Slavery & the South (split from Eric Garner thread)

[cmdrjones]

So you admit that, over time, due to broad cultural, societal, and technological shifts, we may feel the need to change the Constitution, with increasing awareness of its imperfections? You admit that by definition it is not and never can be a perfect document, because there will always be a need for change.

YET you are simultaneously trying to adhere to a literalist interpretation of the Constitution as if it were the writ of God or the little Jesus fish or whatever. How can you possibly reconcile these two viewpoints in any sort of logical fashion?

Here's a hypothetical for you. An impossible situation, mind you. But I want you to address this honestly (which, I know, is tough for you, but just try, will you?):

Let's say next year, a constitutional amendment is suddenly passed that enacts some sort of gun control measure and enshrines it as law. Let's say ... banning civilian assault rifles or something extreme like that. Based on what you have said in this thread, you personally consider it a natural moral right of yours to own an assault rifle. You would no doubt complain loudly and non-stop to anyone who would listen about what a terrible amendment this was, and blah blah blah. Yet, you also cite the Constitution as a moral document, and in fact cite its ability to change the law in response to changing times as the very basis of its moral nature. If that amendment passed, you would be morally obligated to adopt that position, if the Constitution were truly such a source of your morality as you have claimed in this thread. How do you reconcile this contradiction?

It sounds less like you actually have a detailed understanding of the Constitution, its history, and how it relates to current U.S. law and rationally adhere to its moral structure and more like you are using it as a convenient symbol and umbrella for your own personal preferences.

I have never said it was perfect, I said it was the MOST perfect. As for a literalist interpretation, yes, that is what I favor because I think the founders vision for human freedom is the best thing we have come up with so far. Sue me. It is not the SOURCE of my morality, it just best exemplifies it.
Also just because the constitution was moral BEFORE doesn't mean it is moral now, or in the future. Morality doesn't change though the constitution can change to better exemplify morality!

As for your example, I would yes then be legally bound to follow such a law, assuming the government goes through the procedure to amend the constitution to change the parameters of the second amendment. I (and all other gun owners) would also deserve to be fairly compensated for any property I was thus deprived of. Also, being that the Feds are broke, I doubt that'll happen. Also, they'd have to make the case that our right to self defense can still be exercised without access to assault weapons. I'd love to see that argument be taken up and put to a constitutional convention and passed by said convention and ratified by the several states.
So, yes, according to your scenario I would be bound by law to obey, OTOH, I would still hold a deeply held personal belief that the assault rifle, being the weapon of the day, is and will be the necessary item to maintaining a free state, at that point I'd b forced to choose between obeying the new law, and giving up my God given rights of self defense. (we can argue all day if defense can be effective with whatever arms are left in the lawful realm or not)

So you are saying you have no moral problem with treating black people as 3/5 of a human being? Do you honestly not perceive that as racist?

Irrelevant.
my opinion of the 3/5ths compromise doesn't matter as to whether it was ANTI-slavery or not. Do you think the south would have stayed in the union at the beginning without it? If the USA was never formed, how likely would the North have had the power to force the south to give up their slaves if the south was a different country from the beginning?
My personal position is that it is called a compromise for a reason.

You didn't make your case, you were caught lying and you ran off from the thread (never to return), while quietly posting in other threads hoping that we would all forget what you did.

It is very intellectually dishonest to assume that someone you are debating with is a liar. Again, I refrained from posting there to avoid dignifying your insulting bullshit. On this point I reiterate: FUCK OFF.

It doesn't. Luckily for me, that situation doesn't exist in reality, only within the dimensions of your tortured brain. Have you ever even heard of the term "excessive force"?

Yeah, worked out great for Eric Garner didn't it?

Jesus Christ, you pretty spectacularly missed the point of my post, there, didn't you, Colonel Klink? Let me abstract it a bit for you: are you willing to kill people over, say, points of parliamentary procedure?

No, but if someone INSISTS on violating parliamentary procedure, what will happen? If said person shows up a day early at his office and says "I AM NOW THE SECRETARY OF STATE, and I NOW SET POLICY etc etc GET OUT!"
and the former official calls the capitol police to escort him out and he resists arrest and gets killed, was that lawful?

What could I possibly have learned at that link? It didn't substantiate your point, it repeated it using different words.

THe link includes more than that one post. Go explore, you might learn something.

Edited for clarity

[Ziggy Stardust]

I have never said it was perfect, I said it was the MOST perfect.

A claim you have not substantiated in any possible way. Which further proves my point that you are just using it as a flimsy justification for your own personal preferences.

As for a literalist interpretation, yes, that is what I favor because I think the founders vision for human freedom is the best thing we have come up with so far.

So you think that the best vision for human freedom we've had is to consider black people 3/5 of a human being? Because that was the founder's vision as well.

So, yes, according to your scenario I would be bound by law to obey, OTOH, I would still hold a deeply held personal belief that the assault rifle, being the weapon of the day, is and will be the necessary item to maintaining a free state, at that point I'd b forced to choose between obeying the new law, and giving up my God given rights of self defense. (we can argue all day if defense can be effective with whatever arms are left in the lawful realm or not)

Exactly, so you admit that you don't even really give a shit about the Constitution, you only care about your own personal moral preferences. How do you reconcile this with your belief that the Constitution is the single most moral document ever conceived?

Irrelevant.

No, it's not irrelevant you thunderous cunt. YOU CLAIMED THE CONSTITUTION IS THE MOST MORAL DOCUMENT IN HUMAN HISTORY. That document explicitly says that black people are worth 3/5 of a white person. I have asked you twice whether you have a moral issue with this, and you have yet to say that you do not. Considering you have simply reiterated your point that the founder's vision is the "best thing we've come up with so far", I am forced to assume that you include the 3/5 bit as part of your moral calculus. So you are a fucking racist scumbag.

my opinion of the 3/5ths compromise doesn't matter as to whether it was ANTI-slavery or not.

