Obama died and met our Founding Fathers

The AoC created the Confederation congress. The Confederation congress agreed upon the 3/5 rule as a sustitute value for wealth. 11 of the State legislatures then agreed as well by 1787.

That is where the 3/5 rule came from. Deal with it. All it meant was that the Founding Fathers believed that slaves were 60% as productive as free people. This is one reason why the slaves were freed and anti-slavery societies were formed during the Industrial Revolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

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.

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.

---

No they didn't conquer the lands, rather they settled them, forced the people who were on the land originally off of it. Rather than enslave them, the United States constantly marginalized them and rescinded on the treaties and land they gave them.

Spare me about holding us up like some champion of freedom for slavery. We may not have enslaved Africans, but it's not like we freed them either. We didn't buy them to give them their freedom, we bought them, treated them like shit, held them as unequal to the white man, freed them, continued to treat them like shit and try to revert them back to a position that resembled slavery, then gave them equal rights, they still aren't equal in many ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

The AoC created the Confederation congress. The Confederation congress agreed upon the 3/5 rule as a sustitute value for wealth. 11 of the State legislatures then agreed as well by 1787.

That is where the 3/5 rule came from. Deal with it. All it meant was that the Founding Fathers believed that slaves were 60% as productive as free people. This is one reason why the slaves were freed and anti-slavery societies were formed during the Industrial Revolution.

---

Bullshit. You didn't say it was created from the Confederation Congress. You said it was copied from the Articles of Confederation which it clearly, by your own admission is not. The AoC make no mention of slavery nor of 3/5ths of people. The Congress might have made that rule, but the AoC does not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duff McCartney

No they didn't conquer the lands, rather they settled them, forced the people who were on the land originally off of it. Rather than enslave them, the United States constantly marginalized them and rescinded on the treaties and land they gave them.

Spare me about holding us up like some champion of freedom for slavery. We may not have enslaved Africans, but it's not like we freed them either. We didn't buy them to give them their freedom, we bought them, treated them like shit, held them as unequal to the white man, freed them, continued to treat them like shit and try to revert them back to a position that resembled slavery, then gave them equal rights, they still aren't equal in many ways.

---

You are moving the goalposts. In Eurpoe, Asia and Africa, all new land was added by military conquest, not by "settling".

Most of the land settled in the US didn't have anyone living there anyway. It was vacant land. So stop bitching about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

:rollin

The 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.

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

---

This has nothing at all to do with relative economic production.

And it proves there is nothing about it in the Articles of Confederation since it was based on land values.

That's a double fail for you.

Good work. :tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

You are moving the goalposts. In Eurpoe, Asia and Africa, all new land was added by military conquest, not by "settling".

Most of the land settled in the US didn't have anyone living there anyway. It was vacant land. So stop bitching about it.

---

Vacant land? Where was it vacant land? You're saying half the United States was vacant?

I'm not moving the goal posts, I'm simply stating that nowhere was the U.S. acquisition of land any kind of peaceful purchase like you so claim and that our founding fathers were altruistic men, when their record indicates otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duff McCartney

RE: Florida Purchase

"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.

---

You do know that in 1819, people were in the process of breaking free of the Spanish Empire. We bought Florida from Spain. Mexico just said fuck you to Spain and became free in 1821.

You also make a big deal about some forts, but forget to mention that hardly anyone lived in Florida in 1819. It did not become a state until 1845, long after all the surrounding states.

The fact is, most of the people in Florida in 1819 wanted nothing to do with the Spansh Empire. So fuck you and your fucked up history, you don't know shit. The people there wanted to be part of the world's only democratic republic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

This has nothing at all to do with relative economic production.

And it proves there is nothing about it in the Articles of Confederation since it was based on land values.

That's a double fail for you.

Good work. :tu

---

FAIL. You just hate the Founding Fathers of our nation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duff McCartney

Vacant land? Where was it vacant land? You're saying half the United States was vacant?

I'm not moving the goal posts, I'm simply stating that nowhere was the U.S. acquisition of land any kind of peaceful purchase like you so claim and that our founding fathers were altruistic men, when their record indicates otherwise.

---

Look at the earth from a satellite. Most land in the US today is still vacant. Your claim is false, most US land was gained by purchase or peaceful treaty unlike in Europe, Africa, or Asia. And the people in the added land were given voting rights. Everywhere else in history, people were put into non-voting provinces. You just hate the Framers of the US Constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

You do know that in 1819, people were in the process of breaking free of the Spanish Empire. We bought Florida from Spain. Mexico just said fuck you to Spain and became free in 1821.

You also make a big deal about some forts, but forget to mention that hardly anyone lived in Florida in 1819. It did not become a state until 1845, long after all the surrounding states.

The fact is, most of the people in Florida in 1819 wanted nothing to do with the Spansh Empire. So fuck you and your fucked up history, you don't know shit. The people there wanted to be part of the world's only democratic republic.

