Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Hillary's historian refutes Sanders claim that this country is "created on racist principles". [View all]ieoeja
(9,748 posts)106. No, it does not even come close to saying they only count as 3/5th of a real human.
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.
That does not say that all other Persons are less "human". Even if I accept your way of looking it, I would say it then means 3 out of every 5 of them counted as full human beings, while the other 2 did not count. Which makes no sense, but I think it better fits your definition of the terminology.
It was the Slavers, not the anti-Slavery people, who wanted to count all Slaves rather only 3/5th of them. The anti-Slavery folk did not want them to count at all because they saw the hypocrisy of counting them.
One might suggest that this establishes a definitely racists criterion, since the majority of slaves were, after all, non-white.
To the best of my knowledge, all Slaves at that point were non-White. The clause specifically refers to indentured servants, and it slightly pisses me off when people try to lump indentured servant with slaves. Throughout his indenture, the Servant knows it is not forever. The Slave has no such hope. And, of course, the Master better not abuse the Servant too much because some day that man is going to be Free and probably the first thing he's doing is buying a gun and hunting your abusive ass down.
And, yes, I agree implies a racist criterion which is why the author of the article is wrong. The author hangs his hat on "implies" vs that "definitely".
What is interesting, to my mind, is that no one wanted to challenge the underlying principle of ownership of other persons, or the humanity of persons so owned.
Then I suggest you read the article. Cause while his opinions are sketchy, his facts seem okay. He points out that the pro-Slavery delegation wanted to include Slave ownership as a Constitutional right. But that the anti-Slavery refused to allow that. There were unquestionably ones who not only wanted, but actually did "challenge the underlying principle of ownership of other persons, or the humanity of persons so owned."
I can even add to what he wrote. Many, possibly most, of the delegates wanted to make Slavery unconstitutional on day one. When that failed, just as they included a sunset clause on the ban of regulating the overseas Slave trade, there was a big push to insert a sunset clause on Slave ownership altogether. If I remember my history correctly, South Carolina stood alone in their refusal to consider that possibilty.
Of course, South Carolina pretty much opposed the Revolutionary War altogether, surrendered in the first year of the war, ordered the Continental Army out of South Carolina, and spent the rest of the war supplying the Brits. We should have just said good riddance to them on the ground they not rejoin the Empire.
Personally, I think most of the people involved around the founding of our country (and for many years after) were white supremacists, in that while they may have had a few piddling qualms about chattel slavery, they had no thought that those enslaved were actually equal to them (except, of course, in the eyes of the Creator, which is a nice little way to dodge the question).
While undoubtedly true they pretty much at least largely had a noblese oblige way of looking at it in the beginning. The hypocrisy of the Revolution changed that. You don't get a whole lot of chatter about Africans being inferior prior to the Revolution. Writings on the inferiority concept becomes increasingly strident the further you move from the Revolution. They needed some way to justify the continuation of Slavery.
And American Slavery itself was most certainly not born out of racist views though it clearly became such. It was a continuation of the Feudal system where Plantations replaced Baronys and Slaves replaced Serfs. Show me a Confederate General and I'll show you the descendant of a Norman who followed William the Conqueror to England. Unlike the Anglo-Saxons up north who came to America to escape the British Empire, the Norman southerners came to expand the British Empire.
Britain could probably have ended the Revolution in a year had they offered noble titles to key plantation owners in the south. But that would have risked turning the American Revolution into a British Civil War. Also, King George III rivaled George the W when it came to stupid.
Yeah, I know. I got a bit off topic there.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
258 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Hillary's historian refutes Sanders claim that this country is "created on racist principles". [View all]
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
OP
I guess some people are willing to destroy their reputation for a politician.
beam me up scottie
Sep 2015
#57
No. They will appear on the right near the bottom of the article. You'll see a box
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#101
Even the founding fathers knew that slavery was a time bomb buried in the constitution.
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2015
#4
A gruesome response to anyone that doesn't think that this country isn't built on
erronis
Sep 2015
#109
well, technically it was a lot of LITTLER genocides, and often they just starved to death by
MisterP
Sep 2015
#81
No, it does not even come close to saying they only count as 3/5th of a real human.
ieoeja
Sep 2015
#106
My main beef with the article is the Mr. Welintz conflates country with Constitution.
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#82
"our country was founded on racist principles." - but what does really mean? That some of the
jonno99
Sep 2015
#90
One of the last? Your link appears to have the US somewhere in the middle. Not to mention
jonno99
Sep 2015
#173
To me that's the question of this thread. Racism's precedes capture and ownership. "Principles"
ancianita
Sep 2015
#224
"...attempting to judge the past by the present, ...is always a preposterous thing to do"
AlbertCat
Sep 2015
#92
Ok - but as codified by what specifially? This whole discussion is a little nebulas.
jonno99
Sep 2015
#132
Are you (or Bernie) referring to the "three fifths of all other Persons" language in article 1?
AlbertCat
Sep 2015
#139
I agree, and yet our jurisprudence is based on the words of the document - not the
jonno99
Sep 2015
#183
Both Washington and Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves and freed none during their lifetimes.
