News Stories

[TooPurePureBoy]

You infer way to much...

Do yourself a favor and just read what people write rather than trying to read their minds. You aren't very good at it. Not many people are.

As far as me saying a lot of things not understanding nuances of the times....umm I don't say much of anything around here... so what are you talking about?

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by TooPurePureBoy

You infer way to much...

Do yourself a favor and just read what people write rather than trying to read their minds. You aren't very good at it. Not many people are.

As far as me saying a lot of things not understanding nuances of the times....umm I don't say much of anything around here... so what are you talking about?

That the 3/5's compromise was for the benefit of Slaves.... come on please tell me that logic. The industrial North which had already abolished slavery was afraid of the power that the South would gain from slavery in representation, that power directly would affect interstate commerce and the North could not allow that. To imply that the North did it to prevent slave owners from getting power to enact national slavery is ridiculous because the North didn't care, this only became a side story during the expansion years under Jackson as America grew into the west and Bloody Arkansas rose, and then the fear became that the slave states would out number the free states and shift political power, which at this point was all economical, because the Northern states were deathly afraid of the Southerners using the English who at the time had high demand for cotton. To think that this was all about slavery and doing right by the slave is just asinine.

[TooPurePureBoy]

That's why I said you should just read what I wrote and stop trying to infer things.

I never said the entire North was against slavery. If you have read any of the personal writings of many of the founding fathers (most being from the north, which is what I was talking about when I said Northern politicians) you would see a great deal of them had personal moral qualms against the idea of slavery. I was never talking about Lincoln or any other mid 1800's politician. It's so hard to speak with you because you are always trying to infer some cynical slight.

You think I was calling you smarmy when in fact I was referencing the general population of internet readers who make comments on American history without even trying to gain context. Inferred insult.

That said. I should probably make a change in my original post in that I made it seem like the 3/5's issue isn't debatable, because it certainly still is, in that we can never truly know for what reason it was put in there. There is evidence to support an optimistic viewpoint about some of our founding fathers, I mainly just wanted to put that out there. Your cynical outlook is certainly not illogical but considering it is the commonly held belief by many I always wish that both sides could be presented.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by TooPurePureBoy

That said. I should probably make a change in my original post in that I made it seem like the 3/5's issue isn't debatable, because it certainly still is, in that we can never truly know for what reason it was put in there. There is evidence to support an optimistic viewpoint about some of our founding fathers, I mainly just wanted to put that out there. Your cynical outlook is certainly not illogical but considering it is the commonly held belief by many I always wish that both sides could be presented.

... That's why it took nearly a hundred years and America's most bloody war to get the Reconstruction Amendments in place and even then there was no equality for black and white let alone any other minorities. This idea that there are always two sides to a story is a crock. There is only the truth, the truth doesn't care about what "side" you might be on, the truth says that in fact the 3/5th's compromise did nothing to stymie the growth of Slavery in the South. Those are FACTS, undeniable, unalienable that cannot be disputed because they occurred and history cannot rewrite itself as much as many white southerners would want it to.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by TooPurePureBoy

That said. I should probably make a change in my original post in that I made it seem like the 3/5's issue isn't debatable, because it certainly still is, in that we can never truly know for what reason it was put in there. There is evidence to support an optimistic viewpoint about some of our founding fathers, I mainly just wanted to put that out there. Your cynical outlook is certainly not illogical but considering it is the commonly held belief by many I always wish that both sides could be presented.

There really isn't very much credibility to this side, if there even really is one.

Nosauz is correct, the 3/5 compromise was simply put as is because the North didn't want the South to hold so much power and the South wanted more... It did not slow down slavery whatsoever.

And btw, the North didn't even like African Americans either, and not even that much when the civil war began.

[TooPurePureBoy]

Let me ask you to consider this, and this is the last time I'll post on this subject unless you really come up with something good (and please don't infer that to mean I think you should be trying to impress me because I'm superior or something (oops there I go trying to read your mind)) or a new thread is started. Do you think that things would have been better, worse, or not much different if slave states were allowed to claim their slaves as citizens?

It seems to me it's not impossible to envision slaves being granted the right to vote only that vote being the actual property of the slave owner. Instead of one vote to a slave owner try that type of person able to bring hundreds or more votes to the table. Are you at all able to consider where that might have led things?

Nosauz is correct, the 3/5 compromise was simply put as is because the North didn't want the South to hold so much power and the South wanted more... It did not slow down slavery whatsoever.