Yes, it does. You are just trying to move the goalposts. I don't give a flying fuck about slavery, I care about whether it is moral to legally consider black people as being worth less than a white person is. That's the entire point, which I have made incredibly explicit. You have refused to deny the charge you have no moral problem with the 3/5 line. So, again, you are a racist cunt.

Do you think the south would have stayed in the union at the beginning without it? If the USA was never formed, how likely would the North have had the power to force the south to give up their slaves if the south was a different country from the beginning?
My personal position is that it is called a compromise for a reason.

And? Do you actually have any knowledge of the history of the Constitution, or is this just another pathetic attempt from you to distract from the main point and hope I forgot what we were talking about? I'm going to repeat this: YOU CLAIMED THE CONSTITUTION IS THE MOST MORAL THING EVER WRITTEN BY MANKIND. The Constitution explicitly says black people are worth 3/5 of a person. Despite numerous opportunities to do so, and despite my direct entreaties for you to do so, you have not commented on this.

It is very intellectually dishonest to assume that someone you are debating with is a liar. Again, I refrained from posting there to avoid dignifying your insulting bullshit. On this point I reiterate: FUCK OFF.

I'm not assuming you are a liar. I know for a fact that you are a liar. YOU WERE CAUGHT RED-HANDED. You claimed that women were worse snipers than men, claiming that you had personally observed a number of female snipers in action and possessed the qualifications to make those judgments. When confronted on this point, you furiously backpedaled, and admitted you have never seen a female sniper in action. Then you fled the thread with your tail between your legs. What interests me, Colonel Klink, is whether you actually believe that you refrained from posting there out of some matter of dignity? Because everyone else can see that you are just a miserable little pissant that lacks the mental faculties to own up to your blatant dishonesty.

Do you know what DOES count as intellectual (as well are moral) dishonesty? Citing military service as proof of your claims, and then running away when people call you out on it and refusing to provide any evidence that you ever served in the military. So, I reiterate: YOU ARE A LYING FUCK. Hell, I don't even think you are old enough to have served in the military anyway; your posts consistently demonstrate the intellectual capacity of an angry 12 year old.

Yeah, worked out great for Eric Garner didn't it?

And? There's a huge national outcry about what happened. That's ... that's the point of this thread. The fact that we as a society don't find excessive force to be acceptable. I don't even understand what point you are trying to make, here, Colonel Klink.

No, <snip other stupid bullshit>

I snipped the rest of this part of your post because it had absolutely fuck all to do with the point of my question. The entire point that is sailing over your head is that the law is NOT this extreme binary state as you are implying. There are degrees of violation, culpability, responsibility, and enforcement. Yeah, if someone tries to forcefully take over the government there will be violence, but do you really think that is a reasonable response to me asking if you think minutiae of procedural rules are worth violence IN AND OF THEMSELVES?

THe link includes more than that one post. Go explore, you might learn something.

[/quote]

Considering the only post I've seen on that site just reiterated a idiotic argument you made (that's already been thoroughly refuted in this thread), I think I'll avoid it. I'd rather read something that isn't monstrously stupid, but then again here I am reading your lies.

Oh, and I am going to keep repeating this point, Colonel Klink, because I know it bothers you, and also because I feel a moral obligation not to let you off the hook: YOU LIED ABOUT HAVING MILITARY EXPERIENCE. NOBODY IS IMPRESSED BY YOUR TOUGH-GUY POSTURING. JUST ADMIT IT ALREADY.

[Simon_Jester]

So you think that the best vision for human freedom we've had is to consider black people 3/5 of a human being? Because that was the founder's vision as well.

It's worse than that. They're counted as 3/5 of a person for demographics purposes, not in terms of actually having 60% of the value of a citizen (which would, treated consistently, mean they still have some rights, that it would be unjust to oppress six blacks for the benefit of three whites, and so on)

Being second-class citizens would be (and was, after 1865) a huge step up from the real status of slaves in the antebellum South.

All because the southern contingent of the Founding Fathers were too determined to keep their slaves for any condemnation of the institution to make it into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Which, as moral compromises go, makes the Constitution a pretty damn compromised document, no?

You want a "more moral" document signed by US presidents, go look up the Atlantic Charter. That's before we even go looking elsewhere.

[LaCroix]

Yes. Because it CAN be amended. also, the 3/5ths compromise that you like to throw out there is an inherently ANTI-slavery measure, because it incentivizes slave holders to free their slaves and get 2/5th more representatives....

Does not compute...

The 3/5 compromise made the southern states have 47 representatives when they only should have 33 (in 1793).
But only the slave owners could vote, so they effectively got 50% more political power than they should have had - 47 representatives voting for continuation of slavery.

If the slaves were freed, the states would now have had 57 represetentatives.
But the since the slaves would now be able to vote, it would result in only 33 pro slavery, and 24 who would support abolition and back rights. so they would only have a net sum of 11 votes pro slavery, and thus would be outvoted continously by the northern states.

So no, it was not an encouragement to free slaves. It was simply cementing their mayority - after all, the southern states were the ones pressing for counting them fully, but still without the right to vote for themselves.

[cmdrjones]

Yes. Because it CAN be amended. also, the 3/5ths compromise that you like to throw out there is an inherently ANTI-slavery measure, because it incentivizes slave holders to free their slaves and get 2/5th more representatives....

Does not compute...

The 3/5 compromise made the southern states have 47 representatives when they only should have 33 (in 1793).
But only the slave owners could vote, so they effectively got 50% more political power than they should have had - 47 representatives voting for continuation of slavery.

If the slaves were freed, the states would now have had 57 represetentatives.
But the since the slaves would now be able to vote, it would result in only 33 pro slavery, and 24 who would support abolition and back rights. so they would only have a net sum of 11 votes pro slavery, and thus would be outvoted continously by the northern states.

So no, it was not an encouragement to free slaves. It was simply cementing their mayority - after all, the southern states were the ones pressing for counting them fully, but still without the right to vote for themselves.

Did even read what you posted before you posted it? If the slaves were freed, they wouldn't vote for slavery, so the slave owners could no longer have slavery... AFTER they ended slavery?


