Tell us how you think they have it backward.
The general thought o this is the this country considered the black slaves as less than a whole person, specifically 3/5 of a person. When that is not the case at all.
The southern slave holding states wanted to count all the slaves as a whole person. Those in the anti-slave states didn't want to count them at all. Why should those held as slaves be counted toward that state's total population for the purpose of Representatives in the Congress.
The country was not saying black people were not whole people, not at all. This country, you know the country that died by the hundreds of thousand to free those salves, was trying to right an incredible wrong.
I assume you know that, but I could be wrong.
The general thought o this is the this country considered the black slaves as less than a whole person, specifically 3/5 of a person. When that is not the case at all.
The southern slave holding states wanted to count all the slaves as a whole person. Those in the anti-slave states didn't want to count them at all. Why should those held as slaves be counted toward that state's total population for the purpose of Representatives in the Congress.
The country was not saying black people were not whole people, not at all. This country, you know the country that died by the hundreds of thousand to free those salves, was trying to right an incredible wrong.
I assume you know that, but I could be wrong.
This is 100% true. You can learn about it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUVONzyPRhU
The general thought o this is the this country considered the black slaves as less than a whole person, specifically 3/5 of a person. When that is not the case at all.
The southern slave holding states wanted to count all the slaves as a whole person. Those in the anti-slave states didn't want to count them at all. Why should those held as slaves be counted toward that state's total population for the purpose of Representatives in the Congress.
The country was not saying black people were not whole people, not at all. This country, you know the country that died by the hundreds of thousand to free those salves, was trying to right an incredible wrong.
I assume you know that, but I could be wrong.
3/5 was far from "anti" slavery. In fact, it was pro-slavery in that it preserved it for many more decades before it was forcefully removed. Without the CW it would have continued, despite the 3/5 compromise. To call it "Anti-slavery" patently false.
You are right. It was just 2/5 anti-slavery, but it was a start. The Civil War was the end of it.
No, it wasn't 2/5 anti-slavery, it was 2/5 compromise to prevent the south from gaining too much of an advantage. It wasn't a start, it was an utter failure. If it was a "start" it wouldn't have required a war to finish.
You were wrong, the cable show was wrong also. You were both equally as ignorant and equally as full of yourselves as far as your viewpoint of the "truth".
Well to be fair they probably did think exactly that, but they wanted to have their cake and eat it to. As a southern plantation owner, it doesn't get much sweeter than getting to have slaves with no rights but still getting to have them counted fully in the census like any other citizen to increase your representation in Congress.Yeah, people think the racists wanted black men to be counted as 3/5 of a person because they were racists and thought blacks were inferior. This is false.
The purpose of the "compromise" at the Constitutional Convention was to bring all the colonies together as a single country. Without this compromise that would not have happened. The Civil War was the results and it, the war, had a good and just outcome.
Not so good for all the dead people.
We all die. At least they died in the pursuit of a noble cause. Well, at least half of them, that is.
what noble cause?
No, it wasn't 2/5 anti-slavery, it was 2/5 compromise to prevent the south from gaining too much of an advantage. It wasn't a start, it was an utter failure. If it was a "start" it wouldn't have required a war to finish.
You were wrong, the cable show was wrong also. You were both equally as ignorant and equally as full of yourselves as far as your viewpoint of the "truth".
So they buy a slave and then that bought slave is a vote? Vote-buying, sounds like things haven't changed as much as we like to think in the past 150 years after all!When, exactly, do you think the Compromise was initiated that you put it in relation to the sacrificing of lives?
The only reason why the South wanted them to be counted was to gain an advantage over the north so the north couldn't abolish slavery and the south would immediately lose their economic AND political advantage. Why should they be counted at all if they weren't free and they only were being proxy voted by their owners? In fact, they weren't even considered 3/5, they were considered nothing but a tool by racists to keep power, so the 3/5 is even more disgusting than not counting them as a whole.
That question is even too stupid for me to answer....and that takes a lot of stupidity.
I ask because i don't think you really know why it was started. trying to figure if you really know the facts or what you were force feed in school..
The man from Mr. Glenn Beck's show is named David Barton, an expert in historical and constitutional issues and he holds a Bachelors degree from Oral Roberts University and an honorary Ph.D from Pensacola Christian College. He has millions of dedicated followers including Mike Huckabee. And you think you know more about our nation's history than him?
The man from Mr. Glenn Beck's show is named David Barton, an expert in historical and constitutional issues and he holds a Bachelors degree from Oral Roberts University and an honorary Ph.D from Pensacola Christian College. He has millions of dedicated followers including Mike Huckabee. And you think you know more about our nation's history than him?
Bartons growing visibility and influence with members of Congress and other Republican Party officials is troubling for many reasons: he distorts history and the Constitution for political purposes; he encourages religious divisiveness and unequal treatment for religious minorities; and he feeds a toxic political climate in which ones political opponents are not just wrong, but evil and anti-God.
Scholars have criticized Barton for presenting facts out of context or in misleading ways, but that hasnt stopped him from promoting his theories through books, television, and, yes, the textbooks that will teach the next generation of Americans. He promotes conspiracy theories about elites hiding the truth from average Americans in order to undermine the nation from within. Last summer, he declared that liberal and media attacks on the Tea Party were just like attacks on Jesus. In February, Barton spoke at the Connect 2011 Pastors Conference, where he said that Christians needed to control the culture and media so that guys that have a secular viewpoint cannot survive. Said Barton, If the press lacks moral discrimination, its because we havent been pushing our people to chop that kind of news off.
Bartons work is not just an academic exercise. It is meant to have a political impact. For Barton, documenting the divine origins of his interpretations of the Constitution gives him and his political allies a potent weapon. Barton promotes a false reality in which anyone who opposes any element of his political agenda stands in opposition to both the Founding Fathers and to God. He believes that everything in our society government, the judiciary, the economy, the family should be governed according to the Bible, and he promotes a view of the Bible and Jesus that many Christians would not recognize. Opponents, even Christians, who disagree with Barton about tax policy or the powers of Congress are not only wrong, they are un-American and anti-religious, enemies of America and of God.
President Obama is a particularly frequent target of Bartons. In January, one of his WallBuilders Live radio shows was titled Why is Obama Trying to Remove God from the United States? In March, right-wing news service WND quoted Barton accusing Obama (falsely of course) of being engaged in a pattern of willfully, deliberately repudiating America's Christian heritage.
Those are the kind of accusations long favored by the Religious Right, and they are destructive. Claims that political opponents are evil and are actively trying to destroy Americans freedoms poison the public arena, make constructive civic discourse nearly impossible, and have the potential to incite acts of violence.
Elected officials who endorse Barton give his claims credibility they do not deserve. He in turn gives cover and a veneer of legitimacy to right-wing politicians interested in putting their notions of a nation created by and for Christians into public policy. Both Barton and his backers are undermining understanding of, and respect for, vital American values and constitutional principles like separation of church and state and equal treatment under the law.