America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 39,034 comments
  • 1,699,872 views
Johnnypenso
The abolitionists of the north wanted the slaves counted as zero because that would mean less seats in the House of Representatives and less power for the southern slave owning states. The North argued that the South did not want to consider the slaves as persons but property instead. The South of course wanted the slaves to be counted as 1 person to increase their power and influence in the Congress. The 3/5ths Comprimise was a way to appease both sides and without it, there likely would not have been a Constitution agreed upon and you might have had two separate countries formed and likely at odds with each other much more than they eventually were. Ironically, although only counted as 3/5ths of a person, it was the first formal recognition that slaves were indeed people and not property and this wording was deliberate on the part of the framers of the Constitution.

The South was faced with somewhat of a dilemma after the Constitution came into effect. Because counting more slaves also meant more taxation, some slave owners might be tempted to undercount their slaves for that reason. However, their representation in Congress depended on an accurate census count and this is the direction the Southern States went for the most part. Eventually of course, the North being the freer and more capitalist and industrial society, was far more prosperous, grew faster and gained an upper hand in Congress as a result and this eventually led to the Civil War. The 3/5ths compromise was, in effect, a way of reducing the power of the Southern slave owning states, not increasing it.
Click to expand...


But arent you just corroborating my statement? The compromise was made at the behest and for the benefit of the slaveowners and not out of humanitarian motivations at all. It meant higher taxation, but they were already making huge profits, because of free labor.

Only in hindsight it reduced the power of the south. But regarding it as a formal recognition as people is going a bit far. That would suggest they have the same rights. They were still slaves, counted as 3/5 of a person and could not vote. Perhaps in that timeframe it would have seemed as a somewhat positive thing.

edit: added comment about taxation
 
PocketZeven
You misunderstood me. I wasnt criticizing the USA for taking the country, but I am criticizing the hypocracy. The USA I know is the country of the american dream where settlers from all over the world could achieve there dreams.

The Irony i was talking about is how proud the americans are of taking the country and essentially built by immigrants and know suddenly even legal immigrants are a threat to the country. Almost all US citizens are immigrants!
Click to expand...
I think it’s you who is reading too much into whatever media you get your news from. Most of us don’t care if one wants to immigrate here.

It’s the ones who want do so illegally that people don’t like, and typically, a lot of those against illegal immigration are those who had to go through all the legal loopholes that cost them time and money. To them, it can feel insulting.

Other than that, the only other bothersome that comes up rarely are news articles about somewhere in the country, people want to practice Sharia Law or influence our laws to suit them. But again, that’s very, very rare.
 
Really, when it comes to illegal immigration, I think most people probably don't really care about that either. Pretty much our entire agricultural industry is based on seasonal illegal immigrants, the same goes for things like landscaping, housekeeping, food services, and construction.
 
McLaren
I think it’s you who is reading too much into whatever media you get your news from. Most of us don’t care if one wants to immigrate here.

It’s the ones who want do so illegally that people don’t like, and typically, a lot of those against illegal immigration are those who had to go through all the legal loopholes that cost them time and money. To them, it can feel insulting.

Other than that, the only other bothersome that comes up rarely are news articles about somewhere in the country, people want to practice Sharia Law or influence our laws to suit them. But again, that’s very, very rare.
Click to expand...

Joey D
Really, when it comes to illegal immigration, I think most people probably don't really care about that either. Pretty much our entire agricultural industry is based on seasonal illegal immigrants, the same goes for things like landscaping, housekeeping, food services, and construction.
Click to expand...

I was mainly reacting to @Sanji Himura in this thread who has quite a problem with illegal immigrantion. I notice in your reaction you are moderate in your views.

I do try to read/ watch fox news when I can, to balance my opinion and facts. And a recurring theme is the vilifying of illegal immigrants as murderers and rapists. Which statistics always debunk, but somehow within Trumps following this idea is becoming stronger and stronger. It was one of his most important campaign promises.
I thought the world learned from the Berlin wall, but I guess Trump and his folowing didnt get the Memo.
 
Last edited:
Funny thing is a wall will do absolutely nothing to curtail illegal immigration, the flow of drugs, or anything else it's supposedly is supposed to prevent. In my opinion, Trump wanting to build it is one of the stupidest things he's pushed for thus far. It's a massive use of tax dollars that otherwise could be given back to me in a proper tax cut...nevermind I'm still waiting for the initial tax cut to show up on my paycheck, even though I'm in a bracket that should get it.

