Skip to comments.Chris Matthews: Did You Drink Three Fifths?
Posted on 10/21/2013 7:56:09 AM PDT by rktman
MSNBC's erratic Hardball host, Chris Matthews, has again gone off the deep end with his nonsense talk about the Constitution's three-fifths clause. He's claiming that conservatives believe black people are, or once were, only three-fifths of a person.
Why does a group of people that always loses elections or tends to do lately, why do they call themselves American people because - do they still count blacks as three-fifths? Three-fifths of a vote?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Does that make me a racist?
So what? The 3/5 was settled law an liberals love settled law.
Unbelievable. Liberals step in that hole constantly, completely misinterpreting the 3/5ths Compromise.
WOW! You’re sure giving him a lot of credit.
How do you count 3/5ths of a vote?
Seems to me like the actual ratio of votes counted is more like 4:1
I believe Prissy Matthews consumes three fifths before spewing forth his lunacy on MSLSD.
Is it alcoholism or dementia?
Looks like they’ve been making up for it in the past few elections...
And, lefties - the 3/5ths actually LOWERED THE VOTING POWER OF THE SLAVE STATES.
Counting non-voting slaves as “population” would have increased the number of House members...
Anyone home McFly?
Ain’t no accident. They’ve convinced the “minority” that the tea party doesn’t consider “minorities” to be complete and thus inferior. Ergo; free stuff since being less than whole, they would be incapable of attaining things on their own.
Dafuq is he ranting about? Dude is seriously insane. I mean, he should not be allowed to walk around a town unrestrained.
It was the democrate slaveholders that considered the black slaves less than human. Not the Republicans.
Thus the HUGE guilt they carry and need to “make it right”.
Would a straight jacket be better?
Chris Matthews is only 3/5ths of a man. The remainder is flaming homo.
It was the North - - ie., the people who opposed slavery - - who demanded the “3/5” of a vote for slaves. The South would have loved giving slaves a full vote. Heck, 2 votes! This ignoramus Chris Matthews is the perfect face of MSNBC. He’s a real spitfire (snort!).
I’m fed up with this crap. I’m fed up with people who assign people to a group, and assign characteristics to every member of the group.
Slight correction - it wasn’t for “voting”, because the slaves couldn’t vote regardless of how they were counted.
It was for population based representation in the House of Representatives.
I wonder if he realizes that Southern slaveowners wanted to count them as full people....while Northerners, both abolitionists and nonabolitionists, wanted to them to be zeros?
Three-fifths human; five-fifths nuts.
Thank you. Yes, as soon as I posted I realized I had screwed up. The “3/5 of a person” was strictly for census.
But it was the North that reduced the personhood of a slave to 3/5, not the South.
There is still the spittle factor to consider...
I believe the ever loved by leftists North
wanted “black people” to not be counted as people at all.
Indeed! Hissy Matthews is constantly spewing the spittlegeist, in service to his tingehood.
Duct tape works wonders but I’d rather let him talk to constantly remind us all of just how loony the Left is!
If the slave states had gotten their way, the House would have been profoundly and irrevocably pro-slavery. Unrepresented slaves would have vastly added to the number of slave state congressmen.
The 3/5 compromise prevented slavery from ever being totally accepted as federal established law.
It wasn’t pretty, but it set the stage for emancipation.
Actually slaves didn’t get any vote at all. The place where the slave was located got more representatives for the slaves. Reality was most slaves were on larger plantations, within a single precinct, that gave the slave owner significant control over a representative.
Before 1835, North Carolina gave Freed slaves the vote. After 1835 (when they changed their state constitution) they denied black freedmen the vote.
Jim Crow was started by the Democrats in part to remove the vote from freedmen after the insurrection.
That is absolute nonsense - complete leftist reasoning in service of Confederate special pleading.
Southern slaveowners specifically refused to recognizes slaves as people, even though they were.