Southern =/= slavery

I'll say this though, I should have been more clear... It incentivizes the slave holders to manumit their slaves and gain 2/5 more SOUHTERN votes. THe fact that they did not avail themselves of this opportunity given them by the framers is one of the great tragedies lf the 19th century. THey sowed the seeds of their own destruction and it was a terrible tragedy for all involved largely because it was predictable and avoidable.... So the founders doing it, and me pointing it out is horribly racissss..... got it.

[Ziggy Stardust]

So do you see it? C'mon, you can do it! Notice the relevant phrase is "female or otherwise"? You keep saying that I claimed to have observed female snipers in action and that I admitted that I hadn't, which makes me a liar when YOU put in the phrase "female or otherwise" well, the ones I observed were otherwise, being that there ARE NO FEMALE SNIPERS IN THE US ARMY.

I see you are continuing with your dishonest debating tactics. I like the way you selectively quote that thread to make it sound like I'm the liar. Why don't we actually go and quote some posts from that thread, eh, Colonel Klink?

At the top of page 2 of that thread:

My observation of women being snipers is that they are more patient and willing to wait for the "perfect" shot, but have problems with the physicalty required to SET UP the "perfect" shot. i.e. lay in this field covered with biting insects in your own piss for 3 days until you get what you came for...

You specifically claimed that you have personally observed female snipers, and were qualified to judge their qualifications at being a sniper. Did you forget about this particular lie of yours, you stupid shit?

This was BEFORE I asked you about your combat experience. You intentionally quoted that thread to remove this particular claim of yours, in the hopes nobody would notice. The fact that you admitted in this very thread

being that there ARE NO FEMALE SNIPERS IN THE US ARMY.

Is an admission that your original claim was a lie. THIS ALL STARTED WITH YOU CLAIMING TO HAVE OBSERVED FEMALE SNIPERS. You now admit that they aren't any female snipers for you to have observed anyway. Therefore, you are a liar. That's why I continue to press you on your military qualifications, since we here have definitive proof that you are dishonest. If you lied about the female snipers, it would stand to reason that you are also lying about your military service.

oh wait, you never answered my question you "THUNDEROUS CUNT" how many battles have you been in? WHat are your military qualifications?

Actually, you NEVER asked me what my military qualifications are. Not even once. And I never claimed to have any in the first place. Not even once. So this is an amazingly pathetic attempt to turn the tables, isn't it?

Note that I won't automatically assume that your reply is a lie... because I don't debate in bad faith right off the bat.

Again, you are acting like I am assuming something out of the blue, when the proof that you lied is in the original thread. You claimed to have observed female snipers in action. You have yet to actually admit that this claim of yours was a lie, though you've tacitly done so by your admission there aren't any female snipers in the Army.

AS for the 3/5th compromise, again it WAS moral to CLAIM that black people were 3/5th of a person FOR THE PURPOSES OF REPRESENTATION in order to KEEP THE SOUTH FROM SECEDING or NEVER SIGNING ON IN THE FIRST PLACE. But it's NOT PERFECT, hence the reason why its' called a COMPROMISE.... YOU DOUCHENOZZLE!!!

Do you even understand what the word 'compromise' means? The Constitution COMPROMISED morality for the sake of expediency and utility. By definition that's a moral failure. Whether or not it made practical sense to do so is irrelevant; I understand the historical reasons for the compromise. You are so thoroughly dishonest I doubt you can even remember what your original argument was, so I'll recap: YOU claimed that the Constitution is intrinsically the most moral document ever created, and essentially have held it up as infallible.

And finally, I have already posted on the other thread about my military experience. I feel no need to scan in any military documents or otherwise PROVE a goddam thing to you, who has failed to answer the above questions about YOUR extensive combat experience....

Again, I never claimed military experience, AND you never asked me my military experience. I think it's hilarious that you think that furiously repeating my accusations towards you back at me will actually get you anywhere.

http://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/ ... -1.105699/

Oh yeah, I forgot, I wrote an autobiographical account of one of these non-existent battles in 2006, just to create a plausible backstory! I'm THAT clever that I did this almost 9 years ago, just knowing I'd need it someday!

A piece of creative writing is not proof of anything. Do you really not understand this?

You know, for someone who claims to be a veteran, I would expect you to take the idea of someone falsifying military qualifications very seriously. Most soldiers and ex-soldiers I know take it VERY personally if they hear about someone pretending to be a veteran when they weren't. So I'd expect you to be sympathetic towards proving your military service.

And stop acting like I'm harassing you. YOU were the one that staked your claims in the other thread on your own military experience, YOU were the one that made it relevant. I've already caught you lying about the female snipers, why then should I trust your other military claims? If you want to shut me up, provide the evidence. Or provide it to a mod, as Thanas suggested, and the mods will tell me to shut the fuck up.

Incidentally, is J.R. Boyd your real name? That's the name on that Spacebattles post. If you really don't want to provide the evidence, I have no problem contacting the 7th US Cavalry Association myself to see if they can verify things. That's what you said, right? 7th Cavalry Regiment?

[LaCroix]

Did even read what you posted before you posted it? If the slaves were freed, they wouldn't vote for slavery, so the slave owners could no longer have slavery... AFTER they ended slavery?


Southern =/= slavery

I'll say this though, I should have been more clear... It incentivizes the slave holders to manumit their slaves and gain 2/5 more SOUHTERN votes. THe fact that they did not avail themselves of this opportunity given them by the framers is one of the great tragedies lf the 19th century. THey sowed the seeds of their own destruction and it was a terrible tragedy for all involved largely because it was predictable and avoidable.... So the founders doing it, and me pointing it out is horribly racissss..... got it.

Releasing slaves =/= Ending slavery, dumbass!

Even if they released all slaves overnight, it would not make slavery illegal unless they also struck those laws. Therefore, some people releasing their slaves would result in more representatives, with most of these representatives voting against the interests of the people currently having 60% more representatives with NONE voting against their interests.