The finality with which you state that as fact is in conflict with the many debates that rage on in college history courses to this day. But go ahead and believe you know the intentions of men who lived a long time ago without even considering the other side. Also it's not so much whether it slowed down slavery, it was that people such as Nosauz posit that the 3/5's clause was put in simply as a slight to African-Americans. These men were not perfect but to put something like the 3/5's clause in simply to be ignorant or caustic is simply incongruous to what we know about them.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by TooPurePureBoy

Let me ask you to consider this, and this is the last time I'll post on this subject unless you really come up with something good (and please don't infer that to mean I think you should be trying to impress me because I'm superior or something (oops there I go trying to read your mind)) or a new thread is started. Do you think that things would have been better, worse, or not much different if slave states were allowed to claim their slaves as citizens?

It seems to me it's not impossible to envision slaves being granted the right to vote only that vote being the actual property of the slave owner. Instead of one vote to a slave owner try that type of person able to bring hundreds or more votes to the table. Are you at all able to consider where that might have led things?

1st Point: Strawman, you have no answer to my facts so you try to distract with another question.

If Southerners had given slaves citizenship and suffrage slavery would have ended much earlier, you'd see the power shift between the North and South invert when the Southerners removed tarrifs between England and Europe but eventually much like the civil rights movement this temporary power grab would result in the Northerners organizing slaves to vote for their independence. Also eventually the dissonance between slave citizens would grow so strong that it would naturally have to either create an amendment that said coloreds were consider men or all men in the constitution only refers to whites which is another possiblity that could have lengthened slavery. In the end the notion that just because something limited Congressional power of the South does not make it beneficial for the slaves. Your whole argument has no basis in facts or reality.

@toopurepureboy

How is not possible to see that the Founders were flawed beings like you and me. They weren't even close to Jesus yet people seemed to have a harder time criticizing the Founders than they do Jesus. Jefferson had slaves, does it make me respect him less? Not really the fact was Slavery was a way of life during that time, it was a god given truth that White's were superior to blacks, and that Blacks had inherited the curse of Ham. I mean that's just the way the times were, let's not elevate these men of flesh to some super deity power which they did not possess. I mean you basically are saying that although the fathers themselves owned slaves they crafted a 3/5th's compromise out of their love for their slaves as citizens? All this is is apologist talk and unwilling to recognize the conventional wisdom of the times.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by TooPurePureBoy

Let me ask you to consider this, and this is the last time I'll post on this subject unless you really come up with something good (and please don't infer that to mean I think you should be trying to impress me because I'm superior or something (oops there I go trying to read your mind)) or a new thread is started. Do you think that things would have been better, worse, or not much different if slave states were allowed to claim their slaves as citizens?

It seems to me it's not impossible to envision slaves being granted the right to vote only that vote being the actual property of the slave owner. Instead of one vote to a slave owner try that type of person able to bring hundreds or more votes to the table. Are you at all able to consider where that might have led things?

I'm going to entertain your thought, though you're clearly leading me away from the actual conversation at hand.

Slaves never could "vote." They were simply counted as bodies for a state's population. This way, the South held much more power in congress, since they had more representatives in the house.

If they were counted as full bodies, this wouldn't change. They'd just have even more people in the house, which would have aggravated the North and probably would have led both sides to war even sooner (Assuming that the two sides would have miraculously agreed to come together to form the union in the first place). And it would've been even worst if the slave's votes were given to the Southern plantation owners (Which would have never flied in the first place.

In the end, it would have been worst, and if such a war was fought earlier, it could've ended up much worst.... The south's power diddled as time went on, if they fought the North earlier, before all the industrialization took place... The south could have won.

Originally Posted by TooPurePureBoy

The finality with which you state that as fact is in conflict with the many debates that rage on in college history courses to this day. But go ahead and believe you know the intentions of men who lived a long time ago without even considering the other side. Also it's not so much whether it slowed down slavery, it was that people such as Nosauz posit that the 3/5's clause was put in simply as a slight to African-Americans. These men were not perfect but to put something like the 3/5's clause in simply to be ignorant or caustic is simply incongruous to what we know about them.

The finality of it has to do with it being the largely agreed opinion or accepted knowledge in the field of history. If you want to debate otherwise, then give us the facts. Nothing you have said will convince me that the 3/5 compromise was anything but a power play by both sides.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by TooPurePureBoy

*snip*

I think you've misinterpreted the motive behind the North not liking the 3/5th's compromise. Most people in the North didn't really care about the state that Southern slaves were in. In many cases they had the same racist views about blacks that the South did.

It was simply a matter that the South gained more political power by owning a large amount of a certain kind of property. When Northerners questioned why they couldn't count their donkey's for representative purposes, they were likely not entirely being facetious.

Originally Posted by TooPurePureBoy

Do you think that things would have been better, worse, or not much different if slave states were allowed to claim their slaves as citizens?

That's such a huge departure from the original timeline that it's really hard to say. That kind of thing could effect so many different things. Things would have been more difficult for the North, since the South would be even more disproportionately powerful politically than they were.

