Attempt to torch MLK birth home

Post Reply New Topic

Duhhhh. Thats what I just said.

Slavery existed in the 13 colonies for two centuries before the constitution. Half of the signers were southern planters who owned slaves. The other half were northerners who were not big slave owners. But both groups sidestepped the issue of slavery when drafting the constitution.

Don't forget, they had to sell the constitution to the American people. Salvation to the landed gentry and slave owners came in two forms. The first was the legal declaration that a "negro" was 3/5 a human (the 3/5 compromise). It became common christian belief that black people had no soul which gave solace to the average American seeing them treated like animals.

The second was the science of eugenics. It was a widespread scientific belief up to the 1960s that black people were genetically inferior. There was a pervasive view (still prevalent) that black people were too primitive to be civilised.

Lay off the drugs please.

The three fifths compromise was to limit the power of slave owners. Not to denigrate nor disempower the Blacks (who had already been slaves for two centuries. If Slaves had been defined as "zero parts human" it would have reduced the number of reps in congress that slave owning states would have had, thus wouldve hurt White free folks including slave owners, and given free states more power. If they had been defined as being fully 100 percent human...The slaves would have remained in bondage...but their owners would have an unfair voting leverage in congress.

Okay...you and I...were trying to start a country. you're a New England State with 100K population. And I am a southern state with same size pop. So...lessay we both get one rep per ten k of population. So we would both get ten reps. So I say "cool" were equally matched in congress! And you might say "HEY...half of YOUR population are slaves! You deny them the rights of citizens (including the right to vote)so you cant count that half of your population towards congressional representation! Only your free White populatoin would count. So you should only get five reps!"

To which I would say "Well screw you! I am not joining this new union of yours".

The three fifths rule was a compromise...the south couldnt have their cake and eat it too...but they could have three fifths of their cake and eat it to.

I know all about eugenics. That was two centuries after the Constitution was signed. you're going off on tangents.

My understanding of American theology is that there was a widespread belief that Black people's skin color was the result of the Curse of Cain and the Curse of Ham. I even was told this when I was a school boy in the early 1970s so that belief must have carried across the waters to Australia.

This biblical interpretation allowed other beliefs to flourish that black people had no premortal soul when they were born so could not go to heaven, This was convenient because it morally justified segregation that continues to today in churches but also with living spaces.

Look at American's belief of heaven and its a reflection of the world they currently live in.,

We WERE talking about one man (G.Washington) at one moment in time...when the Constitution was written.

If you're talking about the whole sweep of English speaking world history thats another topic. you're lumping things in from the 19th and even the early 20th century into the 18th century.

Last edited by naturalplastic on 16 Dec 2023, 9:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I was talking about both, the adherence to the constitution into the 19th/20th centuries mean't American people tried not to look too deep into its subtle meaning. For lawyers however there were ways they could twist the words to make it squeaky clean.

Exactly. you're off on another tangent.

But if that is the tangent is what you wanna talk about then fine.

If it was enthusiastically pro slavery, then slaves wouldn't have counted for 3/5 of a person when it came to apportioning representatives. It was a way of making the Southerners acknowledge that these were people, even if they didn't properly value them at a full person. Also keep in mind that at the time even most non-slaves weren't allowed to vote.

The whole thing was less than ideal, but it's not historically accurate to say that the constitution was pro-slavery when it wasn't. It wasn't any more pro-slavery then than it is now with the current crop of slaves of various ages, races and genders working in prisons.

Maybe.

Thats true that even most free Whites couldnt vote . Just a few thousand property owning men. The common White males couldnt vote in their millions until Andrew Jackson was elected POTUS. Women not until like 1920. Blacks were done out of their voting power until...they STILL are now...but in theory that was straightened out in 1964.

But southern slave owners wouldve had more power if the slaves had been declared all five fifths human, and would have been screwed if the slaves had been declared zero fifths human. Paradoxical but true.

So would the ex-slaves following 1865 they would have elected more of their own to represent them. Might have been able to lay claim to the 40 acres and a mule they were owed.

That's still revisionist history that ignores the reality. Had the constitution been so pro-slavery, then the slaves would have counted as 0/5 of a person the way that other property was. The only reason that it was 3/5 rather than 5/5 with some portion being allowed to vote was that it was the best deal that could be negotiated and it was eventually fixed.

