Beck Defends Founding Fathers’ Decision To Count African-Americans As Three-Fifths Of A Person
Beck Defends Founding Fathers’ Decision To Count African-Americans As Three-Fifths Of A Person
On his radio show today, an African-American caller questioned Glenn Beck’s deification of the Founding Fathers by bringing up the fact that the Constitution “didn’t even recognize my people as even human.” The caller was referring to the three-fifths clause — a provision which counted slaves as three-fifths of a person for purposes of congressional representation and taxation. Beck hit back with a full-throated defense of the three-fifths law, saying it was actually an abolitionist provision:
CALLER: I notice you reference the founding fathers a lot, and to me it’s kind of offensive because most of those guys were slave owners, the Constitution that they wrote up — they didn’t even recognize my people as even human. [...]
BECK: That is a common misconception. … Do you know who wanted slaves to be counted as a full person? … Slave owners. … The reason why they wanted that is because of the balance of power. The South could control the numbers in Congress. Their representation would go through the roof. … That’s why, in the Constitution, African-Americans were deemed three-fifths people, because the Founders wanted to end slavery and they knew if the South could count slaves as full individuals you would never get the control to be able to abolish it.
Listen here:
This is another example of Beck distorting history to fit his contemporary agenda. Beck paints a picture of infallible Founders fighting evil Southerners who want to keep their slaves. The problem with this is, of course, is that many of the Founders were from the South and about half of the Constitution’s framers — including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson — owned slaves.
Beck also distorts the motives of the Founders to whitewash their actions by suggesting that Northerners allowed the three-fifths rule purely as an eventual means to ending slavery. But his theory doesn’t explain why the Constitution prohibited outlawing the Atlantic slave trade for twenty years after ratification nor why it included a clause requiring runaway slaves be returned to their owners.
And Beck ignores other serious injustices of the Founders, such as the disenfranchisement of women. The Founding Fathers existed in a different time with different norms that excused discrimination. But Beck cannot be excused for his defense of a law that allowed slavery to persist for decades. Beck’s other previous racially-charged comments have cause him to lose 92 sponsors.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Stupid knows no bounds.
December 15th, 2009 at 2:46 pm“Beck distorting history . .”
I don’t even understand what the h*ll he said . .
Is it just me?
December 15th, 2009 at 2:46 pmFREE DUMB
December 15th, 2009 at 2:47 pmIgnoring the historical inaccuracies for a moment…
Doesn’t Beck’s argument necessitate his acceptance of the Constitution as a ‘living, breathing’ document susceptible to change?
I mean, isn’t he saying that the Founder’s clever plan all along was that following generations would change the Constitution to bring it in line with evolving community standards?
December 15th, 2009 at 2:50 pmThis is flagrant abuse of the First Amendment. Everything that comes out of this bastard’s mouth is just horrendous.
December 15th, 2009 at 2:51 pmI can’t understand how Beck still has a job. He is a paranoid, race-baiting, conspiricy concocting twit. And his fans are exactly like him. And I thought ‘Dittoheads’ were bad.
December 15th, 2009 at 2:52 pmI count Glen Beck as 0/5s of a person.
December 15th, 2009 at 2:53 pmWell i have said this before and it still seems to fit
If (place name, troll here) brains were fuel, he would not have enough fuel to power a pissants motorcycle to do a figure eight inside a cheerio hole.
December 15th, 2009 at 2:57 pmP.D.
By accident or design, Becky serves the precise purpose that Rupert and Roger intended. He keeps the ignorant fools confused and outraged.
December 15th, 2009 at 2:59 pmIn only two hundred and twenty-seven years, America has descended from being a beacon of liberty to being the home for a sound machine for stupidity, racism, fascism, corporate greed and imperialism. Heck of a job, Faux Noise…
O/T: You’ve got fascism! The Senate corporate Democrats labored mightily and produced a mouse turd for us for Christmas. No single payer: “off the table” – Baucus, No public option: blue dogs, No reconsialation (sic) – Reid. No nuthin’ -Emanuel, Reid, Obama. Just the fascistic plan to force 30,000,000 American to have to purchase “health insurance” from unregulated greedy private corporations. Heck of a job, one and all.
O/T:
Believe it or not: 495 al-Queda operatives have completely surrounded 150,000 US troops, German troops, Canadian troops, other NATO troops, US mercenaries and miscellaneous Hessians in Pipelineistan.
Under Pres.Bush: US imperialism abroad, corporatism at home.
December 15th, 2009 at 2:59 pmUnder Pres.Obama: US imperialism abroad, corporatism at home.
Change you can believe in!
.
Nppe. Not (R)acist one bit…
… Dehumanizing human beings based on their race.
.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:00 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Nothing Beck or any of the far right-wingers say amazes me.
Being AA myself, I’ve known people like him all of my life. I look over them because they’re hooked on stupid. Nothing will ever cause them to change their attitude.
I also look upon it as their loss. I know who/what I am and don’t need them to validate my existence, and besides, I’m smarter than Beck and a lot of the rest of the haters, and I know this, thus they are irrelevant.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:03 pmpete@ I guess. But think how many people are turned off. Women, minorities and just about everyone who isn’t a older, white man. Faux News used to be more subtle, now they have crossed the border into a Paranoia State.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:03 pmApparently Becksturbator is only 3/5 worthy of corporate sponsors.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:03 pmAdd to the long list of things that Beck knows nothing about:
Historical population distribution.
Newsflash: The North is, was, and probably always will be, more populated than the South. Even if they had counted slaves as a whole person, the North would still have had control of the House based on population alone.
Of course, everything that he just said is completely negated by the very presence of a Senate, which is NOT representative of the population in any way, shape, or form.
I don’t know how many times a day I find myself saying this, but I’ve yet to be wrong, so I guess it’s time to say it again – Glenn Beck is a fcuking moron.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:05 pmThough it makes me sick to think I would in anyway support Beck’s “argument” I’d like to point out that Jefferson, for one, had nothing to do with the Constitution. He was Ambassador to France at the time and totally absent from the Constitutional Congress. He had no hand in drafting the Constitution. Perhaps he voiced his opinions and recommendations to colleagues in letters but I’m pretty sure he had nothing to do with writing it. I’m also pretty sure Glen Beck doesn’t know that because he is a clown with Howard Beale delusions.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:05 pmOf course the salve owners wanted their slaves to be counted as full people — for the purposes of representation ONLY.
The slaves couldn’t vote, of course, but there were proposals that would allow the slave owner to cast as many votes as he held slaves.