Northerners refused to recognize them as qualified voters, because Northerners knew that the slaveowners would never let them vote.
The three-fifths ratio was a compromise between Northern reality and Southern fiction.
If Chris would ever take a trip in a Wayback Machine, next time he starts tippling ‘Rebel Yell’, he would see that his fellow Democrats wanted their personal property to be counted as an entire person.
So they could vote their proxy as well as get more votes in Congress.
Kind of, well no—exactly what they do today. Slave owners.
I think it’s time we all acknowleged that Chris Matthews is an entertainer and not a journalist, and doesn’t believe even half of what he spews to his “amen corner” of an audience.
The best evidence of this is that Matthews is ... still alive. Because anyone who believed what he claims to believe, with the intensity he claims to believe it (all) would have long ago worked themselves into a fatal stroke or heart attack ...
The initial proposition was to have the representatives allocated to the states in proportion to the voters.
Slave states denied the vote to slaves, but wanted the representatives to be in proportion to the total number of persons. The slave power wanted represenation for the slaves to whom they denied the vote.
The compromise was to permit 3/5ths of the slave population to count toward representation. If the slave states wanted more representation than that, they could have freed their slaves.
I know, it's confusing...
All you need to know about Chris Matthews...
Isn’t it interesting that a racist, misogynist, mouth-breathing Conservative, Fox News anchor, can just blow-the-doors off a Limp-Wristed-Thrill-Up-My-Leg, Flaming Liberal News Canker...
We should not miss the point that slaves were not allowed to vote but the south wanted them counted to increase representation and in essence, vote as their proxies. The opposing view was since they can’t vote, they can’t be counted.
The whole idea of “personhood” is nonsensical when the south considered them non-persons and the north said basically, if that is your view, non-persons can’t be represented.
It was a classic compromise where neither side got all of what it wanted, but yielded since the formation and survival of a nation was at stake.
Actual voting by slaves had nothing to do with it, though it should have.
It was completely for the purposes of representation in Congress.
If each slave counted as a full person that would give more representation, and thus larger clout when voting on slavery-related issues for the slave-holding states.
If slaves counted as zero in the census, there would have no increase in Congress for slave-holding states, and less relative clout.
The lies and accusations are just getting bigger and bigger and even the dumbest people are beginning to notice.
Dear Chris, take 30 seconds to check out this thing called google.
The second part of the 3/5ths compromise was beneficial to the South. Taxation was based on state population. There was, as all Freepers know, no direct taxation on individuals. The tax was owed by the states and based on their population. The South wanted slaves counted 100% for representation and not counted at all for taxation. 3/5ths for each purpose was the eventual compromise. Also, at the time of the Convention the future of slavery was in doubt. Tobacco fields were in decline and cotton because of its troublesome seeds was not worth the effort, especially since it had to be exported to England to make any real money for the planter. Only South Carolina’s and coastal Georgia’s rice production held the promise of continued return. So slavery was in fact petering out. It was the synchronicity of two independent events, Whitney’s Gin and Slater’s water powered mill that saved slavery and tied Northern prosperity to the existence of Southern slavery.
The three 5ths of cheap scotch Chrissy drank last night are still talking although his brainstem is down.
Chris is lost on purpose, for a buck. A sad clown now. Even he who is wistful has to see the collapse of a once great country, built on goodness as the Constitution attests, and now heading into ruin.
How he sleeps without a pacifier, I am sure I don’t know.
The problem is that they lack the intelligence to understand the truth. The end result of us waisting our best and brightest on the distant battlefields of the world.
I think it’s more that admitting that we’re right and they were wrong is too much for their egos to accept.
I would put it this way:
It was the North that reduced the representation of slave states and the South which reduced the personhood of slaves by owning them instead of setting them free as they had full power to do without loss of life. When the time came for the North to set slaves free it cost half a million lives.
Extremist Matthews should seek counseling...he’s going right over the edge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.