No wonder the southerns did not free their slaves to gain more representatives, as they already had the best possible political situation they could have - freeing the slaves would lessen their political power to an extent that it would have been political suicide.

The 3/5 compromise was never intended to create an incentive - it was a compromise where southern states wanted 100% representation for the slaves (but no voting rights) in order to take over congress and force their politics on everyone else, and the northern states haggled them DOWN to 3/5 in order to not destabilize the union too much.

[cmdrjones]

[

Do you even understand what the word 'compromise' means? The Constitution COMPROMISED morality for the sake of expediency and utility. By definition that's a moral failure. Whether or not it made practical sense to do so is irrelevant; I understand the historical reasons for the compromise. You are so thoroughly dishonest I doubt you can even remember what your original argument was, so I'll recap: YOU claimed that the Constitution is intrinsically the most moral document ever created, and essentially have held it up as infallible.

I never held it up as infallible, since the beginning I hailed its amendability as PART of it intrinsic morality. AS for your characterization of the 3/5th compromise as a compromise of morality... I concede. It's called the 3/5th compromise for a reason. HOWEVER to ignore the incentive that the southern slaveholders had to Manumit thier slaves adn join the union in that manner only serves to futher the narrative that the founders were bunch of racist assholes (by today's standards BTW). When, I believe they were much more prescient than we might think. ASk yourself this, if there had been no 3/5th compromise, and the civil war had broken out anyway, do you think that the Southerners would recognize thier error like they do today? In essence they had an "out" and refused to take it, so therefore much of the civil war's subsequent destruction was on them.

Again, I never claimed military experience, AND you never asked me my military experience. I think it's hilarious that you think that furiously repeating my accusations towards you back at me will actually get you anywhere.[/quote]

Ok so nothing, got it

A piece of creative writing is not proof of anything. Do you really not understand this?

as I said before I was and am refusing to provide you "PROOF" because I seriously doubt if I was to provide you with pictures or scanned documents, you would simply reject them, becuase #1 you admit to haveing no military experience and would probably have trouble understanding them and #2 you're an asshole.... So, instead I provide you with a 6 year old piece of creative writing... does it ring true to you? Does it SEEM fake? can you picture any of that in your head? You're smart.... ish.... I'm sure you can glance through that and your finely tuned BS detector will tell you whether I made it all up or not.

[Elheru Aran]

If rights are a human construction then why are they endowed by our creator which is enshrined in the declaration? You contradict yourself.

Your failure here is assuming that our rights come from our 'creator'. The people who wrote the Declaration believed in one, and believed that their rights derived from him. It was a sentiment of the time, and one that is not reflected in the Constitution apart from the occasional 'in the year of our lord', which is a contemporary form and no indication of belief or disbelief. And while the Declaration of Independence is a lovely document, it does not have legal standing as it has been superseded by the Constitution. It does form a basis for a number of legal decisions upon Constitutional issues, but those are irrelevant to our discussion as the rights we currently have are derived from the Bill of Rights, not the Declaration of Independence.

That is debatable, considering at least a significant number of influential members like Jefferson were atheists or at the very least ambivalent about it.

I'm aware. Perhaps I oversimplified. The Declaration does have a sentence or two along the lines of 'endowed by our Creator' or whatever (not going to look it up right now). Atheism would have been publicly unpalatable to express in explicit terms in that period, so a good number of these guys, Jefferson included, might have said they were 'deist' rather than atheist. An impersonal Creator can be acknowledged in such a belief system without necessarily being explicitly adherent to one religion or another. As I said, a sentiment (perhaps 'artifact' would have been a better word) of the period.

[Civil War Man]

The Declaration does have a sentence or two along the lines of 'endowed by our Creator' or whatever (not going to look it up right now).

The line is "endowed by their Creator", for the record. It does support the non-denominational argument, since it is very specifically worded to not support any particular religion in a way that would be inoffensive to people who believe they follow the One True Faith.

[Simon_Jester]

I never held it up as infallible, since the beginning I hailed its amendability as PART of it intrinsic morality. AS for your characterization of the 3/5th compromise as a compromise of morality... I concede. It's called the 3/5th compromise for a reason. HOWEVER to ignore the incentive that the southern slaveholders had to Manumit thier slaves adn join the union in that manner only serves to futher the narrative that the founders were bunch of racist assholes (by today's standards BTW)...

That's not what the word "manumit" means. Manumit means "release from slavery; set free."

What the three-fifths compromise meant is NOT that the slaves got any legal rights whatsoever. They got no votes, they got no representation.

What it meant, in effect, was that a state with half a million citizens and half a million slaves was counted as having the same population as a state with eight hundred thousand free citizens and no slaves. Five slaves got as much "representation" in Congress as three free citizens.

Five free men could thus get enough representation in the House and the Electoral College to cancel out the votes of eight free men... as long as those five free men owned five slaves.

This despite the fact that the slaves couldn't vote, couldn't express their views in public, couldn't form political organizations, couldn't even keep their own families from being 'sold south.' The slaves were getting exactly the same kind of alleged "representation" (without a vote) that Parliament had given to the American colonies, and against which the American colonies revolted.

The only way it could have been more blatant is if owning slaves had directly given you the right to cast a ballot on their behalf.

When, I believe they were much more prescient than we might think.

Quite a few of the Founders from the southern states were- but you don't see any of them having freed their slaves and accepted that this would mean the end of their personal wealth and power.

They knew perfectly well that there was a fundamental contradiction between slavery and freedom, and that you could not have a free society based on the brutal chattel slavery of the American South. But this did not cause them to in any way modify their behavior.

If you know what is right, and foresee a disaster caused by doing the wrong thing, but proceed to do the wrong thing both in public life and in your private life... how much credit do you get for being prescient?

ASk yourself this, if there had been no 3/5th compromise, and the civil war had broken out anyway, do you think that the Southerners would recognize thier error like they do today? In essence they had an "out" and refused to take it, so therefore much of the civil war's subsequent destruction was on them.