Nye Bevan
Sep 2015
#27
Can Hillary's lawyer explain why a slave could both not vote and only counted 3/5 th?
karynnj
Sep 2015
#28
So, Hillary's lawyer is on the wrong side of an argument made a century and a half ago?
karynnj
Sep 2015
#50
Slavery was NOT abolished until 1865 with the 13th Amendment. Are we going to ignore history. n/t
Skwmom
Sep 2015
#37
The only reason this matters to some is the supposed connection to Hillary...duh
randys1
Sep 2015
#40
Did I blame Hillary? Oh no I did not. I do hope someone asks her about it, though.
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#44
Because he advises her on historical issues and is sometimes referred as Hillary's Historian.
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#60
so Hillary's historian says, US not founded on racist principles, but Obama's campaign was?
virtualobserver
Sep 2015
#69
Their whole record belies any claim to any "fit into the arc of progression." Their record fits,
ancianita
Sep 2015
#146
People here are focused on criticizing DEMOCRATS, most of that is against Hillary.
randys1
Sep 2015
#65
I correct people all the time, problem is there is a 20-1 ratio of attacks on hillary.
randys1
Sep 2015
#247
I call bull shit, the OP does not threaten to NOT to vote if their candidate isn't the one
Autumn
Sep 2015
#252
And they still had to wait 56 more years after the 14th amendment for citizenship
jfern
Sep 2015
#156
The work of any historian, regardless of how respected he or she may be, is still subject
Maedhros
Sep 2015
#253
Don't make the mistake of assuming Hillary's supporters are arguing in good faith.
Maedhros
Sep 2015
#254
So, Hillary's historian denies the founding racism of this country, seemingly unaware ...
hedda_foil
Sep 2015
#73
It's an OpEd in the NYT by a Clinton advisor who claims that Bernie poisoning the current presidential
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#77
This is classic Clinton politics and he knows how to play the game.
beam me up scottie
Sep 2015
#119
Yeah, you joined right at the beginning and it's only going to get worse.
beam me up scottie
Sep 2015
#127
I understand his argument and that is not my main complaint. Bernie stated the COUNTRY
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#129
Please do. I can't anymore because I timed out on my 10 free monthly access to the Times.
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#151
Indeed. You are the new guy. Welcome and thanks for your every contribution.
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#211
He shilled for her in 2008 and accused Obama of deploying "racial politics":
beam me up scottie
Sep 2015
#112
"This country was founded by slave owners who wanted to be free." -George Carlin
Fearless
Sep 2015
#133
Are people going to claim that "3/5ths of a person" has nothing to do with racism?
jfern
Sep 2015
#141
No system of evil has "principles." Sanders just needs to lose that word. That's 17th Century l
ancianita
Sep 2015
#149
It means, in this context, the underlying foundation for a belief or behavior system.
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#160
Then we disagree on depravity, which is the basis of slavery, not "principles". "Foundation" is
ancianita
Sep 2015
#170
No. We disagree that a word can have more than one meaning. The members of the KKK
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#175
Like I said, there are no principles as the foundation of any evil system of bigotry/racism.
ancianita
Sep 2015
#184
Actually, Sanders and my definition is the first definition in every dictionary.
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#210
Definitions are living documents subject to change by thinking through words' ramifications.
ancianita
Sep 2015
#213
Oh I understand. I just think removing context and contracting meaning makes us less
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#216
To say that "foundation" and "principles" are synonymous muddles context and makes us unintelligent.
ancianita
Sep 2015
#218
I've not said that at all. The definition of principles has a foundation. That foundation is
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#230
The foundation of racism is fear, depravity and greed. Those are not principles. Principles are
ancianita
Sep 2015
#232
Like it our not, principles are the ideological foundation of both the odious and the sublime.
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#235
Thank you. If a word could have two different meanings, there wouldn't be need for different words,
ancianita
Sep 2015
#205
I understand that but I loathe disregarding context and the contraction of vocabulary.
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#207
Yes, it certainly does dictate context, particularly when one tries to rationalize the real world
ancianita
Sep 2015
#214
I also look to motives of those who strive to restrict language within narrow bounds.
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#221
This is where we are done. Enjoyed the conversation. Reject where's black Waldo.
Luminous Animal
Sep 2015
#228
That's beyond the scope of this thread. You could agree if you didn't distract yourself with that.
ancianita
Sep 2015
#202
Fair enough. But I'm on record as not putting anything past the language of status quo supporters.
ancianita
Sep 2015
#217
Fine. I got the history part. But I'm trying to deal with a candidate's use of language today.
ancianita
Sep 2015
#219
It is possible to support evil when one rationalizes the benefits of it by using exonerating words
ancianita
Sep 2015
#197
Changing language changes thinking. Language use is psycholinguistic training. It's crucial to seein
ancianita
Sep 2015
#208
Oh yes. No doubt. All kinds of astroturf uses of language...meet the new boss, same as the old boss
ancianita
Sep 2015
#225
Revisionist in the sense that he wants to rewrite history to fit a racist world view.
blackspade
Sep 2015
#241