Skip to main content

We hear often repeated that the 3/5ths of a man designation of slaves by the congress in the 19th century represented this and represented that, and it is often repeated to support various claims of racism, etc.

Does anyone know the facts behind the 3/5ths of a man legistlation, such as why it was enacted at all? I'm asking this to see the level of knowledge and sophistication we share amongst ourselves when it comes to historical reality and our history.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
I'm asking this to see the level of knowledge and sophistication we share amongst ourselves when it comes to historical reality and our history.

Save the bull...

And Who In the HELL made you the KNOWLEDGE and SOPHISTICATION Magistrate?

If you want some answer research it. It was an political/economic compromise between the North and South, IMO, that the South definitely pushed for to boost their representation in Congress, etc.

So answer me... how that negates whatever un-named charges of racism you're talking about?

______________________________________________________________________
"The problem many African-Americans have with these [BLACK] "CONservatives" is that they appear to air the problems of the black community to the entire nation without offering any Real Solutions."
quote:
..crowding into this complicated and divisive discussion [at the Constitutional Convention] over representation was the North-South division over the method by which slaves were to be counted for purposes of taxation and representation. On July 12 Oliver Ellsworth proposed that representation for the lower house be based on the number of free persons and three-fifths of "all other persons," a euphemism for slaves. In the following week the members finally compromised, agreeing that direct taxation be according to representation and that the representation of the lower house be based on the white inhabitants and three-fifths of the "other people." With this compromise and with the growing realization that such compromise was necessary to avoid a complete breakdown of the convention, the members then approved Senate equality. Roger Sherman had remarked that it was the wish of the delegates "that some general government should be established." With the crisis over representation now settled, it began to look again as if this wish might be fulfilled.

uh uh, no re-guessing now! One 'guess' per person mag. You can wait, obviously.

Those are alot of text-bookish words mag. I give you one more guess, if you can you explain how that text bookish paragraph answers my question in english? I'm looking for reasons, motivations, players and politics involved, you know, REAL answers that people can relate to.

Need some clues? NO clues! You claimed you so smart and knowledgeable about black history, yet that does not appear at all to be the case, now does it, while you run away looking up what you should already be educated about

Now mag, step aside, you've offered 'your' answer, so stick with it. Let other folks contribute for a change. Your done. This is black folks discussing black issues.

[This message was edited by sergeant on October 21, 2003 at 11:48 AM.]
The Constitution



3/5 PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION

Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several
States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective
Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole 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. (See Note 2) The actual Enumeration shall be
made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States,
and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law
direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty
Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such
enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse
three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one,
Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one,
Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia
three.
Some famous 'last words' from our all-knowing guest, the maginate:

"You that hardly anything you have said in debate with me that I have not deconstructed."

"I demonstrate that I have the FACTS on my side"

"you are not prepared or intelligent enough to answer questions from others"


Guess ole mag suddenly went on vacation in this topic! What makes someone so arrogant that they'd actually be as fake as he is? Damn near every criticism and insult he calls others is more closely descriptive of HIMSELF! Honestly, I've never seen anything like this, or at least to this degree. This is truly comical in a way.

So, when you gonna get round to 'desconstructing' this one mag? Wheres all those 'facts' you keep telling us all you have somewhere? Are you intelligent enough to know when its time to constrain yourself or admit you don't know something?? (I hope not, this too much fun)

So, you been calling me out since I first came here to the site. Well, this is what I look like. Got plenty more, if you need it.
Come on brother sunnubian, wake up. Noone asked anyone to 'recite' or 'paste' the actual legistlation. That doesn't even hint at the "story behind" it, which is what the topic's question is posing. I'm looking for comprehension here, not pasting ability, dig?? Yall be hanging with magazine too much, all this copying and pasting is for children. I want you to speak from positions of knowledge and your own hearts. If you don't know, then you don't know! No crime in that.

