Joke?
Not at all.
The ancestors of (present-day)
Dead-O-Heads have a loooooooooong history of taking-advantage of (self-perceived)
permission to do what they think is
required-behavior.
You might want to look at your history *****.....it was democrats do the acts that were in your little pictures and articles.
http://www.nationalblackrepublicans...s.DYK-KKK Terrorist Arm of the Democrat Party
Don't try this crap on me. I live in the south I see who continues to oppress the black population here and it's your party. You guys try to keep people down and dumb, because that's what it takes for you to win.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58295
The allusion is often employed to slight the Founding Fathers for their alleged defense of slave interests.
In truth, the "three-fifths" provision was proposed by Roger Sherman of Connecticut at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. It became part of a compromise that bridged the differences between the "Virginia Plan" that reflected the interests of the large states (Virginia, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania), which sought representation in two houses proportional to population, and the "New Jersey Plan" that called for a unicameral body with equal representation for each state, which smaller states favored.
In the course of deliberations, numerous Northerners argued that slaves should not be counted at all to determine a state's representation in Congress; many Southerners took the opposite view to increase their representatives. The compromise reached was to count only three-fifths of the number of slaves (referred to euphemistically as "other Persons") for representation and taxation. (Free persons and indentured servants were included in the totals; excluded were "Indians not taxed.")
In Vindicating the Founders, Thomas West writes that this "clause is often singled out today as a sign of black dehumanization: they are only three-fifths human. But the provision applied to slaves, not blacks. That meant that free blacks--and there were many, North as well as South--counted the same as whites. More important, the fact that slaves were counted at all was a concession to slave owners. Southerners would have been glad to count their slaves as whole persons. It was the Northerners who did not want them counted, for why should the South be rewarded with more representatives, the more slaves they held?"
I'm history major and I will have this debate all day. This bull crap that you guys spread is nothing more than a complete Lie. Of course that's what your party is based on so why should that be a surprise!