The 3/5 compromise was necessary to get the slave states to sign the Constitution, but it effectively sealed political control of the nation until the Civil War. Four of the first five presidents were from Virginia. Not a coincidence.
Jefferson would not have beaten John Adams in 1800 were it not for the extra electoral votes that the slave population added to southern states in the electoral college.
The Speaker of the House was a southerner for all but seven years between 1801 and 1845, despite the South perennially having far smaller populations than northern states.
Beck is an idiot.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:06 pmGot it. Every member of the Virginia Dynasty (aka the POTUS for 32 of the first 36 years of the Constitutional era)was a slave owner — yet Washington, who presided over the convention and Madison, who wrote so much of the document that he became known as “father of the constitution” wanted to diminish the voting power of the southern states and thus threaten their own electoral ambitions so they could end slavery — someday.
Anyone who buys that load of crap also thinks Jeebus was an American (yes I do think Beck’s listeners are that stupid).
December 15th, 2009 at 3:07 pmsad thing is a lot of idjits listen to Beckkk and believe everything he says. that’s what the dwindling of support for public school education by the GOP has done.
sigh. i wish we had a better educated populace.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:08 pmThe founders have 3/5ths in the constitution so they could please the southern representatives who were claiming it would be unfair to not count slaves as a part of the population since they had to be provided for.
Which is not even slightly the same as saying that they wanted them counted so they would have control of the House. You claim he is correct, then with your own words prove that he is not.
I guess Beck isn’t the only idiot we’ll have to deal with today. So it the moron that wants to go back to the time when black folk were free labor and women were to be seen (in the kitchen) and not heard. Careful here, lads, we’ve got a true prodigy on our hands with this one.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:08 pmBeckerhead racist? Doesn’t surprise me. I’ve been told he’s also a rapist and murderer.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:08 pmThe slaves were given 3/5ths so that Southern states would have more representation in Congress. Without the slaves being counted, the southern states would have a lot fewer representatives in the House. The clause has nothing to do with the elimination of slavery.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:10 pmBeck’s response was a non-response, as usual. Like his ‘Obama has a deep hatred of white people.” And the next statement, “I don’t think he is a racist.” Beck likes to have it both ways to justify his own positions. I think he needs to up his medication.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:11 pmOne word: stupideous
December 15th, 2009 at 3:12 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
This is good. Let them get all their racism right out in the open so we can point it out to the rest of America.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:13 pmGB does know this however
Glenn Beck doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground and if you think he does, then you’re a bigger idiot than he is. He himself has said “don’t trust a word I say” and “I’m just a clown.”
What a brilliant person you must be for swallowing every word that comes out of his idiotic mouth.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:14 pmYeah, if the South hadn’t pulled all their hissy fits, then perhaps we wouldn’t have HAD that 3/5ths clause…
Seems like the South would always pull those fits, if the North didn’t do this, we’ll secede…Lincoln saw where this was going and demanded that the Republicans after his election stand firm., otherwise, it would mean perpetual warfare between the United States and every peoples from the U.S. to Tierra del Fuego…
Fast forward to today and every time Republicans and Joe Lieberman throw a hissy fit, the Democrats quiver in fear and surrender. Imagine if Lincoln was like the Democrats today…we would have two nations and the South might still have slavery…
December 15th, 2009 at 3:14 pmpags2 says:
The slaves were given 3/5ths so that Southern states would have more representation in Congress. Without the slaves being counted, the southern states would have a lot fewer representatives in the House.
Absolutely. The notion that the opposing position would be counting slaves as a full person, rather than not counting them at all, is laughable. If you aren’t a citizen, then you shouldn’t be counted as one. I’m sure that was just as obvious then as now.
Not counting slaves as citizens at all in the census would have weakened the Southern states so much that slavery could have been abolished much earlier, quite possibly without having to have a war over it.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:15 pmI wish I lived in an alternate reality. Mine would be much more pleasant than this one.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:15 pmAs an African-American woman, I would very much like to punch Glen Beck right in the neck. Ok, evil thoughs over….
December 15th, 2009 at 3:16 pm@32. I think any other reality would be better than the one we have to endure.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:17 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
The gift baskets Beck is sending out this year will contain whiskey, defective firearms, and smallpox-infested blankets…
…to honor the vision of those who built this great republic.
Enjoy, Beckerheads! (when the pox start t’itchin’, just apply the whiskey)
December 15th, 2009 at 3:19 pm@33. Your restraint does you credit, I would very much like to break his jaws as a start, and I’m white.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:19 pmBECK: Do you know who wanted slaves to be counted as a full person? … Slave owners. … The reason why they wanted that is because of the balance of power. The South could control the numbers in Congress. Their representation would go through the roof. …
And with slave-owners able to dominate Congress through the counting of their property (slaves) as a qualification for representation, slave owners could then guarantee the continuation of slavery.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:20 pmThere should be no arguments here.
Slavery, in itself, was a violation. It was wrong of the original colonists and Founding Fathers to implement slavery. It was wrong to exploit their representation without freedom.
End of argument.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:25 pmI think of Mormons as polygamous non-christian pagans.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:26 pm@37 Their racism has been leaking out since the primaries, then turned to full throttle since President Obama was sworn in. I predict that the “N” word will start to be used on Faux by the end of February 2010. I hope they do, I really hope they do….maybe then African-American Conservatives (an oxymoron in more ways than one) will actually start to feel some shame about themselves.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:27 pmAt the Media Matters link in the update, I found this lovely phrase from Blech;
“How many times have you argued with your idiot friends about what’s constitutional and what isn’t? You may even show them the Constitution, but the disagreement continues. That made me think that maybe the problem is that the entire Constitution is written in English — a language that is very difficult for the average idiot to comprehend. In addition, there are several words in the document longer than three letters …”
There it is, the problem stated, in a nutshell. Blech, being a non-congenital cretin, a mediawhore with no experience of reality outside a radio or television studio, a below average student of anything you care to name, and very definitely a below average idiot, can’t understand the language the Constitution is written in.
So what does he do? Try to learn enough to understand it? No, he tries to rewrite it, just as he’d rewrite a script, a radio-TV script (if he knew how to do scriptwriting), in words that he finds agreeable. Of course, being unacquainted with either history or reality, he misinterprets everything in sight, skipping the larger words.
All that can be done is to declare Blech king. Then declare regicide to be the national sport.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:27 pmYou mean of course the republicans that used to pretend to be democrats.
Still, who is it that is the racist today my friend? Inconvenient truth?
You are a racist and you have shown that you are very proud of it.
It will end you.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:28 pmGlenn Beck isn’t even 3/5ths of a civilized human being himself.
Is there a clause in the Constitution about him?