OK? So dont' copy anything, especially the bill itself, that doesn't tell us anything. I want to know the "story behind" the legistlation, again, the players, the reasons, the motivations, and so on.
quote:
So, when you gonna get round to 'desconstructing' this one mag? Wheres all those 'facts' you keep telling us all you have somewhere?

Stupid...

YOU have not made an argument here for me to deconstruct...

And I never claimed to have "ALL" the facts... I said I can support any argument I put forth. And that's why you've been searching not only for a topic but a way - aka weasel method - were only you (meaning no one else sees it that way) can claim victory.

And you would call it a Debate Victory when you haven't debate anything...

I know... I know... Sgt. "You Hate WATER!!"fro
The 3/5 man rule was a compromise between the north and the south. Because a state's population determined their congressional representation, the south wanted to count slaves toward their population. Anti-slavery advocates took issue, because these men and women were considered property and had no rights. They correctly argued that a slave should count as zero. They compromised and for some reason settled on the 3/5 number. So the south could count 60% of the slave population and add it to the free total, which enabled them to get extra seats in the House that they didn't deserve. Sergeant is trying to criticize those of us who decry the 3/5 number as being ignorant. If so, what Sarge fails to realize is that the real story, as detailed above, is even worse: they actually got to count us toward added representation for themselves, knowing full well that we would be denied any of the benefits of that representation. Sarge, you just learned about this last week, didn't you?
Well, you just did it back to me, now didn't you Jim. While most politics is about 'power', thats nowhere near an answer.

Little bit surprised at you Jim. Of course, I'm a little surprised at everyone right now. I'll offer my answer in time, but there are so many self-proclaimed 'experts' on black culture, issues, and history around here, I think we should allow a little more time for more to weigh in.
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
Sergeant!!! There you are. Asking questions AGAIN???? Asking, but not answering. That's what you did with me, anyway.

No answer is good enough. But you have nothing to offer. Stand and judge. Don't participate.

Mr. Chester,

That's what he's done since he's been here. He and Mountain are from the same School of DeVOID-of-THOUGHT!
quote:
    Never learned to SSWwwimmmmm...emmm...em...emmmm,

    Can't catch the rhythm of the stroke...oakkk!

    Why should I hold my breath..ethh,

    Feelin' that I might CHOKE!!


    Psychoalphadiscobeta bioaquadoloop!

[Sgt.} I Hate Water!!
Yes, vox knows it. Thanks, and none too soon I might add.

And no vox, there is nothing you've offered that is new to me. You in fact have misinterpreted the 'meaning' of this event somewhat, which I'll be glad to clear up for ya as well.

what Sarge fails to realize is that the real story, as detailed above, is even worse: they actually got to count us toward added representation for themselves, knowing full well that we would be denied any of the benefits of that representation.

Well no, I didn't miss the fact that we did get counted. Thats obvious to me.
BUT, you have framed this fact in a negative way, using the term 'worse', which is ass- backwards in my view. Thats miscomprehension.

Bearing in mind the way congress actually functions is necessary in understanding this event. Law applies here, its not up to people's wishes or whims.

"they actually got to count us toward added representation for themselves"

But that certainly was not the "WORSE" thing that would have happened. You are wrong on that, unless:

They got to only count 3/5ths of the added representation they otherwise would have counted, is that not correct Vox?? Are you saying it would have been better to have %100 representation for each slave for the south??? You would WANT the South to have prevailed and gained MORE power???
Wouldn't THAT have been the WORSE scenario as you phrase it vox?

Isn't LESS representation, and therefore, LESS influence by the south what YOU would prefer??

Why would you use the term 'worse' in reference to having the %100 cut to only %60?? I'm not following that, unless of course you favor slavery.

I don't think so vox. Rethink that please.

The 3/5th compromise was a victory for those opposing slavery, ironically yes, but nonetheless a positive event in our history. As often, the event itself does not tell the whole story.