I don't think we need to revise history to make things out to be worse than they really were. Slavery was bad enough as it was/is.

Your post doesnt make any sense. You will have to elaborate.

Yes it's important to remember that post 1865 freed slaves were discouraged from voting by groups like the KKK. The local southern whites didn't want ex-slaves representing their slave dominated states in congress and secondly it ended up serving the northern states as well as it diluted the overall voting power of the south. The only losers were the African Americans who faced lynching if they showed up at a polling booth so remained effectively voiceless and living in terror for their lives.

Assuming the African Americans came out in force to vote + had 5/5 voting rights then the sheer volume of voting power they wielded could have forced the US federal government to make good on their legal eligibility for 40 acres and a mule for each slave family.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty_acres_and_a_mule

In 2023 I am still surprised that there isn't a class-action aimed at the US federal government for not delivering on this to every ex-slave family? critics often claim reparations can't be quantified because slavery happened so long ago. But the federal government did legally acknowledge slavery was wrong and offered reparations. This remains an outstanding debt not paid.

If somebody can do a calculation based on the census of 1865 on how many slaves there were x current value of 40 acres of land a mule then the total amount could be added up and should be divided up and paid to all African Americans who can legally trace their ancestry to slaves.

So your post really IS just as illogical (and laughable) as it sounded.

1) The US doesnt have either censuses nor elections in years ending in five. There could have been no "1865 election".

2)There was an 1868 POTUS election. Its congressional and electorial college apportionment wouldve been based on the 1860 census (we do the census in years ending in zero).

3) Eighteen sixty was on the eve of the Civil War ...the last census of the slavery era. But by 1868 there were no slaves. So...the population counted as slaves in 1860 would simply have been promoted to five fifths human. Rendering the three fifths rule irrelevant to the elections. And individual Blacks wouldve been equal to Whites in voting power.

So your contention is illogical.

HOWEVER...just for laughs lets follow your illogic further. Lets say that for some reason they still counted Blacks as three fifths human even though they were no longer slaves. That would hurt both Black voters in the south and White voters in the south equally. So it wouldve canceled out. When slavery existed the three fifths rule ONLY hurt the voting power of free Whites in the south and did not hurt Blacks (because Blacks were nonvoting slaves anyway).So if Blacks were given the vote the three fifths rule (which hurts the state as a whole and not individual voters) Blacks would only have been hurt by the same amount that white voters in the same state wouldve been hurt canceling it out. The whole state gets docked representation by the three fifths rule. Not the individual voters.

So your contention is two kinds of illogical.

Let me put it this way.

You have a state. Half of the population is slaves. Lets say the slaves count as "half human". So when they dole out the congressmen...your state would get fifty times one, plus fifty times one half, or 75 percent of the voting power of a free state of the same population size. So the free white population gets docked of a quarter of thier voting power. Meanwhile the Black population isnt effected at all (because they are nonvoting slaves anyway).

Then one day the slaves are all freed. But for some reason they are both allowed to vote, but are still counted as half human in congressional apportionment (which doesnt make sense but that what you're saying so lets go with it). So the whole state collectively would still loose that same 25 percent of its voting power even AFTER emancipation of the slaves. Both Black voters and White voters alike would loose that same 25 percent of Congressional (and electorial college) representation. Blacks would not be hurt more than Whites. Everyone of every skin color in the given state would loose equally. Once again -the three fifths rule docked the state as a whole. Not the individual voters.

And since Southern Whites presumably would oppose "Forty Acres and a Mule" it wouldve been voted down regardless of whether the three fifths rule existed or not.

+++++++++++
Since you asked for number crunching...

In 1860 the US had 30 million people. The states that would secede from the Union in 1861 and become the confederacy had nine million population. Of which 3.5 million were slaves. The border states (slave states that stayed in the Union)had another half of a million slaves.

So slaves were 13 percent of the population.

So in 1868 theoretically the former slaves would have been about that same 13 percent of the voting population.

Sorry, but that small a voting bloc (13 percent) would not have been enough to get something as radical as forty acres and a mule enacted. For a number of obvious reasons. Including the fact that southern white would vote against it if it had been on the table to be voted on.

Nothing to do with it.

Were not arguing about whether not Blacks were oppressed. Obviously they were. Were talking about the three fifths rule.