And yet the southern states never admitted this culturally. They've worked very hard to rewrite the history textbooks to try and make everyone else think that the Civil War's destruction was the North's fault. And they continue to spread that myth among themselves.

So if you think the three-fifths compromise helped with that... frankly, it didn't make much of a dent.

Please quote the relevant portions of the German constitution which you feel is being less explicit (and why it therefore is worth less) here.

I'm in a hurry so I'll grab from the Wiki, 'Right of Revolution':

...

The German government has not gone against its own constitutional order, but if it it did, it would be a little more complicated than 'any person', it would be 'the government' and the culture of uber-elitist elites who have decided that they are the only People that count and propaganda that squares this with the People.

This is not remotely realistic or reasonable in a functioning democratic society.

If you do not have a functioning democratic society, no precisely worded oath is going to matter. In mass politics, it really doesn't matter whether the army swears to "defend the people" or "defend the constitution." What matters is whether the rank and file believe what they are doing is legal. Weimar Germany's constitution fell apart because the will to enforce it had collapsed- a violent party was allowed to obtain enough power that it could, by force, prevent any other rivals for power from emerging. And it could violently suppress any dissent.

Once something like that happens, it does not matter exactly how soldiers' oaths are worded.

How is this different from "I swear to serve the Federal Republic of Germany and to bravely defend the rights and liberty of the German people", which is the current oath rendered by the armed forces of Germany.

American Enlistment Oath:

"I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Well, there's a difference between oathing to a constitution first and oathing to serve a government first. It seems the American oath has the edge in dealing with an internal conflict between 'the People', versus 'the ruling elites' over what constitutes their rights and liberties.

So... no functional difference.

Except for the part where, as Edi described, people are treating "the Constitution" as a godlike entity, while ignoring the basic principles: government of and for the people, majority rule with protection for minority rights, a strongly enshrined right to protest an unjust political order, and so on.

And frankly, the army and its oaths isn't a very important asset in preventing that at the moment. The Securities and Exchange Commission would probably be able to accomplish far more to preserve the basic political health of America on one percent of the budget.

The balance between elites and the People, republic constitutional guarantees and and statute law, is an ongoing struggle. Just think; three Members of Congress can reignite the Cold War with Russia gaming an obscure House rule. Agents of a state can kill a man over the world's most widely smuggled legal substance, enforcing a government-sanctioned system that made profitable cigarette smuggling in the first place.

Its not the People going rogue here; rather than work with the People, some people in the government prefer to deceive and bully against the public good.

That House rule has been in place for a long time. You are correct

However, what is needed here is not "a return to the Constitution" or anything of the sort. What is needed is a reform of the House's dysfunctional parliamentary procedure, a government more interested in governing than in scoring points and bringing down the opposition party, and a president prepared to veto a "bill" that was "passed" by something very obviously not a quorum of the House. If it even crosses his desk, which I am not certain of.

Its too bad they and like constitutional lobby 'militias' haven't been able to expand upon the rest of the fundamental civil rights of the Constitution as well as the NRA has the Second Amendment.

Well, if you're looking for someone to do that, look to the ACLU. The ACLU's biggest problem is that they don't have hundreds of millions of campaign finance dollars to spread around, I guess?

[cmdrjones]

I never held it up as infallible, since the beginning I hailed its amendability as PART of it intrinsic morality. AS for your characterization of the 3/5th compromise as a compromise of morality... I concede. It's called the 3/5th compromise for a reason. HOWEVER to ignore the incentive that the southern slaveholders had to Manumit thier slaves adn join the union in that manner only serves to futher the narrative that the founders were bunch of racist assholes (by today's standards BTW)...

That's not what the word "manumit" means. Manumit means "release from slavery; set free."

What the three-fifths compromise meant is NOT that the slaves got any legal rights whatsoever. They got no votes, they got no representation.

What it meant, in effect, was that a state with half a million citizens and half a million slaves was counted as having the same population as a state with eight hundred thousand free citizens and no slaves. Five slaves got as much "representation" in Congress as three free citizens.

Five free men could thus get enough representation in the House and the Electoral College to cancel out the votes of eight free men... as long as those five free men owned five slaves.

This despite the fact that the slaves couldn't vote, couldn't express their views in public, couldn't form political organizations, couldn't even keep their own families from being 'sold south.' The slaves were getting exactly the same kind of alleged "representation" (without a vote) that Parliament had given to the American colonies, and against which the American colonies revolted.

The only way it could have been more blatant is if owning slaves had directly given you the right to cast a ballot on their behalf.

When, I believe they were much more prescient than we might think.

Quite a few of the Founders from the southern states were- but you don't see any of them having freed their slaves and accepted that this would mean the end of their personal wealth and power.

They knew perfectly well that there was a fundamental contradiction between slavery and freedom, and that you could not have a free society based on the brutal chattel slavery of the American South. But this did not cause them to in any way modify their behavior.

If you know what is right, and foresee a disaster caused by doing the wrong thing, but proceed to do the wrong thing both in public life and in your private life... how much credit do you get for being prescient?

ASk yourself this, if there had been no 3/5th compromise, and the civil war had broken out anyway, do you think that the Southerners would recognize thier error like they do today? In essence they had an "out" and refused to take it, so therefore much of the civil war's subsequent destruction was on them.

And yet the southern states never admitted this culturally. They've worked very hard to rewrite the history textbooks to try and make everyone else think that the Civil War's destruction was the North's fault. And they continue to spread that myth among themselves.

So if you think the three-fifths compromise helped with that... frankly, it didn't make much of a dent.

Yes, the south only got 3/5ths of the representation they could have had, IF they had manumitted their slaves. Everything else you wrote in the 1st paragraph is exactly true, BUT the point I was making was that in order for a state with a half million slaves and a half million citizens to get the representation of 1 million citizens was to manumit their slaves and have.... 1 million citizens.