December 15th, 2009 at 3:30 pmMormons like Beck and Romney have no use for mud people, who are not going to heaven anyway, according to their Book of Mormon.
So much of the hostility toward President Obama comes from conservative repiggies who are Mormons.
The more I hear of what “religious” people are thinking and doing, the more I am thrilled that I walked away from all that stuff years ago.
I still esteem the teachings of Jesus, and I admire the way he moved lovingly through the ranks of the poor, the ill and the outcast.
Today’s “Christians” make a mockery of his love and his decency.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:32 pm@42. What I can’t understand is what their issue is. Skin color, much like gender, religion, creed, and so on are all superficial issues. There is not a single human being on the planet whose blood is not red. why people feel compelled to waste their time passing judgement on something like skin color boggles my mind.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:32 pm@45, Your are a racist pig.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:33 pmThis must be the part where the conservative trolls try to misdirect people by falsely ascribing the racist behavior of pre-Southern Strategy conservatives to the liberal and moderate Democrats of today.
After the Southern Strategy, the GOP ended up with the conservative racists.
“By the ’70s and into the ’80s and ’90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out,” Mehlman says in his prepared text. “Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.”
December 15th, 2009 at 3:34 pmThere you go. We can attribute PTSF’s problems to possible drug use.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:36 pmPost 45 has been flagged and reported for racist inflamatory trolling. Please do the same.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:37 pmPlease include post 52 in your abuse report. If a pattern of abuse is established it might get banned.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:39 pmFlag the troll immediately.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:39 pmFlagged them both. Damn trolls.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:41 pmBeck: “That’s why, in the Constitution, African-Americans were deemed three-fifths people, because the Founders wanted to end slavery and they knew if the South could count slaves as full individuals you would never get the control to be able to abolish it.”
BUT if they had counted slaves as whole people, AND IF THEY HAD THE GODDAMNED VOTE, then the slaves would have voted for any candidate that supported an end to slavery!
OR, if the FF’s had NOT COUNTED SLAVES AT ALL, then the Slave -owners would have had LESS REPRESENTATION in Congress, thus making it more difficult over time for slavery to continue.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:41 pmDoes that really work for you, aaronk?
Does it really help you feel better about the inherent racism in the conservative movement to point out the racist past of conservative Democrats in the south?
December 15th, 2009 at 3:43 pmIgnore Fuzzy Slippers, it lied about serving in Vietnam on the “top Commander: Afghan Timeline…” thread earlier today. Fuzzy is the worst kind of troll. He insults those who did served and he cheapens the sacrifice of those who died serving. To hell with fuzzy!
December 15th, 2009 at 3:43 pmOff-topic, but I seem to have the ability to vote down multiple times, however I can only vote up once.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:44 pmBREAKING Oral Roberts died. He was 91.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:44 pmalso post 52
December 15th, 2009 at 3:45 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
USNclerk says:
Off-topic, but I seem to have the ability to vote down multiple times, however I can only vote up once.
You’ve been granted a special and super power my son, use it wisely. Let us call you “Trolloff Man”!
December 15th, 2009 at 3:46 pmMan, and now it’s drizzling in here.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:46 pmHmmm. It occurs to me that if the Mormon sect had been around when the founders were – they might have decided that Mormons were only 3/5th’s of a person.
But hey, it’s enough to state that Glenn Beckkk has only 3/5ths of a normal person’s IQ – on a good day.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:47 pmrestoretheconstitution says:
smidget, beck is correct and the southern appeasement is correct. 3/5ths was a compromise in order to allow representatives for the population
You know what, I’m going to concede that point. The Southern states were pushing for fully counting slaves, the Northern states were pushing for not counting slaves, so they compromised at the 3/5 formula that had previously used to determine the wealth of each state per the Articles of Confederation.
I would however, submit that such a “compromise” would constitute a degree of capitulation to evil that makes today’s Democratic Senate majority look like stalwart heroes in comparison.
.
FVNY says:
Yes, because there is no history of racism in the Democratic Party!
Thanks for using the “ic,” FVNY.
The Democratic party has renounced its admitted history of racism and has since been working to ensure civil and human rights for all. The Republican party has since started pandering to racists and opposing measures which help to guarantee equality of opportunity.
Rather than complain about our past, why doesn’t your party reverse course as well?
December 15th, 2009 at 3:48 pmThank you for assuming that Democrats now would be Democrats in 1866, STORM.
Wow. And here I was ready to invent a time machine so that I could vote Democrat in 1866.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:48 pmSTORMfront, a lot’s happened since 1866. Please read my comment above about the Southern Strategy.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:48 pmI find it pathetic that stormy doesn’t know who was conservatives and who was progressives in the time he mentions.
Anyone else see him as a child left behind?
December 15th, 2009 at 3:48 pmMan, how weak does your position have to be for you to be forced to reach back 143 years for something good to say about your party?
Hey, STORMfront — progressives were the abolitionists!
December 15th, 2009 at 3:50 pmIt’s an all-to-common misconception that you can get an accurate picture of anything, especially the Founders, from Glenn Beck
December 15th, 2009 at 3:50 pmmultilee says:
@37 Their racism has been leaking out since the primaries, then turned to full throttle since President Obama was sworn in. I predict that the “N” word will start to be used on Faux by the end of February 2010. I hope they do, I really hope they do….maybe then African-American Conservatives (an oxymoron in more ways than one) will actually start to feel some shame about themselves.
I have no doubt that they use the ‘n’ word regularly when they are talking among themselves. And I’d bet the farm that rethugs like Joe Wilson have used it when talking about Obama in the privacy of their homes or offices. It lets them be racists while denying it vehemently.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:51 pm@65. Thank for the new honorific. As such, with the exception of Fuzzy who seems to be sort of attempting debate, shall we just ignore the other trolls? I see no point in arguing with them further, all we’ll get is blood-boiling racism and inane blather about whatever they can think of airballing.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:51 pmIt is erroneous, as the author of this article asserts, to say that “the three-fifths clause [is]a provision which counted slaves as three-fifths of a person for purposes of congressional representation and taxation.”
The text of the Constitution is clear:
The Founding Fathers did not reduce human beings to “three-fifths of a person,” but set the formula for determining representation to include only three-fifths of the whole number of slaves. The framers just as easily could have written “sixty per cent of all other persons.”
December 15th, 2009 at 3:52 pmI think Glenn Beck is an idiot also but here is wiki about 3/5’s compromise
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise
December 15th, 2009 at 3:53 pmMust have been a slip-up. He’ll get a talking-to at Troll Central after his shift ends.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:53 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
81 flagged.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:55 pmDo you know who wanted slaves to be counted as a full person? … Slave owners, he says.
