying a new one outright. The cost difference is a function of the use difference. If someone bought a slave with the expectation of a lifetime of use and the goobermint wants to change the law, they ought to compensate for the loss of use.

Also compare to our compassion for drug users verses the contempt for drug sellers. Ever notice slave sellers don’t get the ire as the slave buyers?

Slavery has never faded away. It's only taken on a new name and a new mask.

Kind of like changing work hours from 40 hours a week to 32 or 36 and not being eligable for pensions and insurances and overtime which you had with the original 40 hr work week?

But it's in your best interest right?

Why should slave sellers or human smugglers such as the cartels on the southern border be any less guilty than the ones "buying" them?

Our government isn't stopping this because it is too lucrative for them. Again, slavery has never faded away, it's just called by another name.

And once these people come over the border... some are sold into prostitution, mostly women and children. The men are brought to work in factories or agriculture or as drug smugglers, or even mules to transfer the women and children to different locations.

It's absolutely horendous.

And I truly feel for these people not knowing what they are being sold into. They are given grand promises but when they get here they are given nightmares. Thats why we want to stop the flow on the border. It is for their sakes that they do not come.
Because the grass on this side of the fence is much different than the grass in which they came from.

The only answer is to starve the tyranny of these other countries that are making it difficult for their citizens to be happy and healthy in their own country. They need to be held accountable and not keep getting spoon fed by our government with our tax dollars.
You know and I know the money we send to these nations never get to the citizens, because if they did, what need would they have to migrate here looking for a better way. We send them billions of dollars and they buy themselves more power, more crime, more luxuries.
Don't they need people to pick their crops? Feed themselves? Grow their own communities?

It's a nasty situation.

No different than selling Joseph to the Egyptians. But God moves in mysterious ways. And I know all of this will have a good outcome someday, someway. In the meantime...
Pray. Pray for the children.
Pray for us all.
Hugs