David Barton - Three-Fifths clause was anti-slavery, not pro

[jayaye21]

When it comes to American history, David Bartons the man. The man probably has more original documents on American history than anyone else in the country. With the exception of The Library of Congress and The Smithsonian Institute.

[jfsfrnd]

The 3/5 clause was a compromise.

[LetReasonPrevail1]

David Barton is the most, dishonest, bullshit artist and intellectually bankrupt fucktard on this planet.

His idea of reality is pure make believe.

[margaritaszechenyi]

How about the possibility that those who truly were against slavery got duped into thinking this was a good compromise cuz it would at least reduce the slave-owners' extra representation in Congress by 50%. But they didn't realize this compromise was actually a sell-out against the slaves...it was actually reinforcing slavery instead of strongly sticking to a demand to free the slaves if the South wanted represenation for them, or better yet, if the South wanted to be part of the Union at all.

[klg1956]

@margaritaszechenyi If you only had a brain! You need to follow the yellow brick road and see the Wizard of Oz for a brain!

[mamacornettesmoney]

@margaritaszechenyi The people for the 3/5s clause were a mixed bag. they weren't all for total abolition. Some were. That's why you have to compromise. Also, no way did they want to lose the South entirely. Why do you think we had a Civil War? the South simply left the Union and the Union Attacked them to fre-annexed them.

I don't think people were "duped" so much as they realized that you have to take babysteps and work your way up to what you''re after.

[journeyer58]

I have to wonder where did David Barton learn history? The so-called 3/5 clause was used to justify the continuing enslavement of millions of people in the US. Isn't it a hoot when far right wing squirrel nut jobs try to justify their views of history only to screw up so royally that they even get the context of something historical wrong? D. Barton the historian that isn't one, who proclaims himself a true historian but has no credentials not an ounce of integrity and even less honesty!

[fangedcricket12]

@journeyer58 "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons..." Article I, section II, paragraph III of the Constitution. looking up the article goes a long way.

[mamacornettesmoney]

@journeyer58 It wasn't used to justify anything. It was a compromise on how to count the slave population for the purpose of congressional representation. You had pro-slavery people and anti-slavery people and people who didn't care either way and they made a comromise in order to figure out how they'll assign congressional representation to each state. That is all.

[jdbohdan]

I'm sure the slaves were relieved to know the government was only considering them 3/5ths a person because of political reasons and to help them in their cause to be free men. That It only allowed and justified 2/5ths of the beatings.

[mamacornettesmoney]

@jdbohdan In no way does this clause call anyone 3/5 orf a person. In fact, it clearly counts "people of servitude" as whole persons. If you actually read the article, I doubt you'll still think that.

It was merely about apportionment of taxes & representation. It had nothing to do with labeling anyone 3/5 of a person. It simply lays out a mathmatical formula for calculating representation.

The idea of it being "anti-slavery" came from Frederick Douglass, top abolitionist of the day.

[jdbohdan]

@mamacornettesmoney So if Obama or the State Government said the people in your state only got 3/5 of representation in any laws you would be ok with that?

True, its not a slavery endorsement however its not an anti-slavery endorsement either. As you say, It was political move in order to avoid giving those states more power. The reality however was that the government was complacent on the issue, and slavery was allowed and part of an accepted system.

[jdbohdan]

@mamacornettesmoney Go back to math class. If you apply a fraction of value to a group or a total number, you are diminishing the value of each part. The clause may not say "each person" but it is the result of what they did for political purpose.

[mamacornettesmoney]

It DOES say each person should be counted in full & the number of reps apportioned will equal 3/5 of that number. YOU go back to class. That means they count 3/5 of the people, not that each person is 3/5 a person. The wording is clear. People arguing this 3/5 a person nonsense aren't even reading the document.

Your Math is shoddy. Reducing a total number by 3/5 does NOT reduce the value of the individual parts at all. It eliminates 2/5 of the total. If you have 5 people, count 3 of them.

[jdbohdan]

@mamacornettesmoney When you only count 3 of 5 people it means 2 are considered as non-existent. I only hope you don't have a job dealing with money.

[mamacornettesmoney]

@jdbohdan Not non-existant. just not counted toward their slavemasters representation in congress.

We're talking about slaves, man. They had no rights.You said some stupid shit about being 3/5 a person. Now, your shifting. Why not admit you were wrong?

And YOU claimed dividing something by a fraction devalues the individual parts. That is completely wrong and not a mathmatical principle at all. It's YOU who needs to stay away from jobs with money.

[jdbohdan]

@mamacornettesmoney It is about value.. If the were white freemen they would all count. i.e. 5/5. If your boss says you only deserve 3/5 of your paycheck from now on your value as an employee has diminished. Your buying power has diminshed. The founding fathers were smart in dealing politically with the south. However the clause had nothing to do with effecting slavery as an issue. History proves that point. Instead of denying representation because they weren't free, they sold them out.

[mamacornettesmoney]

@jdbohdan @jdbohdan Black freemen counted fully & white slaves were counted the sam as black ones. So? It's about counting reps. You are being obstinate. this clause isn't about what you're trying to pigeon hole it as. it's about how many reps their masters get in congress.