[TooPurePureBoy]

I'm not going to keep this going in this thread. If a new thread starts I will try to untie some of the knots people seem to be tying my words into. Since he is new to the conversation I will just say this.

@Roger Rambo

To your first part; I know this was how it was presented but there is evidence in the personal writings of more than a few founding fathers that morality also played a part in the 3/5's clause. This is not my personal idea this is a debated position in historical study....at least it was to the Proff I had back when I was in college and cared about history. Once again I never claimed normal norther citizens "cared" one way or the other about slaves. They didn't write the 3/5's clause.

To your second part....I'm sure that had a lot to do with it but there is also evidence that morality mattered to some early politicians. It's not proof, but I thought it an interesting enough point to bring up that I actually made a few posts (huzzah). I'm not married to this concept or anything but I think it's silly for people to claim there is only one side to this story.

@Reckoner

I'm not here to debate or prove anything to you I was merely pointing out to whoever happens to have read my post that there is another side to the story of the 3/5's clause. Also it is certainly not accepted that the 3/5's clause is an accurate way to infer the morality of the founding fathers...which was kinda my point. It's not an important subject, i'm not some nut about the founding fathers despite one of them being in my sig. It's actually my least favorite area of study. I just happened to recall discussing it in some of the required American studies courses I had to take. I always thought it was an interesting point about how things can be misconstrued over time and accepted by the majority.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by TooPurePureBoy

I'm not here to debate or prove anything to you I was merely pointing out to whoever happens to have read my post that there is another side to the story of the 3/5's clause. Also it is certainly not accepted that the 3/5's clause is an accurate way to infer the morality of the founding fathers...which was kinda my point. It's not an important subject, i'm not some nut about the founding fathers despite one of them being in my sig. It's actually my least favorite area of study. I just happened to recall discussing it in some of the required American studies courses I had to take. I always thought it was an interesting point about how things can be misconstrued over time and accepted by the majority.

Again you make the claim that we can't find morality in the legislation of the times but some how we can infer that their message could be "misconstrued over time and accepted by the majority"? That makes absolutely no sense, what facts can you show us that the founders did find slavery morally reprehensible? Was it the half black children that Jefferson fathered with his mulatto slave? Or was it the legislation and constitution they ratified to appease the slave owning South. You can't have your idea of facts in place when the facts completely state that you are wrong. Your last statement is an assumption of the absurd, especially when you claim others are misconstruing the founders when you have zero proof of your statements.

Hypocrisy thine name is Toopurepureboy.

[TooPurePureBoy]

Seriously, why are you so incapable of discussing rationally. I never said facts. I said things "can" be misconstrued not were. I never claimed any belief in facts. Belief takes faith, and I have none. Especially when it comes to the morals and intentions of men who lived hundreds of years ago. If you really are this heated over the subject why not do a google search for some of the personal writings of some of those men instead of calling me a hypocrite. I still don't even think you ever even got my original point.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by TooPurePureBoy

"I always thought it was an interesting point about how things can be misconstrued over time and accepted by the majority."

What's the point of this statement but to draw the reader into questioning how we perceive the 3/5th's Compromise. Or else why would you phrase your paragraph like that. Your intent is to obfuscate the truth with your delusional idea of what the 3/5ths compromise meant.

Actually this is the reason why we can't talk about race in this country, we are too deathly afraid to admit that people of the past are flawed and make mistakes. Look at the South Carolina politicians calling for Confederate Veterans month with out referring to slavery at all. If we were honest about the past and the current racial tensions there would be a lot less of this denialist bullshit.

[TooPurePureBoy]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

"I always thought it was an interesting point about how things can be misconstrued over time and accepted by the majority."

What's the point of this statement but to draw the reader into questioning how we perceive the 3/5th's Compromise. Or else why would you phrase your paragraph like that. Your intent is to obfuscate the truth with your delusional idea of what the 3/5ths compromise meant.

Look lol I don't know what your damage is but there is no hidden meaning behind my words. My point in saying that was that it's something I've heard debated in the past and it always stuck with me (whether true or not) this is was a good example of things possibly being misconstrued over time when studying history. Because if it were true it would be ironic that the commonly excepted "insult" of the 3/5's clause would have been intended completely different from what we generally understood.

Your constant need to take a hard line stance on everything stops you from actually getting my point almost every time. Not sure what this is about.

Actually this is the reason why we can't talk about race in this country, we are too deathly afraid to admit that people of the past are flawed and make mistakes.

Am I not the one who is standing here as a man alone on an island? I knew this was not a generally accepted idea and that it would probably garner ridicule but I threw it out there because I thought it would be nice for people to know that what you originally stated as an example of inherent racism in the constitution, might actually be the opposite. That is discussing race my thick-skulled friend. I'm not the one trying to grind peoples ideas to dust just because they run contrary to my own. You ever consider that it is your overly sensitive and way too quick to infer insults that aren't there approach that could be stymieing the real discussion?