(disclaimer: I will not be responding to the inevitable comments of lowest common denominator amongst us here, like mag, who inevitable will now insult, disparage, tell us how smart they are for the umpteenth time, get it wrong again, etc etc, you know the usual suspects.)
quote:
Originallt posted by NMaginate:
It was an political/economic compromise between the North and South, IMO, that the South definitely pushed for to boost their representation in Congress, etc.



quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
The 3/5 man rule was a compromise between the north and the south. Because a state's population determined their congressional representation, the south wanted to count slaves toward their population. Anti-slavery advocates took issue, because these men and women were considered property and had no rights. They correctly argued that a slave should count as zero. They compromised and for some reason settled on the 3/5 number. So the south could count 60% of the slave population and add it to the free total, which enabled them to get extra seats in the House that they didn't deserve. Sergeant is trying to criticize those of us who decry the 3/5 number as being ignorant. If so, what Sarge fails to realize is that the real story, as detailed above, is even worse: they actually got to count us toward added representation for themselves, knowing full well that we would be denied any of the benefits of that representation. Sarge, you just learned about this last week, didn't you?


Sarge,

Aren't they both saying the same thing?


Illegal, noun:

A term used by the descendents of European Immigrants to refer to descendants of Native Americans


Plowshares Actions
The Nuclear Resister
School of the Americas Watch


Cauca, Colombia


Your late Kevin. Its already been answered. To make it easy for ya, think of what would have occurred had the north not won the 3/5ths compromise, and the South had won the right to count slaves as fully representative populations.

You see it?

:there is actually a little more to the drama, involving the 'tipping' of numbers of seats and gaining a majority to be able to 'veto' etc, but thats a little tedious for here.
quote:
Originally posted by sergeant:
No. mag thought 3/5ths was a legistlative effort "pushed by the South". It was not. Exactly the opposite in fact.


Both NMaginate and Vox said that it was a way for the South to increase their population figures to gain seats in Congress, etc.

I'm not sure how their success in inflating their population figures would be viewed as a victory for those opposing slavery.


Illegal, noun:

A term used by the descendents of European Immigrants to refer to descendants of Native Americans


Plowshares Actions
The Nuclear Resister
School of the Americas Watch


Cauca, Colombia


Listen whiteboy, you supposed to be a math teacher????

Is 3/5ths as much as 1???

3/5ths was NOT a "a way for the South to increase their population figures to gain seats in Congress"

3/5ths WAS a way for the NORTH to lessen and counteract the influence of the south in the congress by cutting the south's representation in congress. The south was going to vote FULL representation, the north's proposal of 3/5ths at least lowered that somewhat. The numbers in the house at the time could very well have given the south ALL that they wanted. In fact, its a miracle that 3/5ths got passed at all, it was 'compromise' in its truest sense.

What you used to, silver spoons whiteboy??? Didn't you have any history classes in that school you went to?
This sounds a lot like PW-theoretics!
Don't ya think, Ricardo!

Yeah, and tell the slave-masters their reimbursement for Room & Board is in the mail and double-stamped!

VOX,
Didn't you recently say something about it:
"It's not what you think about a particular topic, but rather how you think about it."

Well, DUMB-StuuuPid-Lonely-SARGE... (silly RaBBiT!)
60% vs. 100% count on slaves and the South representation... Ahhh!! IF WE WERE NOT REPRESENTING OURSELVES then there was no reason for anyone else (read Slave-masters) to profit in any way from whatever percent we "accounted" in representation.

So, in effect, NO!! We will not celebrate someone sticking half-a-knife (or 60%) in our gut when psycho-reflecting that they could have stabbed us with the whole 100% of it!

Regardless the South was, in essence, rewarded for having slaves by giving THE MASTERS extra say at our expense ("paid" by us). The results are nothing to celebrate or promote with "it could have been worse" type logic.

SILLY RABBIT!
To Kweli:

How so Kweli? To what 'logic' are you referring to Kweli? I do not recall needing to use any logic in this topic. Can you point out what you are referring to?

Did you see me write that the middle passage was 'quirky'? Did you see me write that slavery was good?

