Tea Party Groups Issue Demand for Revisionist History

So LJ, do you know what the intent of the 3/5's of a person?

The government/union controlled schools don't want anything about the constitution taught. I'm more of the "Lets teach history....warts and all".

RenegadeCJ wrote: The government/union controlled schools don't want anything about the constitution taught. .

Do you have some proof of that statement?

Why, yes...

The Three-Fifths compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the population of slaves would be counted for enumeration purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.

Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers. [So as to gain an advantage in slave-states to get additional congressmen] Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. The final compromise of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but increased it over the northern position.

The three-fifths compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:
“ 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.

Then why would you read the Amendment that repealed it? If, by your logic, the 18th wasn't "part of the Constitution", then why would you read an Amendment that repeals something that doesn't exist?

Are you really trying to claim that the Twenty-First Amendment is not part of the current Constitution?

Are you really suggesting that is what I said?

LJ's spin..good luck in getting an answer!

LadyJazzer wrote: No... Did you click on the link?

I love the part about: "....who brought liberty into a world where it hadn't existed, to everybody -- not all equally instantly --"

I guess they still don't want to talk about that pesky "3/5 of a person" rule, and the 14th Amendment... It's so embarrassing to have to acknowledge that...unless, of course, you're Glenn Beck, and then you just invent a new justification.

Ok, so we both understand why the north used it. Who doesn't want to talk about it? It was a brilliant move.

RenegadeCJ wrote: Who doesn't want to talk about it? It was a brilliant move.

Funny, I don't remember the issue of whether it was a "good idea" or not entering into the discussion. Who doesn't want to talk about it? Apparently the Republicans, who made sure it didn't get included during the reading.

LadyJazzer wrote:

RenegadeCJ wrote: Who doesn't want to talk about it? It was a brilliant move.

Funny, I don't remember the issue of whether it was a "good idea" or not entering into the discussion. Who doesn't want to talk about it? Apparently the Republicans, who made sure it didn't get included during the reading.

Missed that part...Yes, I totally agree. They should have read that part...very wimpy on their part.