dagblog - Comments for "America's Longest Conversation"

Got it Thx

rmrd0000 — Sun, 20 Sep 2015 04:14:43 +0000

In reply to I was referring to the

Got it

Thx

I was referring to the

moat — Sun, 20 Sep 2015 03:47:39 +0000

In reply to The bottom line is that the

I was referring to the classic logical fallacy that goes like this:

Socrates is a man.
All men are mortal.
Therefore all men are Socrates.

Yeah, it is obvious that the compromise was not race neutral. There were no white slaves. Noticing that the language did not specifically refer to a race is not the same as denying who was being discussed. At least not for me.

It all depends upon what one is to conclude from the wording. I am not agreeing or not not agreeing to an argument by simply observing that the language avoids referring to race per se.

The matters of property the language dealt with certainly stand in sharp contrast to the cost of human suffering that was authorized by it.

Most the argument is that the

rmrd0000 — Sun, 20 Sep 2015 01:13:14 +0000

In reply to The bottom line is that the

Moat

The argument is that the three-fifths law was not racially biased because some blacks were counted as individuals. Do you agree that the clause was not racially biased?

The bottom line is that the

rmrd0000 — Sun, 20 Sep 2015 00:40:32 +0000

In reply to As an observer of this

The bottom line is that the compromise was race-based in practice. It was not race neutral.There is no other conclusion.

Edit it add:

It was disparate impact. It not not have to impact all blacks.

i don't get your Socrates reference

As an observer of this

moat — Sun, 20 Sep 2015 00:06:41 +0000

In reply to The idea that the three

As an observer of this discussion between you and Aaron, it seems to me that you are both speaking in cross purposes to the other.

Whatever else Aaron was trying to prove, I take his point that the language of the 3/5 rd count was not based upon race because the language avoided that. It is also equally obvious that this fraction of a person talk referred only to black people because there were no white slaves.

I don't mind you guys arguing about whatever you want to argue about but let it not be a repetition of the old logic school conundrum where Socrates turned out to be all people.

The idea that the three

rmrd0000 — Sat, 19 Sep 2015 23:45:44 +0000

In reply to America's Longest Conversation

The idea that the three-fifths Compromise was not race-based is another example of attempts to sanitize the Antebellum period. We start with the idea that the war was about state's rights and not slavery. This requires that we ignore that state secession documents listed slavery as the main reason for severing ties with the Union. We next say that the Confederate flags were not racist symbols even though the soldiers fighting under their banners fought for the right of people to hold blacks in bondage. There are even attempts to create black Confederates.

When we come to the three-fifths compromise, some argue that the compromise was not race-based even though the only group who would have only three out of five counted during a vote were black people. Slaves could not vote. The only ethnic group who could be slaves were blacks. The only reason that I can fathom for why this racial gymnastics occurs is that people who were against slavery agreed to the compromise.

The South wanted all slaves counted. 30,000 people got you a Representative. The South would benefit greatly if this measure was accepted. The North did not want the South to gain the amount of power one slave, one vote cast by a white guy would yield. The North did not want the North to reject the Union. The three-fifths compromise was the result. Because the compromise was an "anti-slavery" measure, there is a reluctance to view it as a failure that gave power to the South and created an expansion of slavery.

The three-fifths compromise was a mistake. It helped keep blacks in bondage. Blacks were mere pawns whether you consider the Southern position or the Northern rationale for compromise.

At the end of the day the

rmrd0000 — Sat, 19 Sep 2015 21:22:15 +0000

In reply to I think we've set out our

At the end of the day the racial-bias in the three-fifths compromise opened the door to more slavery. The South benefited greatly and more blacks were enslaved.

The three-fifths clause was

rmrd0000 — Sat, 19 Sep 2015 21:12:48 +0000

In reply to Aaron

The three-fifths clause was racially biased because it was applied to only blacks. Southern states took actions to make sure that the voting rights of free blacks were limited,. Both practices were part and parcel of institutional racial-bias.

Commenter Aaron Carine refuses to admit that race-bias was the norm regarding the right to vote

Edit to add:

The racism in the clause is that human beings were counted as property. It was a political compromise to keep racist Southerners in the planned United States. Racial bias was the reason for the clause. The three-fifths "compromise" was to counter the Southern proposal that each slave be counted a one person. Counting only 3 out of 5 slaves was the compromise. This had the disastrous result of giving more power to the South. The South gained a near lock on the Presidency.

The South gained the political clout to have Missouri enter a slave state, as did Texas territory. The Fugitive Slave Act passed.Slavery was allowed in Utah and New Mexico. The Great Plains and Rocky Mountain territories were open for slavery. The result of the three-fifths compromise was more slavery. There is no way to avoid the conclusion that it had a racially-biased result.

I think we've set out our

Aaron Carine — Sat, 19 Sep 2015 20:31:13 +0000

In reply to Aaron

I think we've set out our positions pretty clearly. One thing: if a cop chose not to stop a black person, the law didn't require him to leave that black person alone. The law did require that free blacks be counted.

I wasn't really talking about black voting rights. Some states let them vote; some didn't.

Aaron

rmrd0000 — Sat, 19 Sep 2015 20:23:17 +0000

In reply to America's Longest Conversation

Aaron

Stop and Frisk targeted blacks. Slavery targeted blacks.Not all blacks in NYC were stopped by the NYPD. Not all blacks were counted as three-fifths. Both laws were racially-biased in practice.

The idea that free blacks were free to vote is a lie. Georgia and South Carolina banned free blacks from voting. North Carolina also banned free blacks from voting

https://books.google.com/books?id=zpmjRm4cdswC&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq=free+...