As for your second question: They only get the same credit for being prescient that your dad gets when he says: I know I did X,Y, and Z when I was young, and it turned out bad, so don't do X, Y or Z.
The southerners never believed they would have to pay for what they did, or they might have changed their behavior. I'm sure quite a few slaveholders manumitted their slaves, (many after their deaths which is still pretty hypocritical) but, you're right in that many won't give them any credit for it, which is why we had this conversation in the first place.

And lastly, I don't think the 3/5th compromise helped with that. Which is why it's such a bitter pill to swallow, it falls into the 'opportunities missed" category.
I think that the founding fathers put that in there with the intention of it being followed up with further measures to entice/subtly force the south to give up chattel slavery... but king cotton and the cotton gin ruined that notion; and thus the tragedy that occurred 87 years later.

[Civil War Man]

Yes, the south only got 3/5ths of the representation they could have had, IF they had manumitted their slaves. Everything else you wrote in the 1st paragraph is exactly true, BUT the point I was making was that in order for a state with a half million slaves and a half million citizens to get the representation of 1 million citizens was to manumit their slaves and have.... 1 million citizens.

The point you seem to be missing is that if the slaveholders released their slaves, making the former slaves full citizen, those states would have more representatives overall, but the voting power of the former slaves would cancel out the voting power of the former slave owners on every issue where those two groups disagree.

Taking a hypothetical state with half a million slaves and half a million slave owners, if the slaves were given the right to vote then on average half of the state and federal representatives will be advocating the position of the slaves, and half for the slave owners. The state might have, for instance, a total of 4 representatives, but on issues where the pro-slave and pro-slave owner representatives disagree, they have a net of zero because they cancel each other out, which gives the now-unopposed representatives in the free states more relative clout.

Under the 3/5th compromise, that state of half a million slaves and half a million slave owners is, in terms of relative voting power, a state with 800,000 slave owners. This might result in the loss of some representatives (though not necessarily, since states get a minimum of 3 as a result of a separate compromise regarding representation based on state population), but the representatives that remain will be reliably pro-slave owner, since they are the only ones who can vote. In our hypothetical state, even if the drop in officially recognized population results in the state only getting 3 representatives instead of 4, it still results in a swing of three representatives in favor of the slave owners. The slaves lose two representatives, since they cannot vote, while the slave owners pick up one.

The effect only gets bigger the more slaves you add. Let's say a state with 2 million slaves and one million slave owners would get a total of 6 representatives if the slaves could vote. On average there would be 4 pro-slave representatives and 2 pro-slave owner representatives. Under the 3/5th compromise, that state gets treated as a state with 2.2 million slave owners instead of only one million. If that resulted in the state only getting 4 or 5 total representatives, it's still a swing of 6 to 7 in favor of the slave owners (the slaves lose 4 representatives, while the slave owners gain 2 or 3).

[cmdrjones]

Yes, the south only got 3/5ths of the representation they could have had, IF they had manumitted their slaves. Everything else you wrote in the 1st paragraph is exactly true, BUT the point I was making was that in order for a state with a half million slaves and a half million citizens to get the representation of 1 million citizens was to manumit their slaves and have.... 1 million citizens.

The point you seem to be missing is that if the slaveholders released their slaves, making the former slaves full citizen, those states would have more representatives overall, but the voting power of the former slaves would cancel out the voting power of the former slave owners on every issue where those two groups disagree.

Taking a hypothetical state with half a million slaves and half a million slave owners, if the slaves were given the right to vote then on average half of the state and federal representatives will be advocating the position of the slaves, and half for the slave owners. The state might have, for instance, a total of 4 representatives, but on issues where the pro-slave and pro-slave owner representatives disagree, they have a net of zero because they cancel each other out, which gives the now-unopposed representatives in the free states more relative clout.

Under the 3/5th compromise, that state of half a million slaves and half a million slave owners is, in terms of relative voting power, a state with 800,000 slave owners. This might result in the loss of some representatives (though not necessarily, since states get a minimum of 3 as a result of a separate compromise regarding representation based on state population), but the representatives that remain will be reliably pro-slave owner, since they are the only ones who can vote. In our hypothetical state, even if the drop in officially recognized population results in the state only getting 3 representatives instead of 4, it still results in a swing of three representatives in favor of the slave owners. The slaves lose two representatives, since they cannot vote, while the slave owners pick up one.

The effect only gets bigger the more slaves you add. Let's say a state with 2 million slaves and one million slave owners would get a total of 6 representatives if the slaves could vote. On average there would be 4 pro-slave representatives and 2 pro-slave owner representatives. Under the 3/5th compromise, that state gets treated as a state with 2.2 million slave owners instead of only one million. If that resulted in the state only getting 4 or 5 total representatives, it's still a swing of 6 to 7 in favor of the slave owners (the slaves lose 4 representatives, while the slave owners gain 2 or 3).

I'm not missing that at all, that is, in fact, my main point. If the south had taken the bait and eventually moved to full manumission, then ipso facto their interests would NOT have diverged from the former slaves, because they would all be southern citizens and neither would be either slave nor slave owner any longer, see? Therefore it was the racism of the SOUTHERNERS that led to the civil war, (amongst other causes too numerous to get into here) and NOT the racism of the Constitution as was previously argued.
the 3/5ths compromise was racist to the extent that it WAS a compromise, but it was also and anti-slavery measure designed to incentivize the south to give up the institution.

[Simon_Jester]

The effect only gets bigger the more slaves you add. Let's say a state with 2 million slaves and one million slave owners would get a total of 6 representatives if the slaves could vote. On average there would be 4 pro-slave representatives and 2 pro-slave owner representatives. Under the 3/5th compromise, that state gets treated as a state with 2.2 million slave owners instead of only one million. If that resulted in the state only getting 4 or 5 total representatives, it's still a swing of 6 to 7 in favor of the slave owners (the slaves lose 4 representatives, while the slave owners gain 2 or 3).

This is very clearly true. Although historically, no Southern state had more than about a 50% slave population as far as I can remember (I think that was South Carolina). On the other hand, it's certainly true that certain parts of the state were even more heavily slave-populated, and those regions were even more favored as congressional districts under the Three-Fifths Compromise than the state as a whole.

