James Madison signed a document that said black men were 3/5ths of a person
Printable View
James Madison signed a document that said black men were 3/5ths of a person
I was agreeing with AS. I don't blame alcohol for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
And, believe it or not, I don't really dislike you. It's just what you say that drives me crazy. :toast
Ding!Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
No, the document says that slaves have 3/5th the economic output of free people.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinsontoDuncan
That isn't what it says at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galileo
That's where it came from, it was re-copied from the Articles of Confederation.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Which article?
Quote it.
The blacks in Africa sold their own into slavery to North and South America. The whites never sold their own into slavery in Aftrica.
It was common for all conquerors to enslave the conquered and rape the women.
Didn't you see Conan the Barbarian? "What doesn't kill you, makes you Mr. Universe"
Why did you change the subject?Quote:
Originally Posted by Galileo
Quote the Article of Confederation that says slaves have 3/5th the economic output of free people.
The Articles of Confederation make no mention of slavery at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galileo
They did not have GNP statistics in the 1780s, so they used population instead. The Founders knew slaves were less only about 60% as productive as free people. Hence, the Founders were making an economic argument to free the slaves that some states did not heed, while others did.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
That may be true, but the Europeans never sold captured whites to Africans in Africa. But the African kings sold off their own people to Europeans.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
In America, we were three step better than the Europeans;
* we added our territory via purchase rather than conquest for the most part
* we did not enslave people we conquered, whether Indians or Mexicans or British.
* we did not add provinces, rather we added States that had full voting privileges. No other nation in history has done this. We can thank James Madison and the other Founding Fathers for this.
How did they know this if they didn't have economic statistics?Quote:
Originally Posted by Galileo
So where is it in the Articles of Confederation as you claimed?Quote:
Hence, the Founders were making an economic argument to free the slaves that some states did not heed, while others did.
Quote it.
:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollinQuote:
Originally Posted by Galileo
Louisiana Purchase, Florida Purchase, Gadsen Purchase, Alaska Purchase, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Face.
You hate America.
:rollinThe three-fifths figure was the outgrowth of a debate that had taken place within the Continental Congress in 1783. The Articles of Confederation had apportioned taxes not according to population but according to land values. The states consistently undervalued their land in order to reduce their tax burden. To rectify this situation, a special committee recommended apportioning taxes by population. The Continental Congress debated the ratio of slaves to free persons at great length. Northerners favored a 4-to-3 ratio, while southerners favored a 2-to-1 or 4-to-1 ratio. Finally, James Madison suggested a compromise: a 5-to-3 ratio. All but two states--New Hampshire and Rhode Island--approved this recommendation. But because the Articles of Confederation required unanimous agreement, the proposal was defeated. When the Constitutional Convention met in 1787, it adopted Madison's earlier suggestion.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
The taxes that the Three-Fifths Compromise dealt with were "direct" taxes, as opposed to excise or import taxes. It was not until 1798 that Congress imposed the first genuine direct taxes in American history: a tax on dwelling-houses and a tax on slaves aged 12 to 50.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/doc...p2.cfm?doc=306
:rollin
Oops, I forgot to mention that we added Texas without war (Texas simply voted to join us).
We added the Oregon territory via a treaty without war.
We did have a war with Mexico to add territory, but we actually paid Mexico the market value for the land. We paid $18 million for land less valuable than we paid for the Louisiana Purchase, which we paid $15 million for. And the dollar was worth more in 1848than in 1803. The the land added from Mexico was only half the size of the LA purshase and was mostly desert.
The treaty of 1818 also added some British territory.
You hate America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollinQuote:
Originally Posted by Galileo
:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I never said it was in the test of the AoC. I said it was from the AoC. It was agreed to by 11 States and the Continental congress.
You hate America.
That makes no freaking sense. If it's not in the text, then there's no way it can be from the Articles of Confederation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galileo
If it was argued at the time, and wasn't written into the Articles of Confederation, then it's not form the Articles of Confederation. If it was written in there, then where is it?
Either way I don't think your argument holds any weight.
RE: Florida PurchaseQuote:
Originally Posted by Galileo
"While fighting escaped African-American slaves, outlaws and Native Americans in U.S.-controlled Georgia during the First Seminole War, Andrew Jackson had pursued them into Spanish Florida, but at the same time, he attacked and captured Spanish forts in Florida that he felt were assisting the raids into American territory."
This was in 1819 the same year the U.S. "purchased" the Florida territory from Spain. Hardly a cut and dry case of purchase rather than conquest.