The only time illegal immigration irritates me is when someone comes here expecting a free handout and for the government to take care of them. From my experience, that doesn't seem like it's very common. Most illegal immigrants come here to work, and I'm OK with that since I'm guessing the US immigration process is overly complicated, not very efficient, and works like the typical government agency.
 
Joey D
Funny thing is a wall will do absolutely nothing to curtail illegal immigration, the flow of drugs, or anything else it's supposedly is supposed to prevent. In my opinion, Trump wanting to build it is one of the stupidest things he's pushed for thus far. It's a massive use of tax dollars that otherwise could be given back to me in a proper tax cut...nevermind I'm still waiting for the initial tax cut to show up on my paycheck, even though I'm in a bracket that should get it.

The only time illegal immigration irritates me is when someone comes here expecting a free handout and for the government to take care of them. From my experience, that doesn't seem like it's very common. Most illegal immigrants come here to work, and I'm OK with that since I'm guessing the US immigration process is overly complicated, not very efficient, and works like the typical government agency.
Click to expand...

That said a lot of people voted on him for the Wall. I still cant understand any rational human being thinking that is a smart idea?!?

From my experience with illegal immigrants in europe most are hardworking and particulary scared to get caught. Some think a large portion of illegal immigrants are using fake id's to apply for wellfare. I think that is highly unlikely seeing that it hightens the risk of getting caught.

As for illegal labor, I have had a discussion a while ago with some conservative american Trump supporters. They worked in either utilities or construction and refused to see that the blame for unemployment in a good economy isnt the immigrants, but the employers. Yet they kept blaming illegal immigration for the reason they are unemployed, which I tried to debunk with facts.
 
Last edited:
Joey D
Funny thing is a wall will do absolutely nothing to curtail illegal immigration, the flow of drugs, or anything else it's supposedly is supposed to prevent.
Click to expand...
It's nothing but a symbol. It's not a symbol of xenophobia or nationalism or racism (the Department of Redundancy Department approves this grouping), though...no, it's a symbol of the gullibility of a profoundly large group of people in this country and the pandering to them.

These people were tricked, obviously buying into the efficacy of such a project as you point out, but they were tricked into thinking they (we) wouldn't have to pay for it, and I suspect a significant percentage of them wouldn't have bought into the idea had they not been told they wouldn't have to pay for it (regardless of how believable that notion actually was), but now that they have bought into it, it seems like pure stubbornness over not wanting to admit being tricked that has a significant portion of that significant portion being willing to pay for it.* That's not to say there weren't people willing to pay for it from the beginning, of course.

*Edit: Good grief that's a long sentence. I probably should have broken that up a bit.
 
Johnnypenso
Your quote seems to imply purpose of the compromise was to allow the southern states more power which isn't the case.
Click to expand...

Johnnypenso
The 3/5ths compromise was, in effect, a way of reducing the power of the Southern slave owning states, not increasing it.
Click to expand...

What a load of revisionist nonsense. Before the compromise, southern states viewed slaves as property, not people. You can't hold the view that someone is a person but deny them every single human right. The measly act of counting them as 3/5th of a person for the census gave them more recognition as people than they'd ever had before. In other words, sadly, it improved their standing. And the only reason southern whites cared to do so was, as you yourself are saying, more representation in the federal government. In other words, more power.
 
PocketZeven
But arent you just corroborating my statement? The compromise was made at the behest and for the benefit of the slaveowners and not out of humanitarian motivations at all. It meant higher taxation, but they were already making huge profits, because of free labor.

Only in hindsight it reduced the power of the south. But regarding it as a formal recognition as people is going a bit far. That would suggest they have the same rights. They were still slaves, counted as 3/5 of a person and could not vote. Perhaps in that timeframe it would have seemed as a somewhat positive thing.

edit: added comment about taxation
Click to expand...
No, it's saying the exact opposite of what you said. I've already explained it but I'll go over it again. You have to start with what the Southern states wanted. They wanted slaves to be counted as a full person for representation purposes in Congress. Why? Not because they thought slaves were great people and wanted to give them a say in government, but because if they were counted as whole people they would increase their power in the House. The Northern abolitionists wanted the South to eat their words, have slaves remain property and reduce their power in the House to a much smaller minority as a result. The South would not submit to that, knowing they would have no power in Congress as a result, but the North was unwilling to count slaves as a whole person because it would have kicked the balance of power towards the Southern states. Without a compromise there would be no United States there would have been two separate countries most likely.