Just to put it into concrete terms, the main effect of the three-fifths compromise was this.

Suppose that you had in, say, South Carolina, four slave owners who own ten slaves, realistically more like "one owns seven slaves and three own one each." And you have six white South Carolinans who had a very strong vested interest in preserving slavery and oppressing both slaves and free blacks...

Now suppose you have sixteen voters of any color in a free state like Massachusetts.

Under the Three Fifths Compromise, the ten South Carolina voters got as much representation in Congress as the sixteen Massachusetts voters. Because extra votes are being cast at 60% value on behalf of the slaves... who, it is assumed, are totally fine with having these South Carolina slaveowners vote for things like the Fugitive Slave Act.

I'm not missing that at all, that is, in fact, my main point. If the south had taken the bait and eventually moved to full manumission, then ipso facto their interests would NOT have diverged from the former slaves, because they would all be southern citizens and neither would be either slave nor slave owner any longer, see? Therefore it was the racism of the SOUTHERNERS that led to the civil war, (amongst other causes too numerous to get into here) and NOT the racism of the Constitution as was previously argued.

the 3/5ths compromise was racist to the extent that it WAS a compromise, but it was also and anti-slavery measure designed to incentivize the south to give up the institution.

Then why did the Southern states insist upon it?

If you pay even the least bit of attention to who said what during the Constitutional Convention (for which we have quite a lot of records), it was the Southern states who wanted slaves to count at 100% (five fifths) while the Northern states that were moving toward abolition of slavery wanted to count them at 0% (zero fifths). This was because both sides knew perfectly well that if slaves weren't counted as voters, the House would be dominated by representatives of free states, which meant it would be impossible to get the federal government to do anything significant to support the institution of slavery.

The Three Fifths Compromise was the lowest number the Southern states were willing to accept; if they hadn't been granted that they would have took their toys and gone home, because they wanted that compromise in order to protect the institution of slavery in Congress.

It was not some kind of bait by the Founding Fathers (many of whom owned slaves themselves) to trick the Southern states into freeing slaves to increase Congressional representation.

What you're saying is nonsense, and any halfway decent high school history textbook would refute it. I know mine would have. I'm pretty sure you made that up yourself, or at least got it from a truly bullshitty bullshitter.

[Kon_El]

The point you seem to be missing is that if the slaveholders released their slaves, making the former slaves full citizen, those states would have more representatives overall, but the voting power of the former slaves would cancel out the voting power of the former slave owners on every issue where those two groups disagree.

That would only apply if the freed slaves were allowed to vote. If the history we did get is any indicator that wouldn't have been the case.

[LaCroix]

The point you seem to be missing is that if the slaveholders released their slaves, making the former slaves full citizen, those states would have more representatives overall, but the voting power of the former slaves would cancel out the voting power of the former slave owners on every issue where those two groups disagree.

That would only apply if the freed slaves were allowed to vote. If the history we did get is any indicator that wouldn't have been the case.

And, his argument implies that the freed slaves (assuming they would gain voting rights, we all know how long it took for a black voting right), with
nothing to their name than maybe the clothes on their backs,
probably working for small wages at the farms of their former owners,
having to pay rent for their hovels to their former owners,
having to buy food from their former owners,
and renting tools from their former owners
(which was quite a common scheme in exploiting workforce in that time - pay them a daily wage just below their daily needs and keep them debt-bound)

would vote for the EXACTLY the same agendas as their white co-citizens (who will be much richer than these freed slaves, even if they are just a subsistence farmer or shophand) and former owners, just because "they are all free southern citizens, now".

[Simon_Jester]

By "his point" you mean cmdrjones' point, not Civil War Man's point, right?

Because yeah. The whole thing just made no damn sense to me. It sounds like a complete fiction and I can't even imagine where you'd find a published source willing to claim such nonsense.

[LaCroix]

By "his point" you mean cmdrjones' point, not Civil War Man's point, right?

Because yeah. The whole thing just made no damn sense to me. It sounds like a complete fiction and I can't even imagine where you'd find a published source willing to claim such nonsense.

Yes. cmdjones' point.

Especially, since the agenda the southern states wanted to push with their extra representatives, was to keep slavery.

So, freeing your slaves, to get more representatives, of which less will vote to keep slavery than with the 3/5th compromise, will help their political goal, how?

This is the classic "great idea" scheme.

1. free slaves
2. get more representatives, but lose voting power for slavery agenda
3. ???
4. Southern States will keep slavery, forever (= Profit!)

[Simon_Jester]

Remember, he's pitching it as "Southern states are given an incentive to free slaves to (slightly) increase their representation in Congress."

So it's not just that he has a bad idea of the form "free slaves, ???, profit!"

It's that he thinks that the Constitution and the three fifths compromise are actually a cunning scheme to trick the entire Southern political establishment into following such a bad idea. Because presumably they are all complete morons who fetishize the number of representatives their state has above all other concerns.

[cmdrjones]

Remember, he's pitching it as "Southern states are given an incentive to free slaves to (slightly) increase their representation in Congress."

So it's not just that he has a bad idea of the form "free slaves, ???, profit!"

It's that he thinks that the Constitution and the three fifths compromise are actually a cunning scheme to trick the entire Southern political establishment into following such a bad idea. Because presumably they are all complete morons who fetishize the number of representatives their state has above all other concerns.

Again..... of course it didn't work! It depended on the humanity and good sense of slave owners! Of course the 3/5th compromise was the minimum the southern states would have accepted to stay in the union, but stay in the union they did, no?

Also, why would manumitting the slaves (even if the DID end up initially as sharecroppers) be a bad idea? it would have avoided the civil war and 600,000 dead, right?
Geez, and I thought I was bad.

[Flagg]

This is currently the stupidest thread of the year, all because of one douche. Remember, douching can cause more harm than good.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Remember, he's pitching it as "Southern states are given an incentive to free slaves to (slightly) increase their representation in Congress."

