Republicans don't help them. The Blue States (typically Democrats) keep them afloat. The Red States generally receive more back from the federal government than they contribute whereas the Blue States, generally, get back less than what they put in. The Red States are just too ignorant to realize it - or, they just don't care. It's ironic, though, how the GOP snubs their noses at welfare recipients considering how many of their states are drinking at the public trough.
We have bogans (guys in flannel shirts over wife-beaters, stained drills and steel capped boots with no socks, gals in mismatched track suits and uggs). However, we never had a law that permitted slaves to count as three-fifths of a person for taxation purposes.
This post was edited by Slartibartfast at June 25, 2021 3:29 AM MDT
I have, and no it wasn't, which is why the Fourteenth Amendment specifically junked it. It increased the political power of the slave holding states, which by definition entrenched slavery by making it more attractive.
It was forced to be included by the non-slave states.
The number of Representatives a state gets in the US House of Representatives is assigned by the number of people counted in the census. Now, if you counted all the non-citizen, non-voting slaves and then gave those slave states a higher amount of House members based on the number of slaves in the state. Who do you believe those elected House members would be representing? The slaves (who cannot vote) or the slave owners who can vote?
It was an anti-slavery clause. Non-slave states did not want to count them at.all for House representation....the 3/5s was an anti-slavery compromise with the Democrats who wanted to count all for overrepresentation of the slave owners.
The 14th had to be passed because the Democrats were passing Jim Crow laws preventing blacks people from exercising their newly acquired rights as citizens.
Again history.....study it.
This post was edited by my2cents at December 28, 2021 6:19 AM MST
And Lincoln was a Republican, as was Eisenhower. The rabid racists switched sides in 1965, when Goldwater saw political mileage in opposing Johnson's signing into law of the Civil Rights Act, and loudly opposed it. The former Confederacy switched from blue to red practically overnight. Whether LBJ personally approved of the CRA is immaterial, his administration enacted it and the rednecks hated it. The Act was made law by a Democrat. The first black President was also a Democrat. The last President to balance the books was also a Democrat, even if he couldn't keep his plonker in his pants. I study history and not just the politically coloured version you apparently do.
Nice deflection....Topic was the 3/5ths compromise. LBJ fought against civil rights his entire career...he had no choice but to sign the bill when it made it to his desk after the majority of Republicans voted for it. (look up what he said about black voters afterwards)
Again history study it.
This post was edited by my2cents at December 30, 2021 2:27 AM MST
I've evidently studied it more intently that you have - High Distinction at college level. In what universe can a clause that makes it more profitable to own slaves possibly be construed as "ANTI-slavery"? It was included to entice the slave holding states to stick with the fledgling nation (and it didn't work, hence the Civil War - they seceded anyway). Proslavery with a capital P.
That was the compromise part. If it we pro slavery it would not have even been in to start as the slave states wanted. The non-slave states did not want to count them at all for representation. But as the right wing still is today....they did not have the back bone and gave the Dems most of what they wanted.
Some things never change.
This post was edited by my2cents at December 30, 2021 4:01 AM MST
I would hesitate to say it was an anti-slavery clause.
Yes, it was a compromise to get the slave states to back the new Constitution (and federal government). However, it actually rewards slavery by giving more representatives to that state. Nor did it set a "sunset clause" to phase out that benefit.
That was the compromise part. The non-slave states did not want to count them at all for representation. But as the right wing still is today....they did not have the back bone and gave the Dems most of what they wanted. Some things never change.
The sunset clause for it was getting rid of slavery.
This post was edited by my2cents at December 29, 2021 3:45 PM MST
ONeg-84 