Reply With Quote
There was never a strike 1 tbh.
So it's just making fun? Meaning it's not true?
making fun of you /= a real serious discussion imho, strike 2!
There was never a strike 1 tbh.
So it's just making fun? Meaning it's not true?
no you come off as a real alright, my guess is it's true
This is CLASSIC!guys breaking news, i was able to locate a pic of chump straight from his facebook tbh.....
Oh, so it's just a guess?
the cons ution along with the bill of rights was a do ent intended to limit the scope of govt. whether the cons ution forgot to list certain negative rights does not negate the argument for adhering to the principles of it. Slavery was implied in a roundabout way, but it wasn't an endorsement of it. The principles of limited govt and inalienable rigths is what is at the meat of the cons ution.
Most blacks took the last names of Founding Fathers when they became free, in honor of their quest for liberty. African Americans named Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Jackson abound.
Earl the Pearl Monroe
Richard Master Blaster Madison
Richard Jefferson
Al Jefferson
etc.
Sam Madison, Anthony Madison, Joe the Black Eagle Madison, Tianna Madison, etc.
Last edited by Galileo; 01-02-2013 at 01:06 AM.
only a knows a ...
Sorry, but it is. What do you think "three fifths of all other Persons" means?
Bull . This is "state rights"/hate-destroy-govt revisionist propaganda bull
The Cons ution was/is a do ent to replace the weak Articles of Confederation that made the country ungovernable, and to make a STRONGER Federal govt.
The problem with cons ution chatter is that there are two sides, both with misinformation and misunderstandings of what the other side wants or what's even possible. Many of those who want changes to the cons ution do not understand how it has to happen, and many who do not want changes don't understand what's in it to begin with. They both see it as an all or nothing thing. Everyone wants their rights, but they want to alter or remove the rights of others, rights they themselves don't exercise anyhow.
There have been less than 30 changes to the cons ution since it was drafted, and many of those were just to get ratification by the states, a sort of compromise. It's very difficult to make cons utional changes, and doing away with it would require a civil war, which would still be difficult because the party that wants to keep it intact has all the guns.
South Carolina voted against the 3/5th rule.
Federal spending as a percentage of GDP was about 2% under the Articles of Confederation. In 1912, federal spending was 1.75% of GDP. The government was the same size 125 years after the Cons ution was ratified as it was before it was ratified.
[ps - today it is 25% of GDP]
I think South Carolina was clearly gunning for the slaves of the South to count as 100% human instead of 60%.
You're stupid.
proves nothing.
As societies grow larger, become more advanced, wealthy, they expect more from government. Happens in EVERY advanced country, and many of them have solved a whole bunch of problems that the USA is struggling with.
That's the point, the 3/5th rule reduced the power of slave states. The 3/5th rule was an anti-slave measure.
That's not historically true, the US government gradually grew smaller after the civil war for about 50 years in a row which coincided with the greatest years of economic of the industrial revolution.
I agree with this and it acknowledges them as a person. (I believe "person" was the word used?)
The "person" part might have also been a concern to South Carolina though...
It was a compromise between slave and anti-slave delegates where the south got at least something out of the deal instead of nothing at all.
You're horrible at American history.
...which is even more laughable/sad considering the power of the googles.
Yeah it was a compromise, but the most pro-slave state (SC) lost what they wanted in the deal. The deal reduced the power of the slave states in the House and Electoral College.
I would question if they should get anything but 0/5th for a slave when it comes to voting.
The Cons ution provided a built-in incentive to free slaves; the more slaves you free, the more seats you get in congress and the more votes you get in the Electoral College.
Plus, the more they pay in direct taxation.
I don't think that's it.
and it also increased the southern power from what the north originally wanted.
The cons ution compromised on the existence of slavery.
Why does the cons ution give slavery as an option in the 1st place?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
