Thank God for the U.S. Revolutionary war and the people’s fight to end slavery

[WuWei]

@PurpnGold

Counting property as “population”? It should have been zero…

It was never going to be zero. The abolitionists didn’t have the votes.

[johnwk2]

Did you come to that conclusion using critical race math?

[PurpnGold]

@WuWei

@PurpnGold

The clause gave southern states more power than they should have had. It allowed them to count 3/5ths of their total slave population as “free persons” even though they were not actually free, nor persons.

Wrong. The Deep South demanded slaves be counted as one whole. John is correct.

I know what the south wanted… they wanted to count property as a person but didn’t want to give that property rights as a person.

[SpacemanSpiff]

@WuWei

@Jezcoe

The 3/5ths clause gave outweighed power to the Southern States based on being able to treat people as both property and humans to be counted for electoral representation.

Wrong. It reduced that power by 2/5ths.

Math lesson time!

A non-slave state has a population of 50,000.

A slave state has a population of 40,000 non-slaves and 25,000 slaves, who have no political power or even the right to vote. But 3/5 of 25,000 is 15,000. So the population of that slave state is counted as 55,000.

See how that works?

[PurpnGold]

@johnwk2

Did you come to that conclusion using critical race math?

I used no math in my post.

Were slaves people or property?

[WuWei]

I know exactly how it works, condescending prog. Thank you for proving my point.

[johnwk2]

@PurpnGold

The fact the south got to count property at all was seen as a huge win for the south.

Did you miss the huge victory in the fight to stop the spread of slavery in the United States called THE NORTHWEST ORDINANCE?

JWK

Let us not forget during the coming election what the Authoritarian/Revolutionary Democrat Party Leadership has done to our businesses, our families, our children and our homeland.

[WuWei]

@PurpnGold

I know what the south wanted… they wanted to count property as a person but didn’t want to give that property rights as a person .

Exactly, glad we could agree.

And they probably had the votes to make it one. Look at whe4e the population was.

[SpacemanSpiff]

@WuWei

I know exactly how it works, condescending prog. Thank you for proving my point.

Doesn’t look like it.

[PurpnGold]

@SpacemanSpiff

@WuWei

@Jezcoe

The 3/5ths clause gave outweighed power to the Southern States based on being able to treat people as both property and humans to be counted for electoral representation.

Wrong. It reduced that power by 2/5ths.

Math lesson time!

A non-slave state has a population of 50,000.

A slave state has a population of 40,000 non-slaves and 25,000 slaves, who have no political power or even the right to vote. But 3/5 of 25,000 is 15,000. So the population of that slave state is counted as 55,000.

See how that works?

Correct so the 3/5th compromise increased their power… not decrease. No different than counting cattle as citizens

[WuWei]

@PurpnGold

Correct so the 3/5th compromise increased their power… not decrease. No different than counting cattle as citizens

They were going to get one whole.

[WuWei]

Good Lord. They had the votes for one.

[PurpnGold]

@WuWei

@PurpnGold

Correct so the 3/5th compromise increased their power… not decrease. No different than counting cattle as citizens

They were going to get one whole.

They never had 1 whole person. They had zero. That was the starting point.

Anything above that was an increase in power. Not a decrease

[johnwk2]

There is nothing in the provision about “cattle”.

[WuWei]

@PurpnGold

They never had 1 whole person. They had zero. That was the starting point.

Anything above that was an increase in power. Not a decrease

They had the votes for one whole.

[SpacemanSpiff]

@WuWei

@PurpnGold

They never had 1 whole person. They had zero. That was the starting point.

Anything above that was an increase in power. Not a decrease

They had the votes for one whole.

I’ll refer back to Safiel’s post. He laid it out perfectly.

[PurpnGold]

@WuWei

@PurpnGold

They never had 1 whole person. They had zero. That was the starting point.

Anything above that was an increase in power. Not a decrease

They had the votes for one whole.

They never had 1 whole. They had zero. They worked their way up to 3/5ths.

It should have been zero since slaves were property and not citizens.

[WuWei]

@SpacemanSpiff

@WuWei

@PurpnGold

They never had 1 whole person. They had zero. That was the starting point.

Anything above that was an increase in power. Not a decrease

They had the votes for one whole.

I’ll refer back to Safiel’s post. He laid it out perfectly.

Yes, he did.

[johnwk2]

@SpacemanSpiff

@WuWei

@PurpnGold

They never had 1 whole person. They had zero. That was the starting point.

Anything above that was an increase in power. Not a decrease

They had the votes for one whole.

I’ll refer back to Safiel’s post. He laid it out perfectly.

Except for mentioning the fact that the fight to end slavery in the United States began as early as 1776, and continued during the making of our present Constitution in 1787.

JWK

The truth cannot be changed to what it is not.

[SpacemanSpiff]

@johnwk2

@SpacemanSpiff

@WuWei

@PurpnGold

They never had 1 whole person. They had zero. That was the starting point.

Anything above that was an increase in power. Not a decrease

They had the votes for one whole.

I’ll refer back to Safiel’s post. He laid it out perfectly.

Except for mentioning the fact that the fight to end slavery in the United States began as early as 1776, and continued during the making of our present Constitution in 1787.

JWK

The truth cannot be changed to what it is not.

Ain’t playing this game again with ya again. I prefer the goal posts to stay in the same state.