What motivates someone as you to make such an off the wall comment like that? Is that your 'hit and run' passes for intellect technique? You don't WANT to know your history perhaps? Or you like believing what you believed before we layed it out for you?

Got to be something, so what is it you take issue with?

Or you going to just fade away now, having nothing but negativity in your heart and mind.
quote:
Originally posted by sergeant:
Listen whiteboy,...


The name is ricardomath, ricardo for short, sarge.

quote:
you supposed to be a math teacher????


As a matter of fact, I am. My research specialty is logic, something that your posts sorely lack.

quote:
Is 3/5ths as much as 1???


Is 3/5ths more than 0? That's how much influence that those slaves had on those additional congressional representatives. Note that Native Americans counted for 0. That is the default value for non-citizens.

quote:
3/5ths was NOT a "a way for the South to increase their population figures to gain seats in Congress"


Sure it was. Otherwise, slaves would have counted as 0, just like Native Americans who likewise had no influence on those representatives.

quote:
3/5ths WAS a way for the NORTH to lessen and counteract the influence of the south in the congress by cutting the south's representation in congress.


Counting slaves as 3/5ths, rather than 0, the default value for non-citizens, gave the South more representation than it deserved, since those additional representatives were in no way accountable to those they were supposedly representing.

quote:
What you used to, silver spoons whiteboy???


That would be ricardomath, ricardo for short, sarge.


Illegal, noun:

A term used by the descendents of European Immigrants to refer to descendants of Native Americans


Plowshares Actions
The Nuclear Resister
School of the Americas Watch


Cauca, Colombia


There was NEVER a chance of zero. That was the whole point and problem the north faced you moron. It was either 1 or 3/5th of 1.

What words or fractions are giving you so much trouble today whiteboy?

Ok, the topic is officially over, theres nothing more I can add, or spoonfeed to whiteboys.

Everyone understands, and ricky can get back to bashing his students or whatever.....
quote:
Originally posted by sergeant:


BUT, you have framed this fact in a negative way, using the term 'worse', which is ass- backwards in my view. Thats miscomprehension.



But that certainly was not the "WORSE" thing that would have happened. You are wrong on that, unless:

They got to only count 3/5ths of the added representation they otherwise would have counted, is that not correct Vox?? Are you saying it would have been better to have %100 representation for each slave for the south??? You would WANT the South to have prevailed and gained MORE power???


No, fool, it's you who's miscomprehending. I'm saying I would prefer us to have been counted as ZERO, so that southern whites would not get the benefit of any of our numbers. The fact that we were counted as 3/5 is worse than being counted at all. I don't understand how you could have gleaned the opposite from my post. You're accusing me of preferring us to have been counted 100%. That's false. I clearly state that we should have been counted as ZERO. I'll quote my post here, for your convenience. Ask your teacher for some extra help in reading comprehension, and use the following to study off of:

quote:
Anti-slavery advocates ... correctly argued that a slave should count as zero. They compromised and for some reason settled on the 3/5 number. So the south could count 60% of the slave population and add it to the free total, which enabled them to get extra seats in the House that they didn't deserve. Sergeant is trying to criticize those of us who decry the 3/5 number as being ignorant. If so, what Sarge fails to realize is that the real story, as detailed above, is even worse: they actually got to count us toward added representation for themselves, knowing full well that we would be denied any of the benefits of that representation.




What I said the real 3/5 story was worse than was the idea that it was somehow unjust, or immoral, for us to be counted as 3/5 than as 100%. For the purpose of congressional apportionment, it was actually worse to be counted 3/5 than to be counted fully, since we had none of the rights of citizens, or of humans.
quote:
Originally posted by sergeant:
To Kweli:

How so Kweli? To what 'logic' are you referring to Kweli? I do not recall needing to use any logic in this topic. Can you point out what you are referring to?