Hmmm….. I know another group: the slaves.
He obviously didn’t count them as any fifths of a person.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:56 pmYou guys want to see some magic?
I’m going to wave my hands and make PTSF disappear.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:57 pmOh, much better, STORMfront. You only had to reach back 45 years this time.
Good for you.
Tell me, STORMy, to what do you attribute the GOP’s abject failure to garner even 10% of the African American vote in national elections? I mean, since they were so good to black folks 45 years ago?
December 15th, 2009 at 3:57 pm@85. Please do. I’m in danger of trying to throttle the nasty little bigot through my computer monitor.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:58 pmNow that’s just a lie.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:58 pmOnly if it’s a first offense. After that, Troll Central goes right to taking away their Cheetos privileges. Strict but they have to enforce discipline somehow.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:58 pmHey all, not sure if our antagonist has been namejacked, or it’s trying to rile us up, or that it truly believes what it posts.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:59 pmThat said, I would seriously recommend we flag report and IGNORE the mucking racist foron!!!
guess stormy never heard of George Wallace, eh?
December 15th, 2009 at 3:59 pm81 flagged & reported for blatant racism.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:01 pmDRxJ, I thought at first that the troll was name-jacked, but then it struck me that perhaps it was taking advantage of the recent charges of name-jacking to free up his rhetoric to align better with his own true feelings, confident that it could be then blamed on a name-jacker.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:03 pmstormy has flown two false flags this morning and been shot down both times.
You would think that they would take a class so that if they were going to lie about history that they would at least know what they were saying.
It seems obvious that they don’t know much.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:04 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Hey, STORM.
How about asking us NOW about civil rights?
How many Republicans and Democrats do you think will defend civil rights now?
December 15th, 2009 at 4:06 pmGo away fuzzy, you’re a liar and a coward.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:07 pmI love it.
Absolutely love it.
The sht flinging Baboon digs in its hooves and the racist and ignorant trolls follow.
It is going to be even more wonderful next year when the Baboon further splits the already incoherent gNOpigs.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:12 pmtroll:
Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)
As you can see, it was southerners who voted against it. Some were democrats in name only, like some we have today.
Stop pretending that republicans aren’t racists. They are.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:12 pmNo, Fred, I have to admit that STORMfront is correct on those figures.
However, if you’ll check the brerakdown on the wiki oage to which STORMfront linked, you’ll find the following:
Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)
So if you break down the measure by party and region, it’s pretty easy to see that Northern Democrats (which became pretty much the Democratic Party of today) voted overwhelmingly in favor of the measure.
Southern Democrats (and southern Republicans, too) voted overwhelmingly against the measure. Because at the time the Democrats held more seats in the South, the party vote is unflattering. However, it must be admitted that, since the Republican Party is basically a monolith now in the South, should a similar vote take place today, the partisan picture would be reversed.
STORM? You agree?
December 15th, 2009 at 4:13 pmSTORM says:
82% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 versus only 64% of Democrats.
Now kindly summarize the current Republican position on affirmative action, STORM.
.
Fred ♪♫♪ says:
Now that’s just a lie.
Actually he was fairly close:
Not that that excuses the racism of the Republican party ever since then.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:14 pmInteresting… so the Democrats “just changed their stance on the race issue because they realized it was a losing battle”, huh?
Why did the Republicans make the opposite calculation?
Do you discount the historical evidence that says that conservative southern Democrats simply abandoned the party and became Republicans once Richard Nixon employed his Southern Strategy? I think that explains the demographic shift a whole lot more completely than “the Democrats just changed their stance on the race issue because they realized it was a losing battle”.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:17 pmgrowaspine says:
Not all Republicans are like Peace Through Superior Firepower, most are very friendly toward black people. And there are so many Africa-American Republicans these days you can’t count that high. They realized that the Democrat party is not there friend.
Exit polling and party registration figures dispute your contention.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:21 pmThat’s very funny. Not at all true, but very funny.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:21 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Slightly off topic:
If I understand the system, a “namejacker” is only able to use the exact same spelling if the original is not logged in. For instance; if I’m logged in as “pete”, a namejacker would have to spell it “Pete”. SO? unless our pet stupid trolls are logging out between posts, to post under another identity perhaps, it would be impossible for anyone to assume their name.
As for “flagging”. It’s become apparent that TP doesn’t devote the resources to watch for “flags”. They have more important things to do and I can’t really blame them. On the other hand, I have been assured that emails to the staff will get attention.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:23 pmFVNY… how does Beck’s argument that the Founders had a clever plan to get rid of slavery down the line jibe with his insistence that the Constitution should be interpreted as closely as possibly to the way it was interpreted at the time of its writing?
Thanks.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:23 pmSTORMfront, your figures have been confirmed.
What say you to the regional breakdown of the votes, which lead one to suspect that if a similar vote were taken today, the partisan picture would be reversed?
Any response to that?
December 15th, 2009 at 4:23 pmNo, and I’m used to you lying about everything so imagine my surprise.
I can admit it if you take it in black and white which the right always does.
The fact remains that it was and still is a south/north issue for the most part. You can’t deny that.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:24 pm“African-Americans were deemed three-fifths people, because the Founders wanted to end slavery and they knew if the South could count slaves as full individuals you would never get the control to be able to abolish it.”
Now that’s an interesting idea.
I know some of the founders were abolitionists and I wouldn’t be surprised to find out some of them had this in mind.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:26 pm106
That was the sound of a half intelligent redneck racist putting his chevy in reverse trying to get out of the pig sty.
With Michael Steele under the truck.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:26 pmYep. There are so many minorities in the GOP that they have to add non-Caucasian faces with photoshop to demonstrate their “great diversity”.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:27 pmNo, it isn’t. It’;s pretty much exactly the same thing, since the source of any “institutional racism” was entrenched in the very white southern conservatives that Nixon courted as a means to win the White House in 1968.
Nice try at moving the goal posts, but you claimed that “the Democrats just changed their stance on the race issue because they realized it was a losing battle” as a way to explain the shift in minority relations and representation. that seemed to me to be a rather facile, even silly, way to account for a fairly complex demographic shift in the nation’s political landscape. So I offered a competing and, to me more likely explanation for the change.
i didn’t realize that when I did so I was subconsciously also making the claim you attributed to me above.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:30 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Glenda and the teabagging hicks have 1/5 the intelligence of pro-Americans/Democrats.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:36 pmGbLuElNlNsBhEiCtK
December 15th, 2009 at 4:39 pmFuzzy Slippers™ A Solid B+ says:
And in the future you will address me as Sir. Got it boot?
