Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Perd Hapley on January 25, 2011, 11:29:16 PM
-
The Constitution does not say that a black person is 3/5 of a person.
The Constitution does not say that a slave is 3/5 of a human being.
Been hearing that a lot, lately.
-
...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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_3:_Apportionment_of_Representatives_and_taxes
-
There you go spewing the truth. Racist. :angel:
-
The Constitution does not say that a black person is 3/5 of a person.
The Constitution does not say that a slave is 3/5 of a human being.
Been hearing that a lot, lately.
You insensitive lout. Off to duh-versity training for you.
-
The Constitution does not say that a black person is 3/5 of a person.
The Constitution does not say that a slave is 3/5 of a human being.
Been hearing that a lot, lately.
I don't understand what you're getting at, other than the 3/5 number related to representation and taxation, not any inherent quality/value/humanity or lack thereof in slaves.
The institution of slavery treated slaves as 0/5 of a human being. I'd say that's substantially worse than being treated as 3/5 of a human being.
-
The slave owners of the south wanted slaves counted as 1 for representation. Abolitionists wanted them counted as 0. The 3/5ths clause was a compromise.
Why, oh why, did abolitionists want them counted as 0? So that the south wouldn't carry as much clout and slavery could be ended quickly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise
Progressives bastardize history. Then they use the arguements they produce to control the discourse. They, of course, often lie.
-
Next he'll tell us the civil war was not about slavery. Jeesh! Where will it end?
-
"The constitution says that other persons (slaves) are 0/5 of a free person." Would you disagree with that stronger statement? It's less literal, and more accurate.
Jamis, I understand all that. The Constitution still literally says that other persons (slaves) are 3/5 of a person for representation and tax apportionment. Representation is such an integral part of democratic theory that I don't think it's an unforgivable sin to leave off that qualification.
-
"The constitution says that other persons (slaves) are 0/5 of a free person." Would you disagree with that stronger statement? It's less literal, and more accurate.
Jamis, I understand all that. The Constitution still literally says that other persons (slaves) are 3/5 of a person for representation and tax apportionment. Representation is such an integral part of democratic theory that I don't think it's an unforgivable sin to leave off that qualification.
Nonsense.
Being counted at a 3/5 rate makes you less represented in congress, but it doesn't make you less of a person. Not unless you believe that congressional representation is the sole factor defining personhood.
-
Jamis, I understand all that. The Constitution still literally says that other persons (slaves) are 3/5 of a person for representation and tax apportionment. Representation is such an integral part of democratic theory that I don't think it's an unforgivable sin to leave off that qualification.
Except that slaves weren't represented in Congress.
What the slave states wanted is having slaves counted for Congressional apportionment purposes, so that their masters could get more votes. Having slaves not count fully for those purposes was a result of abolitionist activity.
-
I don't think we disagree on anything except the degree of inaccuracy of the claims Fistful was complaining about.
-
You're hearing more of it because statists are preparing the ground for a public push on reparations.
-
You're hearing more of it because statists are preparing the ground for a public push on reparations.
No, usually it occurs when someone is being denigrated for wanting to return to the Constitution. "Oh, you want to go back to when black people were 3/5 of a person." Stuff like that.
Wouldyabelieve, Pandora just played "Half a Person," by The Smiths?
-
Tyme,
The first statement in the OP was about race. That was my primary point, and I hope you would agree with that one. My secondary point is likewise irrefutable, but your misunderstanding is quite, er, understandable.
The Constitution still literally says that other persons (slaves) are 3/5 of a person for representation and tax apportionment. Representation is such an integral part of democratic theory that I don't think it's an unforgivable sin to leave off that qualification.
What the Constitution literally said is that 3/5 of "all other persons" would be counted for representation and tax apportionment. To interpret this as a judgment on the person-hood of individuals is both misguided and beyond the scope of a literal reading. The passage does not say "non-persons" or "half-persons." It says "other persons," as distinct from free persons, indentured servants, or Indians not taxed. Speaking of Indians, they were only counted if they were taxed. By your reading, the Founders considered taxation as essential to person-hood. I guess that may be possible, but I've never heard of that.
http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2006/summer/indian-census.html
And if a lower rate of representation makes someone less of a person, how about voting? Is the age requirement for voting a denial of children's person-hood? Or did nineteenth-century Americans believe that women were not persons? Not that I am aware.
Edit: On second thought, I suppose it might be argued that coverture diminished women's person-hood in a legal sense, though not in everyday life. However, coverture was not unlike the current status of children, and we don't believe that children are less than full persons, even in a legal sense.
"The constitution says that other persons (slaves) are 0/5 of a free person." Would you disagree with that stronger statement? It's less literal, and more accurate.
Where does it say or imply this?
-
You're right, I absolutely agree about the race thing. The Constitution was interpreted to mean slaves were other persons, but nowhere does it actually define who qualifies as an "other person".