Sarge,

I agree with you here. I have reviewed your posts in this thread, and was unable to find any logic. I believe that Kweli mispoke when he referred to your logic.

ricardomath


Illegal, noun:

A term used by the descendents of European Immigrants to refer to descendants of Native Americans


Plowshares Actions
The Nuclear Resister
School of the Americas Watch


Cauca, Colombia


quote:
Originally posted by sergeant:
There was NEVER a chance of zero. That was the whole point and problem the north faced you moron. It was either 1 or 3/5th of 1.

What words or fractions are giving you so much trouble today whiteboy?

Ok, the topic is officially over, theres nothing more I can add, or spoonfeed to whiteboys.

Everyone understands, and ricky can get back to bashing his students or whatever.....


Are you locking the thread to further posts?

BTW, where did you get this stuff about me bashing my students? You've been saying stupid shit like this for a couple of days, now.

I suppose that you just made it up in your head, just like you do with other stuff...


Illegal, noun:

A term used by the descendents of European Immigrants to refer to descendants of Native Americans


Plowshares Actions
The Nuclear Resister
School of the Americas Watch


Cauca, Colombia


Wait, I didn't read anything after the response to me.

Sarge, the anti-slavery advocates wanted the slaves to count for ZERO. 3/5 was no victory for them. It was a victory for the south. Any added population that inflated the white south's numbers is a victory for them, considering that it would have been right and just for them to get nothing extra. If you're supposed to get X amount of something, anything you get above X is spoils. And in turn, the north lost too, because their rightful proportionate share of the members of the House was reduced fraudulently. Any compromise on this matter should have been unacceptable to the North. I don't get why you think black slaves benefitted from any evil act that resulted in the slaveowners becoming more powerful than they deserved to be.
Not exactly vox. You must comprehend that this is reality, its the congress, theres the constitutional process, there are real southerners favoring real slavery. All is not in text book heaven, dig?

They were living in REALITY at the time. The south at the time held the upper hand in the house. THIS IS BY NO MEANS MAKE BELIEVE LAND, YOU DIG??? Of course everyone 'should' oppose slavery, but that was not reality!! And there is a such thing as consitutional law that the congress is regulated by!!!!!

You got it right that the North wanted zero, but as you also know compromise is often required or at least desired by those with the weaker hand.

I think the misunderstanding is a common one, I was hoping some could see beyond that.

SO:
YES, I KNOW the entire notion of counting ANY population as less than a man is HORRIBLE. YES I KNOW that the South was WRONG in every way on the issue. YES I KNOW that adding 3/5ths increases the south's representation. YES, I think it odd to be thought of as 3/5ths. YES I AM AWARE that seeing this as positive takes a mature, stable and agile mind, to see both the irony and sadness in the whole affair while recognizing the politics of the time as well.

OK, DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW???? THIS IS NOT AN ADVOCATION OF THE FUCKING 3/5TH MEASURE FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!!! WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM?????

What you expect me to say?:
" Er, eh um, Mr Vox, you have a remarkable grasp of the obvious"
"Oh, well thank you Mr Sergeant, you too"


Get over it and take it for whats it worth. Its not the gotdam end of the world for ya or anything.
sgt posted,

YES I AM AWARE that seeing this as positive takes a mature, stable and agile mind, to see both the irony and sadness in the whole affair while recognizing the politics of the time as well.


*** Man you are a f-king fool if you see ANYTHING positive about the situation, especially if you are not some racist azz white sotuherner....what the f-k is wrong with you sgt? How in the f-k can you even fix your lips to utter the word positive......the whole concept of slavery and slaves is negative....period. Look at the wealth imbalance and the racial divisions that will ALWAYS exist in this country.....I live in a country where white folks cannot even fix their mouths to even APOLOGIZE for slavery and as a black person, not only am I supposed to just get over it....I'm supposed to watch those movies and take plantation tours that romanticize the timeframe by leaving out the realities (such as slave quarters) of a horrible horrible institution. And you wonder why there are people who want to bomb this place to sam hell and back? I don't..............man you are treading into dangerous territory with that positive aspects of slavery shit.....
Whoa everybody ... I almost got drawn into SGT's nonsense. That was before I started remembering, and then re-read, most of his posts. I can't/won't argue with SGT anymore because it is my firm belief that he is not as he represents. It is my belief that SGT is a White agitator that comes to this board to disrupt and distract.