You can see the results of this in the numbers. In 1793 the Southern slave states had 47 of the 105 members in Congress instead of the 33 they would have had without the compromise. Had the South been given what they wanted they likely would have had upwards of 60/105 Congressional seats and a stranglehold on power. The Northern states had freer, more capitalistic economies and boomed so much that just 40 years later in 1833, the south had only 98 out of 240 instead of the 73 they would have had without the compromise and likely more than 120 they would have had if slaves had counted as a full person.

The 3/5ths Compromise didn't increase the power of the Southern states because they wanted it to be 1/1. It actually reduced their power and in the long run helped lead to their undoing much sooner than might have happened had slaves been counted as 1 instead of 3/5ths.
 
Johnnypenso
No, it's saying the exact opposite of what you said. I've already explained it but I'll go over it again. You have to start with what the Southern states wanted. They wanted slaves to be counted as a full person for representation purposes in Congress. Why? Not because they thought slaves were great people and wanted to give them a say in government, but because if they were counted as whole people they would increase their power in the House. The Northern abolitionists wanted the South to eat their words, have slaves remain property and reduce their power in the House to a much smaller minority as a result. The South would not submit to that, knowing they would have no power in Congress as a result, but the North was unwilling to count slaves as a whole person because it would have kicked the balance of power towards the Southern states. Without a compromise there would be no United States there would have been two separate countries most likely.

You can see the results of this in the numbers. In 1793 the Southern slave states had 47 of the 105 members in Congress instead of the 33 they would have had without the compromise. Had the South been given what they wanted they likely would have had upwards of 60/105 Congressional seats and a stranglehold on power. The Northern states had freer, more capitalistic economies and boomed so much that just 40 years later in 1833, the south had only 98 out of 240 instead of the 73 they would have had without the compromise and likely more than 120 they would have had if slaves had counted as a full person.

The 3/5ths Compromise didn't increase the power of the Southern states because they wanted it to be 1/1. It actually reduced their power and in the long run helped lead to their undoing much sooner than might have happened had slaves been counted as 1 instead of 3/5ths.
Click to expand...

You are still corroborating what I was saying?!? The electoral college was flawed from the beginning, because so many seats in congress were not representing voting free people, but slaveowners with 3/5th slaves who could not vote at all. I stated exactly like you are that at the behest of the south slaves were counted as 3/5th as a compromise with the north to gain more power in the goverment.

What are you still thinking I am wrong?? I am very confused!
 
PocketZeven
You are still corroborating what I was saying?!? The electoral college was flawed from the beginning, because so many seats in congress were not representing voting free people, but slaveowners with 3/5th slaves who could not vote at all. I stated exactly like you are that at the behest of the south slaves were counted as 3/5th as a compromise with the north to gain more power in the goverment.

What are you still thinking I am wrong?? I am very confused!
Click to expand...
The compromise was down, not up. I've already explained it twice. The South wanted the slaves counted as 1 in the Constitution.

Slave is 1 = more power for the South.
Slave is 3/5ths = less power for the South.
 
Johnnypenso
The compromise was down, not up. I've already explained it twice. The South wanted the slaves counted as 1 in the Constitution.

Slave is 1 = more power for the South.
Slave is 3/5ths = less power for the South.
Click to expand...

I think you completely missed the point. How is the compromise being up or down any relevant to my statement (electoral college is dated)? I stated correctly it was 3/5ths I was not trying to claim it was compromised down or up.

PS:
And even then your statement is entirely dependant on point of view. From the point of view of the north it was compromised up and from the south down.
 
Last edited:
Johnnypenso
The compromise was down, not up. I've already explained it twice. The South wanted the slaves counted as 1 in the Constitution.

Slave is 1 = more power for the South.
Slave is 3/5ths = less power for the South.
Click to expand...

The bit in bold would only be true if they were already counting slaves as one person before the compromise. Which they weren't.