So it's not just that he has a bad idea of the form "free slaves, ???, profit!"

It's that he thinks that the Constitution and the three fifths compromise are actually a cunning scheme to trick the entire Southern political establishment into following such a bad idea. Because presumably they are all complete morons who fetishize the number of representatives their state has above all other concerns.

Again..... of course it didn't work! It depended on the humanity and good sense of slave owners! Of course the 3/5th compromise was the minimum the southern states would have accepted to stay in the union, but stay in the union they did, no?

Also, why would manumitting the slaves (even if the DID end up initially as sharecroppers) be a bad idea? it would have avoided the civil war and 600,000 dead, right?
Geez, and I thought I was bad.

It is not in the interests of the slave holders because they lose power. You moron.
Objectively and with hindsight of course freeing all those slaves was a good idea. But from the perspective of those living through the actual event, they lose power.

In effect, they wanted to have their cake and eat it. They wanted the political power that came with having a bigger population, but did not want to give that bigger population actual rights and representation. Their personal wealth was built on slavery. Their social status was dependent on the number of slaves they had. They were able to keep the poor whites in line because no matter how poor they got, at least they were better off than the slaves, and hold slave ownership out to them like a carrot on a string.

They were dependent on slavery to the point that during the civil war, critical industries other than plantation slavery were neglected. They could not even maintain a butter production industry. That is how much everything about the old south revolved around the institution of slavery.

From the perspective of southern slave-holders, why would they give that up? Why would they free their slaves to gain more representation in congress, when that very act would cancel out their own influence in that congress as a socio-economic class?

Take another situation. Say it is 100 years from now, and we have taken in refugees from another planet that currently do not have congressional representation. These refugees are treated like shit in most of the GOP controlled midwest and south, but not the Democratic controlled coastal regions. So, the political interests of those in power in GOP territory are completely misaligned with those of the refugees, while the political interests of the refugees and those of the coastal regions are aligned reasonably well.

It is time to reallocate representatives. There are two proposals before congress. One counts refugees in the census but does not give them the right to vote. The other proposal counts them and gives them full citizenship rights.

If you are a representative from Mississippi, who is interested in maintaining their personal power, what proposal do you support?

The answer is obvious. You support the first proposal, because it increases your state's representation in congress while not subjecting you to challenges to your own seat that have a chance of succeeding.

If you are in a representative from Oregon, you choose the second proposal, for the exact same reason.

That leaves questions of both morality and personal prejudices completely off the table. Will morality sway some representatives to support the second proposal? Maybe. Prejudice will do the opposite. But ultimately, politicians will usually take whatever course of action they think will maintain their own power.

............

Same thing in the Old South, and they thought the black population was sub-human, or simply in need of White Guidance, depending on where individuals fall on the Hitler-Kipling spectrum of racism.

So why on earth would they consent to manumitting their slaves and giving them the vote, when they could just as well count them in their population without the risk of losing their own sinecures?

[Simon_Jester]

Again..... of course it didn't work! It depended on the humanity and good sense of slave owners!

Uh, no, because it wasn't in ANY way a 'good' idea or a 'moral' idea. It was the slave-owners only getting 60% of what they wanted, when in fact they deserved none of what they wanted with a healthy side order of "fuck you."

If the Constitution were anywhere near the 'most moral' document you tried to set it up as, then the Southern states would indeed have gotten nothing with a side order of "fuck you."

Of course the 3/5th compromise was the minimum the southern states would have accepted to stay in the union, but stay in the union they did, no?

...So what?

Also, why would manumitting the slaves (even if the DID end up initially as sharecroppers) be a bad idea? it would have avoided the civil war and 600,000 dead, right?
Geez, and I thought I was bad.

It'd be a great idea for the slaves. Since the slaves are the ones being enslaved, it is objectively a good thing.

Thing is... It'd be a stunningly bad idea for the slaveowners. I call it a bad idea because you're not proposing that some outside force free the slaves. You're proposing that the slaveowners do it themselves, in order to (slightly) increase their states' congressional representation. While effectively neutering their own ability to control what kind of representatives go to Congress, by turning the slaves into potential voters.

It's like proposing to nip World War Two in the bud by tricking Hitler into ordering his bodyguards out of the room, handing machine guns to half a dozen pissed off Jewish guys, and turning his back.

Would it be a great thing if it worked? HELL YEAH!

Would you have to have bean curd for brains to expect it to work? HELL YEAH TOO!

So I look at this idea of yours that the Three Fifths Compromise was some kind of weird bait. And I see that the Founders, many of whom WERE the very slaveowners who'd have to be complete fucking morons to take the bait, could not possibly have been dumb enough to think anyone would take that bait.

So even if the Founders were all secret abolitionists (they weren't)... they would NEVER have used such useless, stupid trick bait that a complete idiot would have seen through.

In that sense, while freeing slaves is great, the idea of using a Three Fifths Compromise as 'bait' to get someone to free slaves is a really bad idea. Because it cannot possibly do what it's supposed to. And because it will serve to empower the slave owners to twist federal law to protect slavery... which is exactly what it did.

[Ziggy Stardust]

It is worth noting, as well, that the Three Fifths Compromise, contrary to cmdrjones' incoherent ramblings, helped ensure that the Civil War as it happened would come to pass. Because of the compromise, as other people have already noted, Southern states had greatly increased representation in government without also enfranchising the slaves to the point that the power structure could be subverted. One can look at the number of representatives from Southern states in the House: in 1812, Southern states had 76 representatives where they would have had 59 without the Compromise; in 1833 they had 98 representatives instead of 73; etc. Because of this, slave-holders had a disproportionate effect on the US government, allowing them to block all attempts at controlling slavery or promoting abolition from the highest levels of government. The obsessive attempts at preserving the slave/free state balance in the subsequent decades were entirely a result of the Southern states having the disproportionate ability to vote in a bloc and drive government policy; this is exactly what caused the political and social climate heading into 1860.