In the name of my most Royal Majesty, I knight thee.
Arise, Sir Loin of Beef.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:41 pmArise, Earl of Cloves.
Arise, Duke of Brittingham.
Arise, Baron of Munchausen.
Arise, Essence of Myrrh, Milk of Magnesia, Quarter of Ten.
Boy that whole “Supreme Court of the United States” thing must be a hassle for you guys, huh?
December 15th, 2009 at 4:41 pmBeck needs a new life. A new brain. The one he has is driving him nuts.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:42 pmWherever you copied-and-pasted that Three Icons thing from, the formatting made it unreadable on my Mac.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:43 pmMurdoch loves his golden goose. Murdoch is more to blame – Beck just has bi-polar disease. Murdoch is a arch villain and nobody talks about that.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:45 pmScalia disagrees with Beck… where does that leave Beck’s ‘original intent’ argument?
Huh, kinda falls flat on its face, huh?
Does the 14th Amendment protect women as equal citizens in your view? Why was the 19th amendment necessary then, or was it? Was Brown v. Board of Education properly decided?
December 15th, 2009 at 4:47 pmSo who’s correct about the Constitution, FVNY?
Beck or Scalia?
Hint… it’s a trick question… they’re both wrong.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:49 pmBeck is 1/5 a toad, and we really do not care.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:53 pmBeck- racist, violence promoter, hate promoter. His own words prove it over & over. He tries to deny it, but his out of control rants, smears, & lies are on record, and show him to be the horrible, dishonest, hateful man he is. Although “man” may be pushing it, given his utter childishness & temper tantrums.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:56 pmOh, I see… we’re now beholden to prove what others infer from our words, eh? Well, then how about you first “prove” your stated contention that “the Democrats just changed their stance on the race issue because they realized it was a losing battle” ? After all, you didn’t even imply it — you just came right out and said it. So if you’re challenging me to prove something you say I insinuated, then you really need to prove first your original claim.
but that aside, do you dispute that once Democratic presidents Kennedy and Johnson pushed for and enacted Civil Rights legislation, that conservative southern Democrats left that party in droves and gave Richard Nixon his winning edge in 1968?
And that those conservative southerners became the base for a Republican domination of the South that continues today?
Is this something you dispute?
December 15th, 2009 at 4:57 pmLee Atwater already described the specific ways they did it in a 1981 interview, FVNY:
December 15th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
On the subject of which party is racist, let me submit this to all of you:
Which party supports a program that assumes blacks are 20 points dumber than whites on tests?
Which party declined to institute individual retirement accounts instead of Social Security, thus effectively having black males (who die earlier than any other demographic group) work their entire lives paying into a system that will eventually be paid to old white women? Of course, this system keeps black families from accumulating inherited wealth, so they will stay poor and democrats.
Which party refuses to allow inner-city children in Washington D.C., Baltimore, Detroit and other metropolitan areas receive vouchers for a decent education? D.C. spends $25,000 per year per pupil (the tuition of Sidwell Friends), but leaves over 80% of the students incapable of reading at an 8th grade level.
Which party refused to even come to the table on individual health care accounts? Because democrats refuse to believe blacks can manage their own healthcare decisions, they are trying to force government run medical services to eliminate any vestige of dignity from the process.
No, liberals, this is not a subject you want to talk about.
Hang your collective heads in shame at the lives you are ruining.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:57 pmThanks, Marie Memphis. You’re a step ahead of me.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:58 pmWell the 14th was certainly not generally understood to refer to women at the time of its writing… some judge decided it did… weird, huh?
December 15th, 2009 at 4:59 pmAnd Belac, good to know you’ve got my back.
not that aaronk is ever a threat to land a punch, but still…
December 15th, 2009 at 4:59 pmjwest says:
Did you wanna talk about Lee Atwater?
December 15th, 2009 at 5:01 pmjwest, funny that you assume that affirmative action is meant to correct for racial defects, when every good liberal knows it is intended to address disparate opportunities in education, housing, employment, even developmental issues.
How do you explain the dismal performance of Republican candidates in general among the black electorate?
I mean, if Democratic policies were really so damaging to the black community, shouldn’t the black community recognize that and support the party that best serves its interests?
December 15th, 2009 at 5:03 pmFVNY says:
I’m asking you to prove it by discussing specific policies that they supported.
In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party (GOP) method of winning Southern states in the latter decades of the 20th century and first decade of the 21st century by exploiting opposition among the segregationist South to desegregation and Civil Rights[...]
Southern Strategy
It’s not so much what they supported, as what they opposed, namely, the extension of equal rights to everybody, regardless of skin color.
You are welcome.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:04 pmRalph,
That day is coming.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:04 pmI’d like to know why jwest is being so vague with his accusations. Are these matters that squarely hang on the shoulders of Democrats, or are these problems much deeper than politics?
December 15th, 2009 at 5:09 pmbelaccifer lacca says:
Well the 14th was certainly not generally understood to refer to women at the time of its writing… some judge decided it did… weird, huh?
Nicely done!
December 15th, 2009 at 5:10 pm“14th Amendment” FVNY has been undone, again.
FVNY, when you are done “attributing” in the political realm, could you say my business bank account has a few more thousand dollars in it? Cash flow is down and I could use some of your magic reality.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:13 pmgrowaspine,
Grow a spine.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:14 pmYou’re link to Wikipedia proved nothing except you’re an idiot.
How about Lee Atwater describing the ‘Southern Strategy’ in 1981… what did that prove?
December 15th, 2009 at 5:14 pmYou obviously think that grand demographic shifts happen overnight, especially when it comes to regions where political identity is generational and very strong, like the South. You also obviously don’t think that Nixon and Reagan strategists knew what they were talking about when they described the code words and dog whistles that appealed to white conservative southerners.
No the Republican domination of the south wasn’t complete until the Party embraced the evangelical movement in the 80s. But it clearly began with Nixon and Kevin Phillips in 1968.
Does the regional breakdown of the vote on Civli Rights mean nothing to you? Southerners of both parties vehemently opposed the legislation. Southerners are now and have been for decades, overwhelmingly conservative. When the Republican Party was known as the Party of Business, rural southerners opposed them. When the Republican Party morphed into a party of social as well as economic conservatives, starting with Nixon and continuing with Reagan, conservative southerners flocked to them to form the overwhelmingly white, southern party we see today.
I notice you didn’t make any attempt to “prove” your original claim that “the Democrats just changed their stance on the race issue because they realized it was a losing battle” … did you just decide that was a losing battle in itself?
