Re: "Why the 3/5ths Compromise Was Anti-Slavery"
Walter Duerson <[email protected]> Mon, 29 Nov 2021 02:24:50 -0000 (UTC)
| Newsgroups | alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism,alt.atheism,alt.arguments,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.guns |
|---|---|
| Organization | dizum.com - The Internet Problem Provider |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 27 Nov 2021, Rudy Canoza <[email protected]> posted some news:[email protected]: > On 11/27/2021 1:14 PM, morbidly obese lying fat fuck Chadlee Bryant > lied: > >> On 27 Nov 2021, Rudy Canoza <[email protected]> posted some >> news:[email protected]: >> >>> On 7/20/2020 1:12 PM, David Hartung wrote: >>>> On 7/20/20 2:57 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>>> On 7/20/2020 12:54 PM, David Hartung wrote: >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/ >>>>> >>>>> No. The 3/5 compromise was *not* anti-slavery. Your subject >>>>> line is a lie. >>>>> >>>>> It gave the slavers something they didn't deserve. It was >>>>> pro-slavery. >>>> >>>> Would you rather that the slaves had been counted for >>>> representation, the slave states been given the additional power? >>> >>> They shouldn't have been slaves *at all*. Because they were, they >>> should not have been counted for representation to *any* degree. >>> >>> Of course, after the corrupt end of Reconstruction, when your >>> ancestors put Jim Crow into place and blacks were all but >>> disenfranchised, they counted fully for representation, and white >>> supremacists had far too much representation in Congress. >> >> Lying isn't going to change history. > > I didn't lie, you lying fat fuck. After the civil war ended, the > traitor states got *more* representatives because now the blacks all > counted for 5/5 of a person. But white supremacists — Hartung's > ancestors — didn't let blacks vote, so racist whites got *more* > representation than they had had under the 3/5 compromise. Let's set the record straight. You did lie and the Southern racists were Democrats.