Thank you for the clarification on the "refuted his Jewishness" nonsense. I have a life, and so did not watch the Oscars, and enough outlandish things are said that that I just believed it.
So how about being just as precise about the Three Fifths Compromise, instead of making a joke that reinforces the most widespread nonreligious myth I…
Thank you for the clarification on the "refuted his Jewishness" nonsense. I have a life, and so did not watch the Oscars, and enough outlandish things are said that that I just believed it.
So how about being just as precise about the Three Fifths Compromise, instead of making a joke that reinforces the most widespread nonreligious myth I can think of. (Yes, I KNOW you hyperlinked to the real story.) But not counting at ALL would have been the anti-slavery position. Counting as five fifths would have given more power to the slavers. So cut it out.
“ But not counting at ALL would have been the anti-slavery position. Counting as five fifths would have given more power to the slavers. So cut it out.”
Have we spoken about this before? I make this joke occasionally and every time I do I feel like somebody thinks they’re making a point by missing the punchline.
Firstly, it’s just a joke. Literally a throwaway line in an article that isn’t about slavery or political representation.
But secondly, no, the anti-slavery position would be to FREE THE SLAVES!! Or at least to give them the right to vote. The three-fifths compromise was necessary because this idea was unthinkable to the people of the time. Yes, it could have been worse. But it could also have been much better.
Universal suffrage for ANYONE was unthinkable in 1787. It's still a "joke" that furthers the stupid notion that people were declared 3/5 of human, which is probably a majority held fallacy by now.
In America for white, landowning men. Land ownership, at that time, being something that was at least possible if you were a white man. Certainly not unthinkable, as it was for pretty much any other grouping of people.
The franchise in early America was neither as open nor closed as many suppose. Before the early 1700s, if you came to America, the odds you came in chains were about 75% Of ANY class or color. The British exported the working poor because they didn't have enough "work houses" or "poor houses" to deal with them all. Australia gets all the smack for this, but American colonies were more Jamestown, which was hell on earth for most, and less Plymouth. The point is that participation was land ownership, not white land ownership. And covenants forbidden the sale of land to anyone but whites was a much later thing.
“Before the early 1700s, if you came to America, the odds you came in chains were about 75% Of ANY class or color.”
Okay, I’ll bite. Any data for that 75% figure? Are you arguing that there was an even *roughly* equal chance in the early 1700s that a slave in America would be white or black?
And no, to begin with, suffrage was limited specifically to white, land owning men. Then extended to white men whether they owned land or not, and only later to black people and women.
Sorry, weren’t you the one who specified the early 1700s? Now you’re talking about 1836?
Also, I take it that’s a “no” on the data for the 75% thing. You criticise me for making a joke about the 3/5 compromise, but then pull figures completely out of thin air?
Look, I get that American history isn't your thing, but conflating the 2 different things on dates on different topics is beneath your usually pristine logic. Which means you're gasping for breath here. This isn't Britain. There wasn't one law about almost anything, especially voting. But you can't find me a law that said black people cannot own property. There were even some in the South.
Got something that says that suffrage was ONLY white landowners? In local elections?
Remember, direct voting for anything else was party conventions and call kinds of complicate things. Women, for instance, voted in plenty of places before the Amendment, just as many had abortions before Roe Vs. Wade. Milestone universal dates are about as useful as acting like the Magna Carta had real significance to Welsh coal miners. Chains and slavery are NOT the same things. But read something real about Jamestown. White laborers could be killed for trying to escape, for one thing.
“ It's still a "joke" that furthers the stupid notion that people were declared 3/5 of human”
Wait, do you seriously think the notion that slaves were 3/5 of a human is WORSE than the notion that they were property in perpetuity? Do you think the 3/5 compromise is somehow MORE debasing????
Thank you for the clarification on the "refuted his Jewishness" nonsense. I have a life, and so did not watch the Oscars, and enough outlandish things are said that that I just believed it.
So how about being just as precise about the Three Fifths Compromise, instead of making a joke that reinforces the most widespread nonreligious myth I can think of. (Yes, I KNOW you hyperlinked to the real story.) But not counting at ALL would have been the anti-slavery position. Counting as five fifths would have given more power to the slavers. So cut it out.
“ But not counting at ALL would have been the anti-slavery position. Counting as five fifths would have given more power to the slavers. So cut it out.”
Have we spoken about this before? I make this joke occasionally and every time I do I feel like somebody thinks they’re making a point by missing the punchline.
Firstly, it’s just a joke. Literally a throwaway line in an article that isn’t about slavery or political representation.
But secondly, no, the anti-slavery position would be to FREE THE SLAVES!! Or at least to give them the right to vote. The three-fifths compromise was necessary because this idea was unthinkable to the people of the time. Yes, it could have been worse. But it could also have been much better.
Universal suffrage for ANYONE was unthinkable in 1787. It's still a "joke" that furthers the stupid notion that people were declared 3/5 of human, which is probably a majority held fallacy by now.
“ Universal suffrage for ANYONE was unthinkable in 1787”
And no, this is obviously untrue. You know this.
Name a place where it was.
In America for white, landowning men. Land ownership, at that time, being something that was at least possible if you were a white man. Certainly not unthinkable, as it was for pretty much any other grouping of people.
The franchise in early America was neither as open nor closed as many suppose. Before the early 1700s, if you came to America, the odds you came in chains were about 75% Of ANY class or color. The British exported the working poor because they didn't have enough "work houses" or "poor houses" to deal with them all. Australia gets all the smack for this, but American colonies were more Jamestown, which was hell on earth for most, and less Plymouth. The point is that participation was land ownership, not white land ownership. And covenants forbidden the sale of land to anyone but whites was a much later thing.
“Before the early 1700s, if you came to America, the odds you came in chains were about 75% Of ANY class or color.”
Okay, I’ll bite. Any data for that 75% figure? Are you arguing that there was an even *roughly* equal chance in the early 1700s that a slave in America would be white or black?
And no, to begin with, suffrage was limited specifically to white, land owning men. Then extended to white men whether they owned land or not, and only later to black people and women.
There were several black legislators in the US before the Civil War. The first was in 1836. Do you think he couldn't vote?
Sorry, weren’t you the one who specified the early 1700s? Now you’re talking about 1836?
Also, I take it that’s a “no” on the data for the 75% thing. You criticise me for making a joke about the 3/5 compromise, but then pull figures completely out of thin air?
Look, I get that American history isn't your thing, but conflating the 2 different things on dates on different topics is beneath your usually pristine logic. Which means you're gasping for breath here. This isn't Britain. There wasn't one law about almost anything, especially voting. But you can't find me a law that said black people cannot own property. There were even some in the South.
Got something that says that suffrage was ONLY white landowners? In local elections?
Remember, direct voting for anything else was party conventions and call kinds of complicate things. Women, for instance, voted in plenty of places before the Amendment, just as many had abortions before Roe Vs. Wade. Milestone universal dates are about as useful as acting like the Magna Carta had real significance to Welsh coal miners. Chains and slavery are NOT the same things. But read something real about Jamestown. White laborers could be killed for trying to escape, for one thing.
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/voting-rights-throughout-history/
Yeah, anyone who says it's still hard to vote in the US if you're a citizen can be rejected out of hand. It's the kind of crap you debunk every day.
“ It's still a "joke" that furthers the stupid notion that people were declared 3/5 of human”
Wait, do you seriously think the notion that slaves were 3/5 of a human is WORSE than the notion that they were property in perpetuity? Do you think the 3/5 compromise is somehow MORE debasing????