House Resolution 847: prepare to gag

[Guardsman Bass]

I've actually seen someone try to defend "Christianity in the Constitution" because one of the articles (Article 1, Section 7, I think) says that you wait ten days for something, not including sunday. On top of the usual crap, of course.

[Adrian Laguna]

You can actually make a better argument for America being founded on slavery than Christianity. The much-revered Founding Fathers were slave-owners themselves, so one could say that the country was founded by slave-owners. And unlike Christianity, black slavery is actually written right into the original Constitution, which defines a black man as only three fifths of the value of a white man.

While your argument carries weight, the support is shaky if not fallacious. If the abolitionists, the people opposed to slavery on moral grounds, had their way slaves would have been worth nothing. On the other hand, if the slave owners, the ones who thought black people equivalent to farm animals, had their way a slave would have been worth the same as a free man. It seems paradoxical that it is anti-slavery to say a slave is worth the same as a farm animal, and pro-slavery to say they are worth the same as free men, but that's the way it is.

This is an issue of representation, not worth as a human being. Logically and morally, slaves cannot be counted when apportioning representatives. This because said representatives are not, and cannot, represent the slaves. If representation is apportioned to slaves, the only thing you are accomplishing is giving the owners of said slaves disproportionate power commensurate to the number of slaves they have. The "Three Fifths Compromise" represents support for slavery in the Constitution not because it says a slave is worth 3/5ths of a free man, as you argue, but rather becasue it makes slaves are worth anything at all.

Note that the Constitution at no point mentions slavery or black people, the specific passage is: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
Naturally "all other Persons" can only mean slaves. That would apply to slaves of any race, but in the US there were only African black slaves. Again, this supports slavery not by saying blacks are worth less than a whites, but rather by saying a slave is worth anything more than nothing.

[Lonestar]

Isn't there, like, some kind of budget crisis that's going to get a whole shitload of federal employees put on unpaid leave they could be working on?

[Darth Wong]

You can actually make a better argument for America being founded on slavery than Christianity. The much-revered Founding Fathers were slave-owners themselves, so one could say that the country was founded by slave-owners. And unlike Christianity, black slavery is actually written right into the original Constitution, which defines a black man as only three fifths of the value of a white man.

While your argument carries weight, the support is shaky if not fallacious. If the abolitionists, the people opposed to slavery on moral grounds, had their way slaves would have been worth nothing. On the other hand, if the slave owners, the ones who thought black people equivalent to farm animals, had their way a slave would have been worth the same as a free man. It seems paradoxical that it is anti-slavery to say a slave is worth the same as a farm animal, and pro-slavery to say they are worth the same as free men, but that's the way it is.

This is an issue of representation, not worth as a human being. Logically and morally, slaves cannot be counted when apportioning representatives. This because said representatives are not, and cannot, represent the slaves. If representation is apportioned to slaves, the only thing you are accomplishing is giving the owners of said slaves disproportionate power commensurate to the number of slaves they have. The "Three Fifths Compromise" represents support for slavery in the Constitution not because it says a slave is worth 3/5ths of a free man, as you argue, but rather becasue it makes slaves are worth anything at all.

Note that the Constitution at no point mentions slavery or black people, the specific passage is: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
Naturally "all other Persons" can only mean slaves. That would apply to slaves of any race, but in the US there were only African black slaves. Again, this supports slavery not by saying blacks are worth less than a whites, but rather by saying a slave is worth anything more than nothing.

I said it was "better" than the argument for the country being founded on Christianity, you fucking idiot. I didn't say it was ironclad. What part of "better" do you not understand?

[Adrian Laguna]

I said it was "better" than the argument for the country being founded on Christianity, you fucking idiot. I didn't say it was ironclad. What part of "better" do you not understand?

You had a mistaken impression of what the Three Fifths Compromise entailed and I thought to correct it. I never said I disagreed with you, in fact I opened with "your argument carries weight", by which I meant to say that your main point is right and I agree.

[The Yosemite Bear]

what's that quote about lawyers being strangled with the entrails of priests?

[K. A. Pital]

In the common version it was the kings strangled, I think

[Patrick Degan]

"Mankind will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest".

Diderot, I believe.