I never said it was about affecting slavery as an issue to ALL, it was to SOME. that's why it's a compromise. YOU made the ignorant claim that it calls slaves 3/5 of a person. It does not.

[jdbohdan]

@mamacornettesmoney Barton is the idiot making a claim for anti-slavery not me. I am not pideon holing it into anything except what it is.

Ok you are right, the wording doesn't say slaves are 3/5s of a person. It just denied counting 2/5 of what should have been their total representation had they been free persons. The result however is the same. In the official eye of the law for that purpose that is how they were considered.

[mamacornettesmoney]

@jdbohdan He is basing his argument on quotes from Frederick Douglass. But still, it doesn't change the fact ath I never made that claim yet you keep referring to it in a discussion with me. I was merely refuting your claim that the document says anything about 3/5 of a person. It CLEARLY does not. VERY clearly calls them whole people and speaks of apportionment in purely mathmatical terms.

Like you said "IF" they were freepersons. They were not. The numbers were for their masters.

[klg1956]

@jdbohdan And you are so much smarter than Douglass! Where did you get your law degree and you must be a "Constitutional Scholar," right?

[jdbohdan]

@klg1956 In light of the times Douglass made a valid arguement for its interpretation.

[klg1956]

@jdbohdan You keep missing the only point of this entire video....3/5ths was to punish slave owners so they didn't get elected representatives to vote IN FAVOR OF slavery. GET IT? That means the NORTH was trying to eradicate slavery. That means the NORTH was trying to get rid of households like "Gone with the Wind." And what did we give them instead? Welfare, WIC, MEDICAL...HUD..unemployment for 5 years. OCCUPY YOUR MIND, not Wallstreet, idiot!

[jdbohdan]

@klg1956 To make the leap that it was to "iradicate" slavery is revisionist theory. It was purely a political compromise to avoid giving southern states more power. Not just on slavery but social and economic issues as well. More importantly for the time it was to keep the Union of the states. Like Lincoln in the beginning they cared less about slavery than preserving the Union. Only later did Lincoln realize it was really about what constituted the philosophy of a free country.

[backyardcapitalist]

@jdbohdan ... Only later did Lincoln realize it was really about what constituted the philosophy of a free country.

LMAO!

[jdbohdan]

@backyardcapitalist The truth is funny isn't it.

[backyardcapitalist]

@jdbohdan Sure, that's why Lincoln told the blacks they belonged in Africa and that their being here didn't do either side any good. He was pro sending slaves to Liberia and was only stopped radical republicans in congress.

[jdbohdan]

@backyardcapitalist what's your point? Its obvious he wanted to eliminate the big part of the problem. As I said, he wanted to preserve the union and would have done it anyway he could. He really did not want to deal with that issue. It was too emotionally and philosophically charged which politicians usually shy away from. He eventually realized he had no choice.

[jdbohdan]

@klg1956 OWS are complainers who know things are not right but don't know what to do except cry like children. You seem to be the Right winger type who supports low wages because you think big business will save us all. Much like the plantation owners of the south who used slavery to make themselves wealthy. Of which ironically now you say should have been illiminated.

[klg1956]

@jdbohdan With today's "NEW" math and teachers who cannot add, 3/5's would mean 1 and 1/4....so everything is even now!

[jdbohdan]

I would hardly call that an anti-slave document. It was a political move to avoid giving power to the South. I have no doubt most of the founding fathers felt slavery was wrong. The reality however is that it was allowed. Even by the current (at the time) "Christian" morality.

[mamacornettesmoney]

@Pooternackle5 It was not an insult to blacks at all. In fact, it wasn't even restricted to blacks. It clearly states that ALL PERSONS WHO are in servitude. The total number of Free blacks was counted fully and the number of non-black slaves were included right along with the black slaves for the 3/5 equation. The slaves of black owners were counted the same way as the ones owned by whites as well.

[DawnOfTheDead991]

Listen, I despise these two skumbags, but this time they are right. But the antislavery people didn't want slaves to count at all as people as to limit the Congressional and Electoral power of the South/ The South wanted a slave to count as a free man since that enhanced their power. After all, it never said blacks, it said slaves were 3/5s. So a free black always counted the same, at least in theory , as a free white

[vipaccess1]

@Pooternackle5 No it wasn't to demean Blacks as progressives want to twist history and discredit the framers inorder to undermined the consititution. David Barton a Holocast denier? please give a reference

[BeckeyGirard]

Barton is an accurate historian that isn't trashing anyone. The truth sometimes hurts.

[jfsfrnd]

@BeckeyGirard Wrong twice. Barton is no historian (where are his degrees) and he is not accurate (read the documents compared to what he says).

[BeckeyGirard]

LOVE IT!

[hauntmeinharmony]

You get an D - History

[xtaxplayer]

@robertmike57 So the compromise between the Pro-Slave and the Anti-Slave delegates of counting a person with out rights as only 3/5ths of a person in the count of representative's from each state was to make slavery better? Do you also feel the statement of 'all men are created equal' was pro-slave?