December 15th, 2009 at 5:15 pmI think I’ll let the judges rule on that one…
December 15th, 2009 at 5:15 pm@72. Fred ♪♫♪ says: STORM says: In 1866, 94 percent of GOP senators and 96 percent of GOP House members approved the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing all Americans equal protection of the law. Every congressional Democrat voted: “No.” I find it pathetic that stormy doesn’t know who was conservatives and who was progressives in the time he mentions. Anyone else see him as a child left behind? December 15th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Fred ♪♫♪, SMARM has some problems with the real time line, with the arrow of history. He was asked on another thread today by DRxJ if the Iraq war justifies the 9/11 attack, and he said yes. Go figure.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:17 pm139 Pee
Are you really that frigging stupid?
You’ve done a piss poor job trying to defend the Baboon. Now you stick your other 2 hooves in your trap.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:18 pmSo you’re saying that African Americans are poor judges of which party best represents their interests. Is that a fair statement, given what you’ve just posted?
Why do you think that is? Why are Americans of African descent so incapable of determining the best representation for their interests?
December 15th, 2009 at 5:18 pmThe racists left the Democratic Party.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:20 pmThe teabaggers are leaving the Republican Party.
In both cases, the leaving is strengthening to the party with the “loss”.
You based you’re argument that the Republican party is racist based on a political strategist whose job is to secure votes for a candidate. That’s not good enough!
You asked for specific policies that the R’s used to attract southern white racists… Lee told you, specifically, how and why they did it.
Read it again.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:20 pmYou’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
-Lee Atwater.
FVNY?
December 15th, 2009 at 5:22 pmPurple State,
The last thing I was trying to do was to be “vague”.
No, this isn’t a problem jointly shared with society in general. This is misery on a grand scale perpetrated by one mindset – liberalism.
Those who have promoted this addled way of thinking need to spend the balance of their lives apologizing to every African American they meet.
Apologize to the black doctors who put up with people (especially other blacks) asking for a different doctor because they believe that they are there through affirmative action instead of merit.
Apologize to the unemployed who can’t read the job applications because the democrats needed the teacher’s union vote.
Apologize to the black mothers who can’t take their kids to the doctor they want, but have to do with the one the insurance company or the government bureaucrat decides she should see.
How do you people live with yourselves?
December 15th, 2009 at 5:23 pmReagan’s Campaign Kickoff speech in Philadelphia, MS.
-contemporary GOP racism, from a man who today’s GOP “can’t quit” (literally and metaphorically).
December 15th, 2009 at 5:23 pmBelac, I think FVNY is looking specifically for something with firehoses and dogs… that’s what “institutional racism” means to him, as near as I can tell. An organized campaign exploiting racist attitudes in a population by employing code words and opposing progressive policies in a cynical effort to secure votes apparently doesn’t count. Unless the campaign is by Democrats.
Must be nice to make up the rules as you go along.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:24 pmFVNY:
December 15th, 2009 at 5:24 pmmaybe it was the globalists that were pulling the strings and convinced the nonwhites to fake it so that the progressives could redistribute the wealth after the “government” got rich? Have you considered that? Come on kooky conspiracy boy…
Lee Atwater’s plan on delivering votes to the Republicans doesn’t equal racist policies
And yet, that’s exactly what it means… read it one more time.
You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:26 pm-Lee Atwater.
How do you people live with yourselves?
— Mostly by living in a reality based world and not a f ucked up idiotic one like you seem to have created to meet your needs… So about those dumbass jocks that get pretend college degrees because of the affirmative action of throwing a ball around?
December 15th, 2009 at 5:26 pmAre you trying to tell me that tax cuts are racist? If so, then I can’t continue this discussion.
Lee Atwater is saying they are… and that R’s KNOW they are and that’s part of the reason they push them.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:28 pmYou expect me to accept your poorly-supported contention that Democrats supported a policy that was sure to lose them votes in one of their strongholds because they “decided it was a losing battle”?
Recall that when Lyndon Johnson singed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law, he famously said, “There goes the South for a generation”. Does that sound like the words of a mere political calculation?
I get from your dialogue here that you are incapable of attributing noble aspirations to any Democrat, so you’re safe in your delusion. But please don’t convince yourself that you’ve done anything even remotely close to proving your contention.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:29 pmDbadass,
“So about those dumbass jocks that get pretend college degrees because of the affirmative action of throwing a ball around?”
That’s your argument?
(sigh)
December 15th, 2009 at 5:33 pmDid you even read it, FVNY?
December 15th, 2009 at 5:34 pmgrowaspine says:
You liberals don’t understand Africa-Americans the way we conservatives do.
I think that says it all, but…
You list some important African-American conservatives, but that’s cherry-picking. Look at the African-American congregation in Congress alone during the modern era, and you’d see that there is a common party affiliation amongst most of them.
Don’t tell us that conservatism creates the better person. Judge people by who they are and not which party they roll with.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:34 pmjwest says
So I assume you are against college ‘legacy’ admissions and inheritance, correct?
I mean- level playing field, right?
December 15th, 2009 at 5:36 pmNo, you simpleton. Atwater is saying that one reason tax cuts was an attractive policy for conservatives is that blacks get hurt more than whites.
YOU probably just like tax cuts because you’re a selfish pr!ck who says “I got mine; the rest of you fu(k off”. It doesn’t mean you’re racist; it doesn’t mean you’re NOT racist.
But tax cuts that benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor have a racist component, according to Lee Atwater.
You really spend a lot of energy trying NOT to understand things, don’t you?
December 15th, 2009 at 5:36 pmFVNY babbles:
You’re link to Wikipedia proved nothing except you’re an idiot.
And your inability to read plain English puts you in the same league. But we knew that.
You are welcome.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:36 pmBelac, if FVNY read it, he probably did so with his fingers in his ears while he chanted “lalalalalalalalalala-I-can’t-hear-you-I=can’t-hear-you”.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:38 pmralph the wonder llama says:
It doesn’t mean you’re racist; it doesn’t mean you’re NOT racist.
It does mean however, that he is a selfish jerk, and an idiot to boot, unable to understand simple, straightforward sentences.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:39 pmUntil the 1970s, that is…
December 15th, 2009 at 5:41 pmthe general consensus of the community disagrees with you…
December 15th, 2009 at 5:42 pmi’ll take cornel west over jwest any day of the week.
.
the kernel of truth you’ve planted,
jwest,
does not support the fruits you intend to festoon it with.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:42 pmjwest says:
How do you people live with yourselves?
Simply put, I live with myself by shaking hands with people.
I live by living my own life and not making excuses for when things don’t go my way.
I live my life by knowing that cooperation will get us to a common objective and fulfill it together.