If you get a new job and enter salary negotiations, and end up agreeing to less than the initial number you asked for, you can't suddenly accuse your new employer of giving you a pay cut.
 
huskeR32
The bit in bold would only be true if they were already counting slaves as one person before the compromise. Which they weren't.

If you get a new job and enter salary negotiations, and end up agreeing to less than the initial number you asked for, you can't suddenly accuse your new employer of giving you a pay cut.
Click to expand...

To add to that I just realised, how can there be an up and down in compromising? Both parties have to compromise something to come to a compromise, otherwise it isnt a compromise? If one compromises in and the other not it isnt a compromise.
 
PocketZeven
To add to that I just realised, how can there be an up and down in compromising? Both parties have to compromise something to come to a compromise, otherwise it isnt a compromise? If one compromises in and the other not it isnt a compromise.
Click to expand...

Exactly, which is why to really make any statements about what a particular party "won" or "lost" in a compromise, you need to look at the status quo the preceded said compromise. And in this case, the southern states in no way, shape, or form recognized slaves as people before the 3/5ths number was agreed to. They went from counting as nothing to counting as 3/5ths solely in the interest of increasing congressional representation for slave-holding states.
 
PocketZeven
I think you completely missed the point. How is the compromise being up or down any relevant to my statement (electoral college is dated)? I stated correctly it was 3/5ths I was not trying to claim it was compromised down or up.

PS:
And even then your statement is entirely dependant on point of view. From the point of view of the north it was compromised up and from the south down.
Click to expand...
You implied that the Southern States benefitted from the compromise. Relative to what they wanted, which was full representation of slaves as people for the purposes of representation and taxation, they compromised downward which was a net loss for them in terms of representation. How it worked before this is irrelevant since we're talking about the Constitution at the formation of the country so there had yet to be a decision as to how representation was going to work.
 
Johnnypenso
You implied that the Southern States benefitted from the compromise. Relative to what they wanted, which was full representation of slaves as people for the purposes of representation and taxation, they compromised downward which was a net loss for them in terms of representation. How it worked before this is irrelevant since we're talking about the Constitution at the formation of the country so there had yet to be a decision as to how representation was going to work.
Click to expand...
They did benefit. If they didn’t benefit who did? The north certainly did not. They gained more representation. How is it net loss? From 0 to 3/5th is a gain isn’t it? Like @huskeR32 already stated the before situation was not 1. If you come in for a job and hoping for 2k wage. But you end up with 1500. You consider that a 500 loss? No! Because you didn’t have a job before. It isn’t a net profit for the employer as well, because if the employee didn’t concede he may be saved 2k, but still would not have an employee.

How are you spinning it to a concession on the South side? It was a concession on the north side.The situation was 0. The slaves had no voting rights, received no wage, paid taxes, no property or freedom for that matter. These 3/5th weren’t even truly represented in government at all, let alone if they counted as 1. How is that a concession for the south? You are talking nonsensical here. Even then it was a compromise for both parties it was beneficial (except the slaves) so it was win/win.

But the point being is that in essence that a candidate can win the election without coming near the popular vote within this awkward system. As stated in the video I posted a person can essentially win an election with only 22% of the popular vote. How is this not a broken system? This is a farcry from a democratic republic.

Edit: added clarification
 
Last edited:
PocketZeven
awkward system
Click to expand...
There is nothing awkward about it.
I already told you it's so 4 or 5 states don't represent the other 45 or 46 states...
While it is a "popular vote" those 4 or 5 states hold a huge number of people compared to the other 45-46 combined.
Is it fair that the people in 4 or 5 states get to dictate what the other 45-46 states want?
You gotta remember each state is almost like its own little country.
Georgia doesn't want or need the same things California or New York want.
Get it now?
You don't want Russia or China dictating your countries laws and government do you?
 
@ryzno Exactly. While the heavier populated states may hold power in Congress, there is NOTHING that anyone can do when the other states get involved, and that is what exactly happened in the 2016 Presidential Election.
 
PocketZeven
They did benefit. If they didn’t benefit who did? The north certainly did not. They gained more representation. How is it net loss? From 0 to 3/5th is a gain isn’t it? Like @huskeR32 already stated the before situation was not 1. If you come in for a job and hoping for 2k wage. But you end up with 1500. You consider that a 500 loss? No! Because you didn’t have a job before. It isn’t a net profit for the employer as well, because if the employee didn’t concede he may be saved 2k, but still would not have an employee.

