Letting their masks drop

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Indiana Governor, apparently on tight pants Tuesday, dropped the message that the 3/5ths rules wasn’t so bad:

https://youtube.com/shorts/kUokKEfe11o? ... sfNpVpc_gX

This is who they are. This is who they voted for.

- Doc

[Some Schmo]

GOP voters can deny their racism all they want, but it's pretty obvious.

[Hound of Heaven]

The fact that you, Dr. CamnPP, initiated this thread and that Bishop Schmo was the first to respond in support of your views highlights my long-standing assertion that progressives represent the most racist faction within the Democrat party.

Allow me to provide you with a brief history lesson grounded in factual information! Had it not been for the 3/5 compromise, the northern and southern states would likely have failed to reach an agreement to form a union, resulting in no united states of America.

First off, let's clarify something, the constitution never states that a slave is not a person, it explicitly acknowledges that they are persons. It does not specify that a slave is considered three-fifths of a person. The 3/5s description was not related to the intrinsic value of an individual slave, but rather to the allocation of representatives for each state in the US Congress.

The 3/5s compromise was created by individuals who were against slavery, rather than by those who supported it. The Democrats in the South sought to have it both ways; they aimed to count their slaves for representation purposes. However, they were unwilling to provide any representation for their slaves. And why was this significant? Because in 1790, the free northern states had approximately 1.8 million white individuals. The southern slave states had a population of 1.1 million free whites alongside 630,000 slaves of various backgrounds. Essentially, there were equal populations during that period.

At the onset of the Civil War, the number of enslaved individuals was approximately 4 million. Without the 3/5s compromise, consider the increased power that the slave states would have wielded! If the entire slave population had been counted, many historians suggest that slavery might have persisted well into the 20th century.

Had it not been for the 3/5s compromise, the southern states would likely have refused to join the union, opting instead to create their own nation. This would have resulted in two distinct countries, one a free republican nation and the other a Democrat slave nation, existing in conflict from the outset.

In conclusion, without the 3/5 compromise, the United States as we know it would not have come into existence. The 3/5s compromise did not deny the humanity of black people, rather, it affirmed it and likely contributed to the end of slavery approximately 50 to 75 years earlier than if the northern states had established a free nation while the southern states created a slave nation.

You two progressives ought to reflect on your misguided and prejudiced views regarding the 3/5s compromise. You two are on the side of the slave holders, not the abolitionist.

[Molok]

The fact that you, Dr. CamnPP, initiated this thread and that Bishop Schmo was the first to respond in support of your views highlights my long-standing assertion that progressives represent the most racist faction within the Democrat party.

Allow me to provide you with a brief history lesson grounded in factual information! Had it not been for the 3/5 compromise, the northern and southern states would likely have failed to reach an agreement to form a union, resulting in no united states of America.

First off, let's clarify something, the constitution never states that a slave is not a person, it explicitly acknowledges that they are persons. It does not specify that a slave is considered three-fifths of a person. The 3/5s description was not related to the intrinsic value of an individual slave, but rather to the allocation of representatives for each state in the US Congress.

The 3/5s compromise was created by individuals who were against slavery, rather than by those who supported it. The Democrats in the South sought to have it both ways; they aimed to count their slaves for representation purposes. However, they were unwilling to provide any representation for their slaves. And why was this significant? Because in 1790, the free northern states had approximately 1.8 million white individuals. The southern slave states had a population of 1.1 million free whites alongside 630,000 slaves of various backgrounds. Essentially, there were equal populations during that period.

At the onset of the Civil War, the number of enslaved individuals was approximately 4 million. Without the 3/5s compromise, consider the increased power that the slave states would have wielded! If the entire slave population had been counted, many historians suggest that slavery might have persisted well into the 20th century.

Had it not been for the 3/5s compromise, the southern states would likely have refused to join the union, opting instead to create their own nation. This would have resulted in two distinct countries, one a free republican nation and the other a Democrat slave nation, existing in conflict from the outset.

In conclusion, without the 3/5 compromise, the United States as we know it would not have come into existence. The 3/5s compromise did not deny the humanity of black people, rather, it affirmed it and likely contributed to the end of slavery approximately 50 to 75 years earlier than if the northern states had established a free nation while the southern states created a slave nation.

You two progressives ought to reflect on your misguided and prejudiced views regarding the 3/5s compromise. You two are on the side of the slave holders, not the abolitionist.