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by TooPurePureBoy

Look lol I don't know what your damage is but there is no hidden meaning behind my words. My point in saying that was that it's something I've heard debated in the past and it always stuck with me (whether true or not) this is was a good example of said things possibly being misconstrued.

Your constant need to take a hard line stance on everything stops you from actually getting my point almost every time. Not sure what this is about.

No you see I'm tired of playing your games, every time I answer one of your "questions" instead of responding and having a real discussion you change the subject. Why? Is it because you don't know what your talking about and you are just repeating what someone else said and didn't do the research yourself? I mean please bring out evidence that the Founding fathers have been misconstrued. If your going to claim that the 3/5ths compromise is being misinterpreted then you better back it up with some facts and evidence.

[TooPurePureBoy]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

No you see I'm tired of playing your games, every time I answer one of your "questions" instead of responding and having a real discussion you change the subject. Why? Is it because you don't know what your talking about and you are just repeating what someone else said and didn't do the research yourself? I mean please bring out evidence that the Founding fathers have been misconstrued. If your going to claim that the 3/5ths compromise is being misinterpreted then you better back it up with some facts and evidence.

What question of mine have you answered? All you've done is try to psycho-analyze what my words "really" mean instead of just reading them at face value and then you go off on a tirade railing against things I never even said. How much time have I wasted trying to clear up your misunderstanding and now you want me to waste more time looking up sources for something I vaguely studied half a decade or more ago? Naw, I'm not that interested in proving myself right. Also none of the evidence I could provide If I was so inclined to look them would be conclusive, it would still be there for you to misconstrue and see in whatever way you want. They are just personal letters and journal entries. We will never no for sure because we can't speak with them. So no I don't think I'll take that kind of time just to come to the conclusion that we still disagree. So seriously if you want to end this with the last word go ahead but I'm totally and truly done with this subject. Unless of course another thread were started or something but, I really don't think we need take this further. It never really was a very good conversation.

P.S. I "better" back it up ? Get over yourself.

[C.A.]

Nobody reads the astrology thread anymore, so I guess I'll post this here:

Most Massive Star Discovered—Shatters Record

This hyper giant star, R136a1, or perhaps an entirely new class of star, is 265- 320 times the mass of our sun, which is around 100 more solar masses than previously known heaviest stars.

Its not confirmed whether its the largest star by volume yet though, it will have to beat Canis Majoris which is around 2000 times larger than our sun in volume, but only 40 solar masses.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by C.A.

Nobody reads the astrology thread anymore, so I guess I'll post this here:

Most Massive Star Discovered—Shatters Record

This hyper giant star, R136a1, or perhaps an entirely new class of star, is 265- 320 times the mass of our sun, which is around 100 more solar masses than previously known heaviest stars.

Its not confirmed whether its the largest star by volume yet though, it will have to beat Canis Majoris which is around 2000 times larger than our sun in volume, but only 40 solar masses.

it is fat, it needs to go on a diet.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by C.A.

Nobody reads the astrology thread anymore, so I guess I'll post this here:

Most Massive Star Discovered—Shatters Record
...

*cough* astronomy. ... but interesting just how many variations in stellar structures there are.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by TooPurePureBoy

What question of mine have you answered? All you've done is try to psycho-analyze what my words "really" mean instead of just reading them at face value and then you go off on a tirade railing against things I never even said. How much time have I wasted trying to clear up your misunderstanding and now you want me to waste more time looking up sources for something I vaguely studied half a decade or more ago? Naw, I'm not that interested in proving myself right. Also none of the evidence I could provide If I was so inclined to look them would be conclusive, it would still be there for you to misconstrue and see in whatever way you want. They are just personal letters and journal entries. We will never no for sure because we can't speak with them. So no I don't think I'll take that kind of time just to come to the conclusion that we still disagree. So seriously if you want to end this with the last word go ahead but I'm totally and truly done with this subject. Unless of course another thread were started or something but, I really don't think we need take this further. It never really was a very good conversation.

P.S. I "better" back it up ? Get over yourself.

There you go... you said it yourself. /Shrug, you think you are right, the facts say you are wrong so what is there to discuss other than your delusion masquerading as sound evidence. You have validated all my criticism, you were in fact biased attempted to avoid the debate by throwing out trite questions and people like you who are impervious to facts are also impossible to reason with. There never was a doubt in your mind that what you said was the only logical line of thinking, I'm fine with that, but masquerading like your a reasonable person and then decry me for being "thick skulled" or stubborn is again hypocrisy of the greatest nature.

Hypocrisy thine name is TooPurePureBoy.