How are you spinning it to a concession on the South side? It was a concession on the north side.The situation was 0. The slaves had no voting rights, received no wage, paid taxes, no property or freedom for that matter. These 3/5th weren’t even truly represented in government at all, let alone if they counted as 1. How is that a concession for the south? You are talking nonsensical here. Even then it was a compromise for both parties it was beneficial (except the slaves) so it was win/win.

But the point being is that in essence that a candidate can win the election without coming near the popular vote within this awkward system. As stated in the video I posted a person can essentially win an election with only 22% of the popular vote. How is this not a broken system? This is a farcry from a democratic republic.

Edit: added clarification
Click to expand...
Already explained it three times. Again, you're focused on going from zero to 3/5ths, the up, rather than the 1 the south actually wanted down to the 3/5ths they actually got, aka the down. I already provided numbers to show you how it affected representation over the next decades leading up to the war and what the situation would have been if the South got O representation for the slaves (no country called the United States to begin with) and what would have happened had they got their way and had the slaves count as 1 (total domination of the House for 100 years). The 3/5ths Compromise both made the formation of the United States possible and kept the slave owning Southern States from perpetual control of the Congress. The economic prosperity inherent in the free exchange of goods and services ultimately led the North to prosperity, expansion and domination of the Congress.
 
Not terribly difficult to imagine how their debate might go down either...

Kanye-West-and-Taylor-Swift.jpg
 
Nooooooooooo!! Apparently Nikki Haley has resigned as U.N. Ambassador. That's not good news.
 
I listen to Kanye West's music if he supports Trump that's his own political views. But what I don't understand about him is how he tries to mix it up with his ridiculous philosophy which makes him thinks his some sort of intellectual with wisdom. I mean WTF is Dragon Energy?

Just say you support Trump here is my reasons for it there you go no need for the Dragon Energy statements.
 
Last edited:
Johnnypenso
Nooooooooooo!! Apparently Nikki Haley has resigned as U.N. Ambassador. That's not good news.
Click to expand...
Haley seemed to have little use for the UN, perhaps considering it a waste of time with higher callings looming in her career. Trump calmly allows he'll make a new appointment in a few weeks. Maybe it'll be the one who announces the US is pulling out, hanging the rest of world with the bills? That would be a real riot. :rolleyes: Various nut-jobs in our political past have called for this, and it is far overdue according to the neocons, including Sec'y of State Bolton. But no, the mummery must go on.
 
Rallywagon
I wonder how many of these feathers Trump has plucked compared to any other president in US history. Probably a record he would wear with pride.
Click to expand...

Give me a break, Trump is far from a dictator. He was elected fair and square. He has not taken away any of your rights. Aren't these all contradictions of the term 'dictator'? A dictator possesses absolute power. Trump doesn't have absolute power and won't because of this great thing we have called the Constitution and within it, the idea of 'separation of powers.'

Some of these things on the list are also a little ridiculous. Calling news outlets like CNN biased is not an attack upon the 'free press.'

I found this one a little silly too:
Supporting the massive death of innocents through his policies regarding the NRA
Click to expand...

The NRA has not harmed anyone. All the NRA has done is legally lobbied for the preservation of our second amendment rights.

Undermining our laws, and vilifying our law enforcement agencies to shield his own corruption and treachery.
Click to expand...
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/lo...up_welcomes_donald_trump_s_unwavering_support

Yes he sounds really anti-police...

I like how your article failed to mention record low unemployment numbers and a soaring economy.
 

Similar threads

Ross
  • Poll
Britain - The Official Thread
440 441 442
Replies
13K
Views
586K
HenrySwanson
HenrySwanson
Dylan
2025 NASCAR Discussion Thread
Replies
4
Views
414
Blitz24
Blitz24
Harley45
What did you do in GT7 today?
438 439 440
Replies
13K
Views
697K
skydragon49
skydragon49
The_Greaser
Forza Motorsport (2023): The Bugfest Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
18K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Dotini
Trump's Legacy: the US Space Force and conservative judges
Replies
1
Views
675
Dotini
Dotini

Latest Posts

Back