---

Democratic republic...that at the time only offered democracy to white land owning men.

There was a significant Seminole population during that time. I'm pretty sure they didn't exclusively want to be part of the United States, they just wanted to break from Spain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

And the people in the added land were given voting rights.

---

Except the Mexicans, Indians, Blacks, Asians, and Mormons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duff McCartney

Except the Mexicans, Indians, Blacks, Asians, and Mormons.

---

So you are saying provinces get to vote? Provinces in the British, French, and Spanish empire did not get to vote. Provinces in the Roman empire did not vote. Nor provinces in the USSR or the Assyrian Empire or the Babylonian empire or the Persian empire or the empre of Alexander the Great.

Only in the US did new STATES get to vote.

If you do not understand this, then you are stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duff McCartney

Democratic republic...that at the time only offered democracy to white land owning men.

There was a significant Seminole population during that time. I'm pretty sure they didn't exclusively want to be part of the United States, they just wanted to break from Spain.

---

A lot of Indians assimulated into American society. The ones who didn't are the same people who refused to learn modern techniques of agriculture and how to read and write. These are the Indians that the liberal media focuses on.

There is nothing in the Constitution that denies anyone from voting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

FAIL. You just hate the Founding Fathers of our nation.

---

Nah, I just know that the 3/5 clause wasn't based on economic productivity and nothing even close to a 3/5 clause appears in the Articles of Confederation.

You proved both.

:tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

So fuck you and your fucked up history, you don't know shit.

---

:rollin

that's funny coming from one of the bigger conspiracy hacks around here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Nah, I just know that the 3/5 clause wasn't based on economic productivity and nothing even close to a 3/5 clause appears in the Articles of Confederation.

You proved both.

:tu

---

It was in an amendment to the Articles of Confederation that was awaiting two more states approval when the Constitutional Convention happened. I already posted a source for this.

Here is another source:

Quote:

---

The three-fifths ratio was not a new concept. It originated with a 1783 amendment proposed to the Articles of Confederation. The amendment was to have changed the basis for determining the wealth of each state, and hence its tax obligations, from real estate to population, as a measure of ability to produce wealth. The proposal by a committee of the Congress had suggested that taxes "shall be supplied by the several colonies in proportion to the number of inhabitants of every age, sex, and quality, except Indians not paying taxes."[1][2] The South immediately objected to this formula since it would include slaves, who were viewed primarily as property, in calculating the amount of taxes to be paid. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his notes on the debates, the southern states would be taxed "according to their numbers and their wealth conjunctly, while the northern would be taxed on numbers only."[3]

After proposed compromises of 1⁄2 by Benjamin Harrison of Virginia and 3⁄4 by several New Englanders failed to gain sufficient support, Congress finally settled on the 3⁄5 ratio proposed by James Madison.[4] But this amendment ultimately failed, falling two states short of the unanimous approval required for amending the Articles of Confederation (only New Hampshire and New York were opposed).

The proposed ratio was, however, a ready solution to the impasse that arose during the Constitutional Convention. In that situation, the alignment of the contending forces was the reverse of what had obtained under the Articles of Confederation. In amending the Articles, the North wanted slaves to count for more than the South did, because the objective was to determine taxes paid by the states to the federal government. In the Constitutional Convention, the more important issue was representation in Congress, so the South wanted slaves to count for more than the North did

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

:rollin

that's funny coming from one of the bigger conspiracy hacks around here.

---

Strange, since you think the Founding Fathers hatched a giant left wing conspiracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

It was in an amendment to the Articles of Confederation that was awaiting two more states approval when the Constitutional Convention happened. I already posted a source for this.

Here is another source:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise

---

So once again you proved it wasn't in the Articles of Confederation and it had nothing to do with the economic productivity of slaves compared to free men.

:tu again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

So once again you proved it wasn't in the Articles of Confederation and it had nothing to do with the economic productivity of slaves compared to free men.

:tu again

---

I just proved it and you are too stupid to understand it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

Only in the US did new STATES get to vote.

---

Except if you were a mexican, indian, black, asian, or mormon living in these states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

Strange, since you think the Founding Fathers hatched a giant left wing conspiracy.

---

I never said or inferred such a thing.

More lies.

It amazes me the way some posters will flail around in a frenzy, sometimes for days on end, rather than admit some obvious mistake or misstatement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duff McCartney

Except if you were a mexican, indian, black, asian, or mormon living in these states.

---

Each State enjoyed self-government. I am not talking about people, I am talking about States being represented in the central government.

The British Empire did not allow provinces to vote no matter what color the people there were.

You are a total idiot of you don't understand this, and even a bigger idiot if you think people had it better under an empire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

It amazes me the way some posters will flail around in a frenzy, sometimes for days on end, rather than admit some obvious mistake or misstatement.

---

Arguing with the Chumper is like arguing with someone that has only 60% of a brain.

:lmao

James Madison never freed any of the human beings he owned.

He never gave them the vote either.