To answer another thread, should he be banned? Nope, just ignored.

Peace to you, SGT.
Kweli ...

I thought the same thing about just ignoring Sarge .... but that statement of putting a "positive spin" on the issue of slavery is/has got to be the last straw!!

I have and will never hear anything more ignorant in my life ... for there is nothing more repulsive in the English language that can be said than that!! And at this point, for saying anything so absurd, I believe he should GO!!! Roll Eyes

BLACK by NATURE, PROUD by CHOICE.
Free your mind, and the rest will follow.
On July 12, the Protest Whinier Forum suffered a Total Forum Breakdown, in which several longstanding members were banned from there, and proceeded to seek refuge here in "?", in an attempt to regroup, and let their fellow Protest Whiniers know what had happened.

https://www.africanamerica.org/groupee/forums?a=tpc&s=60260642&f=64170254&m=73170694

During the next couple of days, I went over to PW (openly) a few times under various usernames, and ShudderAtTheThought was bragging about a mysterious operation that they had planned against AA.org. I've always wondered why no counterattack occured after that. It has always struck me as very odd. She was quite sure that they were going to get us, laughing in anticipation.

https://www.africanamerica.org/groupee/forums?a=tpc&s=60260642&f=64170254&m=53170994

On July 15, Das Boomski came to "?", and joined AA.org, looking to get in contact with the PW refuges, who were camping out in "?", to tell them that Alan and Kfir were letting them return, if only PW refuges would lick their boots. Das Boomski was communicating with them in private topics here at AA.org. (I believed at the time, and still believe, due to the similarity of their posting styles, that Das Boomski is ShudderAtTheThought. When I asked her in "?", she sisn't respond.)

https://www.africanamerica.org/groupee/forums?a=tpc&s=60260642&f=64170254&m=63670305

I just clicked on Sergeant's profile, and notice that on July 15, Sergeant joined AA.org. Eek


Illegal, noun:

A term used by the descendents of European Immigrants to refer to descendants of Native Americans


Plowshares Actions
The Nuclear Resister
School of the Americas Watch


Cauca, Colombia



[This message was edited by ricardomath on October 21, 2003 at 04:59 PM.]


[This message was edited by ricardomath on October 21, 2003 at 05:12 PM.]
It doesn't matter... I think the best thing is to ignore he/she/it.

I know without a doubt Dear Ole Sarge isn't Black with his NAAWP Bizzaro type thinking... There will be no TOTAL FORUM BREAKDOWN here where members turn against each other because of some freak who can't even string a logical sentence together.

Perhaps your theory is right... That would explain the Sarge's penchant for berating MBM and he/she/it's "censorship" pleas.

Anyway...

He/she/it has already been pegged in my book as another in a long list of the multiplying SILLY RABBITS who think people fall for that weakly assembled positions.

Dare I say...
Tricks are for Kids?
Yeah, that would explain why he's so contrarian all the time. He creates disagreements that don't really exist (Nmaginate & I were saying the same thing, and he tried to make it seem like we said something different?!?), and argues obvious falsehoods. The "positive spin" on the 3/5 Compromise is pretty much proof positive. This guy's arguments are so ridiculous that he has to just be trying to provoke and annoy.
Add to that the fact that the south dominated american gov't for many decades ANYWAY because the economy was agrarian and not industrial based. The south used the 3/5 approach as a way to dominate legislation to their favor against Northern interests. This is a major part of the reason why the north agitated for civil war - they resented the south being able to use slaves to inflate their representation and control politics....

sheesh

bs @ Sgt's positive spin on slavery
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
Add to that the fact that the south dominated american gov't for many decades ANYWAY because the economy was agrarian and not industrial based. The south used the 3/5 approach as a way to dominate legislation to their favor against Northern interests. This is a major part of the reason why the north agitated for civil war - they resented the south being able to use slaves to inflate their representation and control politics....

