the 3/5 thing needs to be dealt with as well. The 3/5 compromise was a way to weaken the representation of the slave holding colonies when the union was created.Representation in the house of representatives is based on population. The slave colonies wanted slaves to count toward their total population giving them more representatives than they deserved considering slaves were slaves and not free men.The northern free states wanted the slaves to not count toward representation because they were slaves and they wanted the practice of slavery ended. Slaves came to be counted as 3/5 of a person in order to weaken the power of the slave states which helped pass the constitution as we know it and the bill of rights. These documents and their principals eventually led to the end of slavery here in the States.
Bush's book
- Thread starter billc
- Start date
A great book that deals with the the 3/5 controversy is called "Vindicating the Founders." It talks about all the compromises made to get the constitution passed. And yes, at it's heart the civil war was about ending slavery. Some will say, No, it was about states rights, but ask yourself, a states right to do what, hmmmm. Perhaps they wanted to own slaves, hmmm.
My, what a smart boy you are. I wasn't comparing American with Russian or China I was pointing out was that what you perceive as one things others will perceive as another. It's not the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist that matters, it's what people think they are. There's a lot of people support Al Queda and the Taliban because they do believe they are freedom fighters. Silly comment? maybe but a true one all the same, you just didn't understand it in thinking it was a comparison, it's not.
If I'd been an American in the days of the War of Independance I would probably have been fighting for freedom too, perhaps not but I'm not passing comment on the rights or wrongs of that, I'm passing comment on how the American were perceived by the English at the time. it's all about perception, you can't assume that all Russians and all Chinese do regard their governments as evil and want to be rid of them. there is a big movement in Russia to get the communists back into power, that's coming from the people. Whether they are right to want that or not is a different debate.
Where's your proof in all this, that the 'terrorists' (which ones btw, there are several groups in the world) want to dislodge the Saudis? do you actually have a point of view thought out by yourself alone or are all your views from books you've read and you like tha sound of?
And how does any of that make it "right?" Or any less evil?
Or anything less than "American?"
No. The Indians were usually trying to eliminate invaders-terrorists in their homeland.
This statement is typical of the European mindset that viewed the African continent as a vast nation of one people-mostly "savages," when the facts were quite different, and "african" slavery and slave trade was most often a case of one nation preying upon another. Most of the African slaves in early America came from West Africa, where coastal trade-dominated by the Portuguese-was easy.
While some of my ancestors occasionally ate the hearts of enemies,and human sacrifice did take place in some nation's religion, that n no way excuses what was done to the natives of the North and South American continents by invading Europeans, nor does it relieve the present daay United States of the fact that it was born in a continuing genocide of aboriginal people from coast to coast.
As for your comment about Columbus's crew-I can only assume that you mean the 40 men from the Santa Maria he left behnd on Hispaniola. These men fought among themselves, went off searching for gold, and were killed save 11-according to what remains of Columbus's journals. No convincing evidence exists that the natives of the Caribbean were particularly warlike, fierce, or cannibals, even the legendary Caribs, though they did raid the Taino islands, generally to take “brides.”
Remember, Columbus's journals also mention the mermaid (which was likely a manatee) and the cyclops.
Last edited:
The irony of bringing the War of Northern Aggression up is that the person who started that war, Mr. Lincoln, would have stood for war crimes had his side lost and he been captured. Esp. given the delight he took in hearing tales from Sherman and Sheridan of their rapine of the South. The actions of those generals, and the troops under them, as well as the actions of General Butler towards the women of New Orleans, are well documented, through official orders, official correspondence, etc. Detailed discussion on that war is buried here in several threads.
As to the Indian massacres, I disagree with the idea they've been debunked. If anything, my information solidifies the blame for them on US troops who were on an authorized mission of removal and extermination approved of by their commanders all the way up to the White House. There's also the fact that Indian Treaties were only good until something of value was found on the land, then the rules changed. This was a constant.
