The 3/5 Compromise

I was on my lunch break the other day at work working on my netbook computer of which I have a picture of three of the Founding Fathers: George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Samuel Adams. This striked up a conversation between me and a couple of my co-workers. One of them said the Founding Fathers were all racists. After investigating further they thought they were racists because they owned slaves and only counted negros as three-fifths of a person in the Constitution.

This lit a fire underneath me because I knew that these individuals had no clue what was actually meant when the Founding Fathers put this into the Constitution. I felt the need to educate my co-workers. They thought that the 3/5 statement was in the Constitution because the Founding Fathers wanted to continue slavery when in actuality it was the exact opposite.

"The Three-Fifths compromise was a compromise between the Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the population of slaves would be counted for enumeration purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the appointment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.

"Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College [which would be more difficult to abolish slavery]. The final compromise of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual number reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but increased it over the northern position." - Wikipedia

The actual text in the Constitution found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 says: "Representative and direct Taxes shall be appointed among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Wikipedia continues: "Following the Civil War and the abolition of slavery by the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1865), the three-fifths clause was rendered moot."

Once I explained this to these individuals, I saw their mind enlightened and were surprised, and they didn't have anything further to say. It irks me to no end when someone just spits out something like that they have no understanding of...just something they heard or thought without doing their homework.

Frustrated With The Presidential Debate

I'm very frustrated with tonight's Presidential Debate. I don't feel like I learned anything new. Both candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama, said the same things they've been saying for the past few weeks and even kept repeating what was said in the first debate! I think one of the reasons why the repetition was the questions that were asked. Questions that were hand-picked by moderator Tom Brokaw, who I think is left-wing pro-Obama supporter. I was hoping more of a debate on character rather than foreign policy and economy even though that's what is on everyone's mind right now.

Character, by far, in my opinion is far more important than any other issue. Character defines who we are, how we act, how we think, and what we'll do.

This was supposed to be a "town hall" debate. In a real town hall meeting questions aren't pre-screened by a moderator. Attendees can ask any question they want about any topic. Again none of the questions sparked any new information that I've already heard. The only question that I did like was the last one, "What don't you know and how will you learn it?"

Barack Obama didn't answer the question outright. He even said, "Here's what I do know..." Uh, Obama? The question was what DON'T you know. He then talked about the opportunities that was given to him that allowed him to be in the position that he is today. Obama then talked about if we are going to pass on that same American Dream to the next generation. Again he's not answering the question.

John McCain did a little better in answering the question. He said, "I think what I don't know is what all of us don't know. And that's what's going to happen both here at home and abroad. The challenges that we face are unprecedented." McCain then talked about those challenges. He continued, "What I don't know is what the unexpected will be." At least McCain answered the first part of the question, but failed to answer how he'll learn it. Obama didn't answer the question in whole.

This all ties in to why I'm frustrated. That last question would have given us a lot of information about the character of McCain vs. Obama. What is so difficult about answering a simple question. The answer to the question may have even not been related to politics or their campaign. "I've don't know how to sculpt pottery," John McCain may have said, "I would like to take a few classes on how to do such a thing, which will help me develop patience and performing tasks carefully and thoroughly because the slightest deviation could make a potential masterpiece to a piece of junk." THAT! to me would have given me more about McCain's character than anything else he's ever said. He then could've tied it into his campaign..."and as President I will have the patience and make each decision with thoroughness and exactness to make sure it's the best decision for this country. I will put this country first above anything else." But no...just the same old same old. Hopefully the last and final debate will be different.