I live my life by appreciating my fellow human, regardless of the color of their skin, language they speak, sexuality they gravitate toward, and religion they adopt.
I live my life as a free man, knowing that I have the power to provide freedom to others around me, not by constructing barriers, but by tearing them down.
Most importantly, I live my life knowing that I don’t fit in the category that you think liberals must fit in.
Don’t treat me as if being a liberal is like living with sin.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:43 pma-men!, purple state.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:45 pmLegacy administions? Any problems there? How come you folks are never b itching about this unfair treatment. You all don’t have an agenda that prevents you from following your argument to it’s logical end do you?
December 15th, 2009 at 5:46 pmDid the 3/5 rule apply to all blacks or just slaves?
December 15th, 2009 at 5:47 pmFVNY says:
Tax cuts only have a negative effect on the poor based on a system that redistributes wealth.
B*llsh*t.
FVNY says:
There is nothing inherently racist by cutting taxes.
Depends on whether white people disproportionally receive a benefit doesn’t it?
FVNY says:
And you don;t get to decide what I do with my money.
No but in a democratically elected government, its leaders do get to decide what to do with your taxes. Taxes are a right of the government to levy and if you don’t like them move to a non-country like somalia and see why governments matter aaronk the dorkistan loser.
FVNY says:
I pay plenty in taxes every year.
That’s not up to you to decide, it’s up to the “country” and the “government” and the “people” to decide. You don’t want the cost of a civil society, don’t live in it and leave.
FVNY says:
And I give to charity.
Good for you, that doesn’t abdicate your “responsibility” to pay your taxes as a citizen. If you want to be a traitor and a thief by not paying your fair share – we understand el’cheapo you selfish b*st*rd.
FVNY says:
So because I appreciate a tax break once and a while doesn;t make me cheap, you socialist parasite!
Yes it does, you fascist parasite on society. Stop b*tching and whining about your taxes or leave you loser.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:54 pmHey arnook, you proud to be a bigot?
December 15th, 2009 at 5:55 pmtony and lido
FVNY says:
Until the 1970s, that is…
_________________________________
Prove it!
Disprove it you lunatic teabagging loser.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:55 pmWhen Ronnie RayGun turned his back on civil rights to get “whitie” racist dorks like aaronk to join the GOP it became the party of losers, racists, teabagging cheapskates, bigots, misfits and bible quacks… Which it has remained.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:56 pmgrowaspine says:
Don’t judge us all by jwest or Peace Through Superior Firepower. We conservatives are an intelligent community of thinkers dedicated to the uplifting of the Africa-American society and their eventual inclusion in movement conservatism
Blacks know how little conservatives care for them, given their past hateful rhetoric. Conservatism has failed, in everything it purported to champion. Rule of law? Gitmo. Fiscal prudence? Off-budget war spending. Religious tolerance? Ask any muslim.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:57 pmFVNY?
You don’t seem to be tracking this conversation very well.
You asked for an explanation of specific ways the R’s pursued white racist in the South using the ’southern strategy’
I gave you Atwater’s quote which outlined EXACTLY that.
Whether or not tax-cuts are inherently racist is beside the point right now. Atwater is telling you that a primary reason that R’s started talking about ‘tax-cuts’ in the 1970’s was because it was PERCEIVED as racist by those racists he was courting. It was part of the code… he is admitting that saying ‘tax-cuts’ in the 1970’s is effectively the same as saying ‘N-’ in the 1950’s or ‘busing’ in the 1960’s…
Whether you want to admit it or not, Atwater knew what they were doing and many Southern racists cottoned to the code that the R’s employed.
Get it?
December 15th, 2009 at 5:58 pmI’ll have to admit that at least the opposing view here is making some better arguments than…you know who.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:59 pm210 – but it’s wrong when white critics point out what they perceive the shortcomings of their own in-group to be?
i don’t see how your cherrypicking some quotes from an extreme example of a source accomplishes anything by way of support for the thesis implicit in your remarks.
December 15th, 2009 at 6:09 pmSure. As soon as you prove any of your specious contentions.
After all, you wouldn’t demand a higher standard of me than you would for yourself, would you?
December 15th, 2009 at 6:11 pm210. Flagged. Racism.
December 15th, 2009 at 6:14 pmtombaker, you’ve elicited the perfect example of troll function:
@ 213. growaspine says: … I don’t know what you mean but I’m against what you said. … December 15th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
If we were fishing, I’d say it’s a keeper, but I think you can just continue to thump on it.
December 15th, 2009 at 6:19 pmso the calvacade of idiocy continues unabetted…
December 15th, 2009 at 6:23 pmI understand the black man.
Not unless you’re black. You might think you do, but you’re deluding yourself.
December 15th, 2009 at 6:23 pmI understand the black man
December 15th, 2009 at 6:31 pm— Which one?
growaspine says:
And there are so many Africa-American Republicans these days you can’t count that high.
Well maybe you can’t count that high…
.
FVNY says:
You show me where the Republicans eroded the rights of anybody, including minorities.
Prop 8. Also, this. There’s the GOP’s current stance on immigration amnesty. And that firefighter case that Sotomayor reviewed one time, that Senate Republicans made such a big deal out of. That’s just for starters off the top of my head. Since I’ve been alive, the GOP has been trying to restrict the rights of everybody but wealthy or rural white folks.
.
growaspine says:
I understand the black man.
Your “understanding” was pretty clearly demonstrated in post 210, Stormfronter.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:37 pmGlean Becke iz mi herow, he maks a lott of centz. Mi brane sayz Glean iz reel smeart an I shuld lizen to hem. Mi felow patreotik Amirekans nowe he iz the neaw leeder off oor cuntry, yu libs ar gonna paey biggteme whean wee ar bak in poower. Wee ar a Cresstean cuntry an yu libz ar gonna geet whatz cuming too yu.
Ther I shoowed you libz whate four, loosers.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:57 pmjwest says:
On the subject of which party is racist, let me submit this to all of you:
Which party supports a program that assumes blacks are 20 points dumber than whites on tests?
WTF are you talking about?! Did you pull that one out of your ass?
December 15th, 2009 at 8:34 pmInteresting; I have two history degrees. I wrote a 400 page footnoted and bibliographed paper on master-slave relations 1790-1850. I spent 3 years of my life buried in the papers of a slave owning rice and Sea Island cotton plantation family in South Carolina and coastal Georgia. I have read hundreds of books, scholarly articles and primary sources on slavery, the politics of slavery, manners and courtship during slavery, the evolution and institutionalization of slavery…. I have even read the collected works of John C. Calhoun. Never would I think the 3/5 Compromise had anything to do with laying a foundation to abolition. Most people other than a few Quakers and hard core radicals did not cried out against slavery in any real form. The compromise – like the Civil War later- was about power, control and self governance of the states. Mostly it was about money- the money was concentrated more heavily in slave states. The industrialized north was less wealthy and used the cheap raw material of the south to produce goods. This is a bizarre perversion.
