Geek Out!

live.pirillo.com

More Information

Read most history text books, (like I just did), you will see a lot of them saying that the 3/5 clause was an example of racism in the founding of this country, and was some how harmful...That ladies and gentlemen is bull shit.

 

The 3/5 clause was there so the southern states could not count the slaves as full citizens of their state and get more representation in congress, for if they had more representatives, it would have been almost impossible to abolish slavery.

 

-Anubis

Views: 35

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

As a solution to the problem as you describe it - yes, not racist. But it IS racist, claiming that any human being is less of a human being because of any reason (this includes, but is not limited to race, gender, nationality or sexuality) is inhumane, EVEN if it is for a good cause overall.
I have never heard of the this so called 3/5 clause, and I would assume anyone who owned a slave was at least somewhat racist, just saying.

Well maybe you should read the constitution some times.

 

And...ummm...wasn't that implied.  IF you think I was saying they (the slave owners) were not racist, then you missunderstand.

 

-Anubis

No it was not racist. Slavery was racist but not this. the reason they implemented this was because the south had so many slave where as the north had much less. the north wanted not to count the slaves but most of the souths population was made up of slave and if they did not count them they would have less of a say in the government. so they decided to split it and make it fair. this was not racist it was there for fair representation in the government. 

(please excuse any grammar mistakes)

Well, I agree with you on the point that they started that clause because of the MASSIVE number of black slaves in the Southern states, but I also disagree with you on the point that it wasn't racist.

If you look at it purely from a governmental (I think I just made up a new word) standpoint, then no, it's not racist in the slightest. It was made singularly for the purpose of fair representation among the states. But if you look at it from a moral standpoint, it has threads of racism contained within. Like JS mentioned earlier, making a human out to be less than he or she really is (in this case making them less human), is basically racism on a smaller scale. Now don't get me wrong, even on a smaller scale, racism is completely, utterly wrong.

I do see the point that you're trying to get at here.

While I agree that treating a human as if they weren't a human is wrong, however that is exactly what the southern states were doing, but they wanted to have them count as people so they would have more power.  The northern states were in the opinion that if they were going to treat them as property rather than people, then that is how they should be counted.

 

Obviously neither would agree fully and so that is where the 3/5 compromise comes from.  And without it who knows how much longer we would have still had slaves.

So are you saying enacting a policy that would make it possible for the slaves to be free is "uttery wrong"?

 

-Anubis

Its not racist from within the racist framework in which it was implemented.  I can't really think of an analogy but something that sort of comes close is to say guns are tools and not weapons from the argument that guns don't kill people, but people who use guns to kill do.  Its pointless to say either one... if its only not racist from the perspective of it being a racist world to begin with, and without such consideration you can't make the statement then it was racist.  

 

It was a racist time by today's standards.  By the racist standards of yesteryear it wasn't, but that's really the accurate way to look at it and that isn't the way you laid it out.  Obviously you just want to stir up nonsense about a potentially sensitive topic by implying that it was purely political without recognising that the country was heavily rooted in racism to begin with.  Also, if the politics of the 3/5 clause don't in fact illustrate, regardless of it being directly or indirectly, racism of the day then I'm Superman.

 

I guess I was sucked in by a Troll?... someone so monumentally naive to the shades of gray in the world that they're truly this incapable, or someone just trying to stir up crap?  I don't know...

Some people have serious issues, and like to stir sht up and accuse. There is no possible way some people will ever be happy and should probably step off the earth and save everyone else their misery. I'm FED UP with the "race card" bowing and kissing. How about let's dig back into EVERYONES history and find all their dirt? Fair? 

We Live on from today, not 100 years ago. What my forefathers/mothers and did is not my problem, and likewise I also do not need the blame for it, nor will I 'pay' for it. Certain things just need to die.

Now I feel better... : )

RSS

© 2014   Created by Chris Pirillo.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service