I guess ChatGPT couldn't be bothered to tell you that Democrats and Republicans didn't exist in 1779? Damnable robots!

[Hound of Heaven]

I never claimed that the Democratic Party existed in 1779, my post discusses historical events from the late 1700s through the Civil War.

However, it's important to clarify some facts about the Democratic Party, as the individuals in the video link provided by Dr. CamnPP seem to lack proper understanding. The Democratic Party, since its inception in 1829, has opposed numerous significant civil rights initiatives and has a lengthy history of discrimination. The Democratic Party has a history that includes defending slavery, initiating the Civil War, opposing reconstruction efforts, founding the KKK, resisting segregation, engaging in lynching, and opposing the civil rights acts of the 1950s and 1960s.

Who are the racist?

[canpakes]

The 3/5s compromise was created by individuals who were against slavery, rather than by those who supported it

Nope. It had supporters and opponents from both camps, given that it was rooted in differences about apportionment/representation as opposed to slavery itself.

As well, while the existence of the 3/5 compromise can be seen as necessary for settling out the representation issue, it can - and was - seen as acknowledging a very bad thing: slavery. As such, the 3/5 compromise was never the optimal solution.

The Democrats in the South sought …

There was no ‘Democratic Party’ until its formation in 1828.

Trying to frame this as a ‘Democrats are Bad!’ thing is moronic.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

To the HoH (ha),

The Governor trying to use it as a lesson in compromise was absurd. Saying the compromise was not discriminatory, but rather beneficial is astoundingly racist and he knows it. He used the Three‑Fifths Compromise not as a history lecture, but as a defensive talking point during the legislative battle over Indiana’s anti–DEI measure.

Southern slaveholders wanted to count their slaves to obtain congressional seats. This was not to give them rights, but to boost the power of the states that kept them in chains. The North said no, and they settled on 3/5 thing to limit that power grab. It was a deal to keep slavery in the system, not root it out. Did it help end slavery, or did it help preserve it? It obviously preserved the Satanic practice of slavery.

- Doc

[Molok]

The Democratic Party, since its inception in 1829, has opposed numerous significant civil rights initiatives and has a lengthy history of discrimination. The Democratic Party has a history that includes defending slavery, initiating the Civil War, opposing reconstruction efforts, founding the KKK, resisting segregation, engaging in lynching, and opposing the civil rights acts of the 1950s and 1960s.

Who are the racist?

Is that why you're a lifelong democrat and want to return the party to its roots, or have we abandoned that lore?

[Kishkumen]

Southern slaveholders wanted to count their slaves to obtain congressional seats. This was not to give them rights, but to boost the power of the states that kept them in chains. The North said no, and they settled on 3/5 thing to limit that power grab. It was a deal to keep slavery in the system, not root it out.

Precisely.

[Marcus]

Hound of Heaven's A.I. needs to catch up. This is an old meme that people who believe their A.I. instead of thinking for themselves are prone to repeating. How embarrassing for Hound of Heaven. He needs to take his A.I. to school, maybe they can both get an education. Or at least move forward half a decade or so.

Fact check: Democratic Party did not found the KKK, did not start the Civil War.
USA TODAY

The claim: The Democratic Party started the Civil War to preserve slavery and later the KKK

As America marks a month of protests against systemic racism and many people draw comparisons between current events and the Civil Rights Movement, an oversimplified trope about the Democratic Party’s racist past has been resurrected online...

Historians agree that although factions of the Democratic Party did majorly contribute to the Civil War's start and the KKK's founding, it is inaccurate to say the party is responsible for either...

This is not a new argument

Princeton University Edwards Professor of American History Tera Hunter told USA TODAY that this trope is a fallback argument used to discredit current Democratic Party policies.

“At the core of the effort to discredit the current Democratic Party is the refusal to accept the realignment of the party structure in the mid-20th century,” Hunt said.

In September, NPR host Shereen Marisol Maraji called the claim, “one of the most well-worn clapbacks in modern American politics.”

A similar meme...has been circulating on social media since November 2016.

“Who started the KKK? That was Democrats. Who was the party of slavery? Who was the part of Jim Crow and segregation? Who opposed the Civil Rights Movement? Who opposed voting rights? It was all the Democrats,” the meme reads.

Other posts making more specific claims about the Democratic Party starting the Civil War or founding the KKK continue to circulate.

This trope was rated false by PolitiFact and the Associated Press in October 2018.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fac ... 253803001/