In truth lib-tards, (you included) are to stupid to understand the fight between good and evil. I'll bet you think that only blacks were slaves and only whites were slave owners in the America?

[xtaxplayer]

@robertmike57 It weaken slavery of both white and blacks, all non-Christians by law. Also the capitol moved from N.Y. City to Phillie before the ratification of the Constitution and the forfeiture of the 10 mile square from Maryland. You know Washington D.C. which of course you also know is a federal territory and not a State, which is why it doesn't have representation in the federal government, right? If you do try helping a brother out and explaining that to P. Obama, he doesn't. Lib-tard

[vipaccess1]

@robertmike57 Is it possible for you to defend your position with out insults? 

[vipaccess1]

@robertmike57 It seems I'm not the only one that appreciates David Barton explaining the whole context for how slaves where counted as 3/5 of a person. Modern day historians seem to have conveniently left out the context, but sooner or later the truth seems to get out no matter how the progressives want to surpress it.

[vipaccess1]

@robertmike57 David Barton is exposing the errors progressives have been hiding behind for years, So of course many want a be historians prey on peoples ignorance of history.

[DawnOfTheDead991]

@vipaccess1 Barton is a dishonest and bad scholar who creates rubbish for the kind of imbeciles who admire Beck. But in this case he is partially correct.

[vipaccess1]

@DawnOfTheDead991 Why would you trash Glenn Beck? Do you want a godless society which disregards the intrinsic value of man? So many think a godless society will be a utopia when actually the common person will be trampled and crushed by the powerful.

[DawnOfTheDead991]

@vipaccess1 I'm confused, is Glenn Beck god?

[jdbohdan]

@vipaccess1 What does Glenn Beck have to do with believing in God or having morals? Just because someone claims to be on the side of God doesn't make it so. Nor do believers in God always speak the truth about facts and especially history. I believe in God and am a Christian. Glenn Beck is an entertainer who manipulates facts and supposed truth for ratings.

[vipaccess1]

@jdbohdan Not sure what facts Glenn Beck has distorted. Arab Spring, protesting on wall st. high food prices, he called more than a year ago. Progressive America is following the humanist manifesto.

[jdbohdan]

@vipaccess1 Like I said, high food prices and people getting pissed of are deductions anyone with half a brain could predict. You needed Beck to tell you that prices would go up? That people would get sick and tired of the coruption in big corporations stealing people's money, or having jobs sent overseas? Of Wall street playing games causing various markets to go up or down?

I hate to tell you, if America wasn't progressive we would still be under English rule.

[vipaccess1]

@jdbohdan Few predicted the Arabs spring, or the higher food prices and why. Blaming corporate America is niave, it is the average American who will walk past a local business and buy from a National chain who buys cheap products from China. who has create the problem. Every politician has to go through the American voter in order to get their power, but the American voter can't discern evil and so has empowered politicans who are puppets of powerful political blocks. there is no sugar daddy

[jdbohdan]

@vipaccess1 Predictating people rising up against a dictator or oppressive government is not genius. Neither is prices going up.

As for the other I blame people too. However I do not let companies off the hook because in many cases they have hidden the facts of where they get merchandise or have it produced etc. Furthermore that a law may allow unsafe or risky practices does not mean a company is relieved of it responsibility to be fair and honest.

[vipaccess1]

@robertmike57 Why is it progressives that twist realility can't talk with out being foul? out of the abiundance of the heart the mouth speaks!

[jetmaildad]

@durango64-Could you explain to me this clause, because the 14 amendment section 2 article 1 states something else and I'm really trying to get an understanding of this! I was always under the impression that we were still only 3/5's of a person. I found that even our vote is only worth 3/5's! Can you explain that to me? And also is this the same as a Strawman Account?

[whothewu]

@jetmaildad The three-fifths compromise deals with House seats. The number of seats a state has in the US House of Representatives is determined by population. Those in favor of slavery wanted slaves counted 1:1, ensuring a dominant pro-slavery majority in the House. Those against slavery didn't want slaves counted at all, giving those against slavery an edge in the House. The three-fifths number was a compromise between these two interests to be able to even form a nation.

[whothewu]

@jetmaildad The 14th Amendment struck this clause out of the Constitution.

[bmf1706]

@whothewu Well, technically it only restates that clause and not end the Three-fifths clause. The 13th Amendmet, however, makes it inoperable. But I'm not sure that the 3/5 is technically striken, it';s just inoperable by the 13th.

[xtaxplayer]

@jetmaildad 1) a strawman account is a con, as such I will not explain or give it any validity. I don't know where you get your vote counting as 3/5 th's of a person. The Const. Art 1 Sec 2 Cl 3 Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, ..according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole # of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Yrs.. ..3/5ths of all other Persons. REPRESENTATION in the HOUSE !

[durango64]

18 USC Sec. 911  01/05/2009

EXPCITE TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 43 - FALSE PERSONATION

HEAD Sec. 911. Citizen of the United States

STATUTE Whoever falsely and willfully represents himself to be a citizen of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

[durango64]

u r still 3/5th because u are a false PERSON not a NATURAL PERSON in pro pria persona su juris 14th amendment lol false citizens ship