sheesh

bs @ Sgt's positive spin on slavery



WHAT A LOT OF PEOPLE SEEM TO NOT REALIZE IT THAT IT IS THE SOUTH THAT IS DOMINATING POLITICS IN THIS COUNTRY RIGHT NOW, AGAIN SINCE THE REAGAN YEARS.--just a little side note.
I hope my grandsons look like a one-celled amoeba when they become the age of FORCE to march to one of these wars in some foreign land or otherwise. White America can lower the fraction to the lowest common denominator. I ain't no math freak; but whatever it is, the lowest ain't low enough for me. This family will slither along like snakes if we have to. So be it!!!!!!!! If we all look like apes, coons, baboons, horses, cows, in that psycho mind of theirs, GGGGGOOOOOOOODDDDDDDDDIE!!!!!!!
This right here is the reason why I don't feel sorry for the South for LOSING the American Civil War. Prior to the Civil War, the North had 71% of the population. The South had to add 60%, or 3/5ths of the slave population in order to have more seats in the House of Representatives (the house that's represented by the POPULATION of the states) as well as make a profit from slavery at the same time.

Had they used 100% of the slave population instead, the South would've had more seats in Congress. The problems with this are:

1. Had they counted 100% of the slave population, the South would have to also count them as citizens (i.e. the South would have to free their slaves). Either you're a person or property. You can't be a slave and a citizen at the same time. And the South wasn't ready for that.

2. Some of the slave populations in certain states in the South were larger than the white population. Which meant that some of the southern states would have had a Black majority. Obviously, the South wasn't ready for that either.
See Kev, this is where you go wrong:

"Look at the wealth imbalance and the racial divisions that will ALWAYS exist in this country"

Whoever is teaching you that bs is doing you a disservice, or preparing you for a self-fulfilling prophecy. Either way, with that attitude I know that you will remain unbalanced and divided, just as you are planning to be. There are far too many examples all around us of black folks who did not believe as you do, and who are succeeding and at the top of their respective fields. Excuses are a thing of the past.
I don't give a f-k about divided, the wealth imbalance is my only concern. Do you really think I would spend my time arguing with racist azz white people trying to change their attitudes? Or do you think i would be a subjugated, docile negro to have them like me while their attitudes about blacks in general remain the same. As so far as the imbalance, as long as negroes support things that continue to make our share of the pie harder to get (i.e., against affirmative action when white males head 90% of the corporations) then as a whole, the imbalance will not be erased as quickly as it could. Now there are plently of blacks who are getting theirs and living the american dream better than plenty of others who thought it would be theirs by default. Hell, i'm at the top of my field educationally and economically my gotdamn self but that does not count....the key is to make policy open and inclusive where historically underrepresented people can be included and realize educational and economic ascension widespread. But many people are worried more about being a good house negra than they are the state of affars for their race....especially if they can realize individual benefits from pandering to whites like a little child nestled under its parent as they do the work of racists in blackface......
...suffering from heart disease, diabetes, strokes, high blood pressure, obesity, keeping their mouths shut when some sucka on the job says something out of line; trying to stay alive past age 45, maintaining all those astronomical payments for all that material stuff; facing all the pressure every day of their African lives, keeping up with the Jones'!! One place we all look identical: The damn CEMETERY; only thing, no one gives a chit what you're wearing, what kind of car you drove, the color of your hair, skin, eyes, lipstick, what kind of house you owned. No one ever sees ya again nor remembers ya!! Is it worth it???? Then go for it!!!!!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
Whoa everybody ... I almost got drawn into SGT's nonsense. That was before I started remembering, and then re-read, most of his posts. I can't/won't argue with SGT anymore because it is my firm belief that he is not as he represents. It is my belief that SGT is a White agitator that comes to this board to disrupt and distract.

To answer another thread, should he be banned? Nope, just ignored.

Peace to you, SGT.


PEACE

Jim Chester

You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×