What’s also bizarre is the adoration of Lincoln among this crowd. Lincoln basically consolidated and centralized the power of federal government!
December 15th, 2009 at 9:41 pmnelliebelle1197 says:
What’s also bizarre is the adoration of Lincoln among this crowd. Lincoln basically consolidated and centralized the power of federal government!
So? What’s wrong with being one whole, big nation instead of a bunch of itty bitty ones? America’s subsequent rise as a world power wouldn’t have happened if it weren’t for that relative consolidation and centralization.
December 15th, 2009 at 10:26 pmNumber of Founding Fathers who were Mormans? Zero.
Number of brave Mormans that fought in the Revolution? again Zero.
Now they have all the answers to hear Beck(hit)ler tell it.
Predictable drivel
December 15th, 2009 at 10:41 pmThat’s better than him !! We BARELY recognize him as a half ! Too stupid to be any more….
December 15th, 2009 at 11:35 pmA cancer that needs to be treated or it will eat you up!
December 16th, 2009 at 12:45 amgenetic error says:
Number of Founding Fathers who were Mormans? Zero.
Number of brave Mormans that fought in the Revolution? again Zero.
Religious intolerance to the rescue! First of all, Mormonism didn’t even exist until 1820 at the earliest, so they couldn’t have been involved in the Revolution or in ratifying the Constitution. They didn’t exist. You might as well complain about how no Christians fought in the Trojan war.
If you have to pick on a guy’s religion in order to criticize him, then you should probably go sit at the kiddie table. It’s not like Glenn Beck isn’t a target rich environment to begin with.
December 16th, 2009 at 12:59 amWell this should all be cleared up in short order at the start of his TV show tomorrow. The White House will call and correct this little problem and we can all move on now cant we? They will call won’t they?
December 16th, 2009 at 1:03 amI think we ought to count all progressives as 1/4th of a person, they certainly think like they have 1/4th of a brain.
December 16th, 2009 at 1:31 amBeck’s show today was one of his best. I hope all the sycophants on this site got to see it.
Bizarrely, the main person coming off as a sycophant is you toward Beck lol.
December 16th, 2009 at 11:01 amum, no they didn’t… they counted slaves as 3/5 a person because that’s how they saw them: not as people, but as property…
December 16th, 2009 at 11:21 amThe misery you left wingers are feeling is hilarious. Unfortunately (for you,) it’s only the beginning. I’m cutting out the comedy shows and replacing it with your blogs and comments. It has to be incredibly difficult for you, to watch your ’ship sinking’ after the “boatload of sh*t” you, and the middle bought. Hope and change, yea, right. The Prez’s (I’ll call him Moses) poll numbers are diving like a Kamikaze. Your controlling House and Senate can’t “seal the deal” ‘within’ the ranks, and then Howard Dean comes out stating to “kill the bill.” Comedy it is said, is frequently funniest when at the expense of another. Let me confirm in saying, “Yes it is.” I’m laughing all the way to the next election. It’s like rats scrambling from a sinking ship. Adding insult to injury, there’s Beck, driving all you D’s crazy. Thanks for the entertainment. lol
December 16th, 2009 at 6:07 pmRE: nelliebelle1197 says:” I have two history degrees. I wrote a 400 page footnoted…”
Funny. Never would I have thought when the Founding Fathers referenced God, would I have suspected they were not including him. Yes indeed, “This IS a bizarre perversion.”
December 16th, 2009 at 6:17 pmRE: belaccifer lacca says: “Whether you want to admit it or not, Atwater knew what they were doing and many Southern racists cottoned to the code that the R’s employed.”
I understand perfectly. In the same fashion the D’s followed with HUD pushing for ‘easing of Mortgage Credit’ so “everyone could own a home,” right? The pandering to the racist left who knew it was ‘code’ for the ‘N’ word of the 50’s, knowing the result would be overwhelming D support. Selective examples won’t fly here. Follow me?
December 16th, 2009 at 6:28 pm@ 235. TalentOLfGod2 says: RE: belaccifer lacca says: “Whether you want to admit it or not, Atwater knew what they were doing and many Southern racists cottoned to the code that the R’s employed.” I understand perfectly. In the same fashion the D’s followed with HUD pushing for ‘easing of Mortgage Credit’ so “everyone could own a home,” right? The pandering to the racist left who knew it was ‘code’ for the ‘N’ word of the 50’s, knowing the result would be overwhelming D support. Selective examples won’t fly here. Follow me? December 16th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Nope, don’t see that anyone is following you, NoTalent. You’re off topic, anyway. Your comment at 233 is kind of a worthless insult, so I gave it a no vote. I don’t see the point of your cheap shot in 234, so I voted no to that too. 235 is a little closer to topic, but I still dinged it because it doesn’t address Beck’s claim; why do you think the Founders and Framers decided to count slaves at 3/5s of a person?
December 17th, 2009 at 1:09 amNelliebell says:
I started being interested in slavery along the Georgia/Carolina coastal region after i read a book called Slaves In The Family by Edwin Ball. Can you recommend others?
December 18th, 2009 at 12:42 amFNVY said:
Your information is not factual. White women and children represent the largest numbers of people on welfare or receiving welfare benefits. Black people or “African Americans” represent only 12% of the population. Aprox 67% of the population is white or of euro-american ancestry.
White women and children make up roughly 37% of the 5 million or so people receiving welfare or what is now called TANF. Then 30-33% are african american, followed by a growing number of hispanics, a small number of asians and an even smaller number of native americans.
There are approximately 40 million african americans in this country of 350 million. There are less than 10 million families receiving welfare. Even if all 10 million of those were African American (and they are not) that would be one quarter of the poplulation receiving welfare and that would leave the overwhelming majority of african americans to the tune of 75% NOT on welfare and not beficiaries of some media created mythical “welfare state”.
This info is available at the Dept of Health and Human Services website. Don’t believe the hype.
It’s probably a good time to inform you that “welfare” represents less than 2% of the annual federal budget although defense occupies 20%. Politicians are engaging in BS when they influence the voters to believe that somehow the 2 percent of the budget that welfare represents is one of the most pressing problems of our time. (yes you bill clinton and so called “welfare reform”)
December 19th, 2009 at 6:52 pm