As to the Indian massacres, I disagree with the idea they've been debunked. If anything, my information solidifies the blame for them on US troops who were on an authorized mission of removal and extermination approved of by their commanders all the way up to the White House. There's also the fact that Indian Treaties were only good until something of value was found on the land, then the rules changed. This was a constant.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
Oh, it certainly was fought over slavery. Every other aspect of the conflict you could bring up as an explanation (tariffs, state's rights, status of new states/territories, etc.) had slavery as the driving conflict. Slavery was the driving conflict in all of the Compromises (1850, etc.) that averted war previously. Slavery was woven into the very fabric of the conflict, a conflict that was present at the start of the Nation, and was only deferred and not prevented by the various Constitutional compromises enacted. The Confederates themselves cited the threat to slavery as their reason for seceding (state decrees of secession, Vice President Alexander Stephens' "Cornerstone" speech, etc.). Every Confederate state seceded after the election of Lincoln, but before he could even take office. Why? Because of his stated opposition to extending slavery to new states and territories. Everything leading up to the war? Bleeding Kansas and the like? Slavery as the driving conflict. Slavery is the only reason the Civil War happened, and why it threatened to happen many times prior to 1861.
The modern insistence that secession and war had nothing to do with slavery only started after war's end, with a number of previous Confederate high ranking soldiers and politicians who began the "Lost Cause" mythology of the Confederacy. This effort has been unrelenting and continues to this day, abetted by influential historians at various points. It crops up in odd places, like "Birth of the Nation" and "Gone With the Wind", and even MartialTalk.com. This effort to rehabilitate the Confederacy and ignore and alter history is deceitful and wrong, although surprisingly effective. Every claim of the modern Lost Causers (blacks fought for the Confederacy, the North was worse, etc.) has been disproved by modern scholarship. You even see it in the names used, like "War of Northern Aggression" which is indefensible by the facts, or in claims like Robert E. Lee was anti-slavery (he wasn't). This is the twisting of history to suit political ends, and I'm sorry to see it has been influential outside the United States.
I've expressed my views on that issue, and presented significant supporting evidence and references in the past. US Civil War Myths and Facts
I understand U.S. history far better than I can explain it in a forum like this. I just do not automatically assume that the U.S. is on the dark side of every issue. I look at the world in general, look at the past history of the U.S., and great tragedy has in fact happened here, but I try to see the real world, not an idealized one that puts the U.S. in a worse position than it deserves. For a nation just over 200 years old, we have done amazing things that the other nations of the world haven't. That's all.
WC_lun
Senior Master
This is absolutely true and I don't think anyone is disagreeing with it. I think many of us are actually vehement about our country not committing immoral actions because we realize the US is a great country not as a result of immoral actions, but despite them. We are a great country because of our ideals. When we forget those ideals and give in to actions such as torture, we are basically spitting on those ideals that make us great.
Blade96
Senior Master
Nor do I. I am a history major, thinking about doing my masters in history. So while I know the us has done nasty stuff, well, so has everyone else. And while the US has done lots of good stuff too, so has many other countries. I just had a problem cause some of your posts seemed to put the US on some golden light, above others. They are not. They've done a lot of good and a lot of bad. That doesn't make them the epitamy of evil, nor does it make them gods either. The US btw did use biological warfare as others pointed out.
billcihak said:
Sure they have. I agree with this too.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
We Americans may not be better or worse than other countries in our behavior, but we certainly are superior in claiming to be better.
Blade96
Senior Master
Yeah, unfortunately. But that is often what causes a lot of dislike towards you. Also unfortunately. I visited the US in 1992 and when I did have to say, I liked America.
That's not exactly true. The text of the Constitution reads:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned 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.
This says nothing about slaves being 3/5ths of a person. In fact, the word slave is not mentioned in the unamended Constitution at all. What this was doing was giving the measurement as to how many representatives would be allowed in each state, with free Persons =1, and and all others being 3/5ths.
In fact, if you read the wording, three fifths of all other Persons, it implys that slaves were people, not 3/5ths human and 2/5ths something else.
I know that's not the point of the conversation, just gets old hearing that passed around repeatedly.