What the Constitution literally said is that 3/5 of "all other persons" would be counted for representation and tax apportionment. To interpret this as a judgment on the person-hood of individuals is both misguided and beyond the scope of a literal reading. The passage does not say "non-persons" or "half-persons." It says "other persons," as distinct from free persons, indentured servants, or Indians not taxed. Speaking of Indians, they were only counted if they were taxed. By your reading, the Founders considered taxation as essential to person-hood. I guess that may be possible, but I've never heard of that.
My first problem is the creation of two political categories of person: one free, one "other". Merely by creating that distinction, other persons are implicitly less than free.
Non-citizens are deprived of some freedom in this political system, since they're denied the right to vote and certain legal rights, but that's okay because they belong to a different political system. Indians not taxed, likewise, are non-citizens, beyond the scope of the U.S. political system; their lack of representation in the U.S. political system is due to their adherence to a separate political system, rather than a judgment by the government about their personhood.
And if a lower rate of representation makes someone less of a person, how about voting? Is the age requirement for voting a denial of children's person-hood? Or did nineteenth-century Americans believe that women were not persons? Not that I am aware.
In many ways children are not people. They cannot vote, they cannot make all their own choices, but just as felons can petition for restoration of rights, minors can request emancipation. And they become enfranchised automatically at the voting age.
Felons are stripped of legal rights of personhood through a hopefully equitable legal process, one in which they have equal standing (again, hopefully) as anyone else.
Free blacks and women inhabited a grey area: they were either by law or custom denied voting rights in many cases. However, they could avail themselves of the legal system to some degree; they were not formally considered property in all respects, except if they were married: that's more a condemnation of the historical nature of the institution of marriage than it is on the mores of the time.
So, Free Blacks and Women were more than 0/5 of a person, but less than 5/5. Putting a number on how free they are would be a subjective exercise in futility, and would vary depending on state and local laws and social standards. Women may have been worse off, because as far as I'm aware they were explicitly not permitted by law to vote, except in New Jersey for 1-2 decades if they were unmarried; in other respects, they were less than equitably treated, being denied property rights if they were married, for instance. But with Blacks their disenfranchisement was more a social standard, if I understand correctly, which I suppose dwindled in the North as the civil war approached. Free Black Women who were married must have been very low on the totem pole of legal equity, though, about as close to slaves as one could be.
Slaves, on the other hand, never achieved freedom automatically through adulthood, and were not stripped of their freedom through any equitable legal process. They could not vote or sue in court. Slaves were openly declared property by the courts. What else could the country have done to further reduce its estimation of slaves as human beings? I don't think there's anything more it could have done, thus slaves were effectively 0/5 of a person, as judged by the government.
They were no less inherently people because of their lack of political rights, but I disagree with your statement that "other person" status was not a judgment on the part of the nation: The United States judged them to be not-people in the only way it could: by denying them legal rights, in court, and by denying them political rights, at the polls. Without either one of those, all other rights, such as freedom of speech or the RKBA, were meaningless, because they could be, and were, deprived those rights arbitrarily, with no recourse.
I agree that the government cannot and does not make judgments about the inherent worth or sentience of individuals. It can pretend to, but all it can really do is grant them rights or not. By failing to grant those rights, I think it judged slaves to be non-humans.
-
The problem we all have, Tyme, with the argument about the 3/5th compromise, is not that we disagree that, at the time of the Framing, slaves (racism only really came into its own as a coherent ideology later), women, etc. were not equal. Everybody know that.
The problem we have is the belief, on part of some on the Left, that the Constitution, and other American founding documents, are somehow inherently racist in and of themselves. This holds two implications: one, that Constitutionalism and Originalism are inherently racist, and two, that America - as a country founded on these documents - is inherently sinful and racist.
-
My first problem is the creation of two political categories of person: one free, one "other". Merely by creating that distinction, other persons are implicitly less than free....
In many ways children are not people. They cannot vote, they cannot make all their own choices, but just as felons can petition for restoration of rights, minors can request emancipation. And they become enfranchised automatically at the voting age.
Felons are stripped of legal rights of personhood through a hopefully equitable legal process, one in which they have equal standing (again, hopefully) as anyone else....
So, Free Blacks and Women were more than 0/5 of a person, but less than 5/5. Putting a number on how free they are would be a subjective exercise in futility, and would vary depending on state and local laws and social standards.
So you seem to believe that being less free, having fewer (acknowledged) rights, or not being allowed to exercise your rights determines how much of a person one is. I don't agree with this idea, don't know where it comes from, and don't really know what to make of it. To say that, "in many ways children are not people," just doesn't make any sense to me. I don't know where you come by this idea.
Slaves, on the other hand, never achieved freedom automatically through adulthood, and were not stripped of their freedom through any equitable legal process. They could not vote or sue in court. Slaves were openly declared property by the courts. What else could the country have done to further reduce its estimation of slaves as human beings? I don't think there's anything more it could have done, thus slaves were effectively 0/5 of a person, as judged by the government.
They were no less inherently people because of their lack of political rights, but I disagree with your statement that "other person" status was not a judgment on the part of the nation: The United States judged them to be not-people in the only way it could: by denying them legal rights, in court, and by denying them political rights, at the polls. Without either one of those, all other rights, such as freedom of speech or the RKBA, were meaningless, because they could be, and were, deprived those rights arbitrarily, with no recourse.
I agree that the government cannot and does not make judgments about the inherent worth or sentience of individuals. It can pretend to, but all it can really do is grant them rights or not. By failing to grant those rights, I think it judged slaves to be non-humans.
I don't think I have any argument with any of that, but the Constitution didn't say those things, or create that situation. It didn't rule on who could vote or whether slaves would have the right to speak or bear arms, etc.
-
The problem we all have, Tyme, with the argument about the 3/5th compromise, is not that we disagree that, at the time of the Framing, slaves (racism only really came into its own as a coherent ideology later), women, etc. were not equal. Everybody know that.
The problem we have is the belief, on part of some on the Left, that the Constitution, and other American founding documents, are somehow inherently racist in and of themselves. This holds two implications: one, that Constitutionalism and Originalism are inherently racist, and two, that America - as a country founded on these documents - is inherently sinful and racist.
I think that sums it up right there.
-
The problem we have is the belief, on part of some on the Left, that the Constitution, and other American founding documents, are somehow inherently racist in and of themselves. This holds two implications: one, that Constitutionalism and Originalism are inherently racist, and two, that America - as a country founded on these documents - is inherently sinful and racist.
I even agree with you on that. As I recall I was dogpiled on a few years ago on TFL or THR for suggesting that in the wisdom of the times, "separate but equal" in e.g. Plessy v Ferguson did represent a form of equality.
Fistful, I thought I explained it fairly extensively. I did not say children weren't intrinsic persons, or that they weren't sentient. I said the State doesn't judge them as people in some respects, since they can't vote, do not have free exercise of will unrestricted by their parents, and can only in very limited circumstances avail themselves of the legal system.
but the Constitution didn't say those things, or create that situation. It didn't rule on who could vote
Not in so many words, but it did codify a distinction that would otherwise have existed only in custom, by distinguishing free persons from other persons, and by representing their political value at something less than 5/5 of a sovereign individual sentient being.
-
Not in so many words, but it did codify a distinction that would otherwise have existed only in custom, by distinguishing free persons from other persons, and by representing their political value at something less than 5/5 of a sovereign individual sentient being.
No, it would have then been codified in state law (and been treated different by different states) and been harder to remove. Determining representation in Congress is hardly something the Constitution could ignore.
I am also curious how you come by the notion that a "person" is defined by their ability to exercise rights and privileges.
-
Oops! Never mind!
-
Fistful, I thought I explained it fairly extensively. I did not say children weren't intrinsic persons, or that they weren't sentient. I said the State doesn't judge them as people in some respects, since they can't vote, do not have free exercise of will unrestricted by their parents, and can only in very limited circumstances avail themselves of the legal system.
I guess I would have to know where you came by the idea that voting or exercising freedoms indicates a degree of person-hood, even legally. Why would the law (unless it were a very bad sort of law) strip people of any degree of person-hood, or why should we accept a legal system that makes some people less of a person than others, even if it were just a legal definition? (I'm assuming you're not entirely opposed to some un-personing measures, such as punishing criminals, or barring five-year-olds from making solo airplane flights.)
Why not simply say that some persons are free persons, some are adult persons, some are minor persons, some are "bound to service," etc. That is how the authors of the Constitution put it, and I don't recall them using the concept of person-hood in the same way that you do. To accept your view, I'd need to see that the Founders thought of it in that way.
Not in so many words, but it did codify a distinction that would otherwise have existed only in custom, by distinguishing free persons from other persons, and by representing their political value at something less than 5/5 of a sovereign individual sentient being.
Then at the very least, you would have to reconsider your statement that "the constitution says that other persons (slaves) are 0/5 of a free person" is "more accurate." Even if the 3/5 clause were an attack on individual person-hood, it amounted to a 3/5 reduction in (theoretical) Congressional representation, that would reduce the political clout of slave-owning elites. That's not an actual three-fifths reduction in person-hood (there being many other factors involved), whether on a legal or social basis. It is certainly not 0/5.
The 0/5 evaluation existed in reality, in custom, and in the laws of the extant state governments; and the state governments were much more important in determining individual rights or the person-hood of slaves. To give the U.S. Constitution too strong a role in that, is to credit it with a much more active role in the rights of individual citizens than it enjoyed at the time. The extant states had already established rules about citizenship, voting, and individual liberties. Even the Bill of Rights protections that came along after ratification were meant to protect the individual from the national, not the state, government. At least, that is my understanding of 18th-century political ideology and Constitutional history (especially the Fourteenth Amendment).
-
I take exception to Fistful's argument. Mostly because Fistful describes opposition to age restrictions in terms of toddler solo-airplane-flights.
-
OK. ???
-
Next he'll tell us the civil war was not about slavery. Jeesh! Where will it end?
Slavery was, unquestionably, one of the major issues over which the civil war was waged.
-
Progressives bastardize history. Then they use the arguements they produce to control the discourse. They, of course, often always lie.
FTFY