The New York Times: Three-Fifths Of A Newspaper
It's sad enough the New York Times' editors believe it "a theatrical production of unusual pomposity" that the incoming Republican Congress require "that every bill cite its basis in the Constitution." It may be only me, but I'd be willing to bet those same Times editors would be running down the hallways, arms a-flailin' and citing a pure constructionist position on the First Amendment, if the new Congress required government oversight as to the content of their sorry excuse for a newspaper.
But of course, the New York Times didn't stop there. Showing the originality of a rap artist skimming through the Rhino music catalog, in search of a 70's hit of which to lift an eight-bar hook, the New York Times reached into the liberal playbook and rather clumsily interjected the race card into the discussion.
In any case, it is a presumptuous and self-righteous act, suggesting that they alone understand the true meaning of a text that the founders wisely left open to generations of reinterpretation. Certainly the Republican leadership is not trying to suggest that African-Americans still be counted as three-fifths of a person.
Just because Republicans want to make sure any legislation they pass meets Constitutional muster doesn't mean they believe blacks be counted as three-fifths of a person, but maybe by using this example as part of their rebuttal the New York Times believes three-fifths of their readership are functionally ignorant of history.
Or maybe three-fifths of the New York Times editors are as well?
Let's see how well they accept my three-fifths' worth....
The South (during the era of slavery) wanted to include blacks in the population tally so they could increase the number of pro-slavery congressional representatives. It took 30,000 people to get one congressman, and slaves outnumbered whites in slave states. It was the Democrat hope that with enough pro-slavery congressmen, they could overturn much of the abolitionist legislation Northern Republicans had previously passed.
However, there was one philosophical problem: blacks in Southern states had no rights thus The North deemed it a joke they only be counted when beneficial to Democrats. Northern abolitionists argued that since The South considered blacks their property, all "property" should be counted for the purpose of determining congressional representation. Thus the Northern abolitionists would include their property: horses, cattle, homes, furniture, pets, etc. in their population tallies.
The South denounced the proposal, so anti-slavery northerner James Wilson of Pennsylvania came up with a compromise.
Blacks in the Southern states would be counted as "three-fifths" of a person. That way, it would take 50,000 people (instead of 30,000) in a district to earn congressional representation. That had the effect of limiting the power of the slave states.
It had NOTHING to do with the worth of a person and EVERYTHING to do with diminishing the power of Southern racists, like those progressives at the New York Times today who continue to distort the history of an entire people purely for political gain.
Certainly the Republican leadership is not trying to suggest that African-Americans still be counted as three-fifths of a person.
Apparently the New York Times' editors still do.
- Bob Parks's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Who was running the show...
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 8:35am.
...in the southern racists states at the time?
Just askin'
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
Careful...
Submitted by Bob Parks on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 8:40am.
The Democrat Race Lie
Everyone should read and bookmark that article.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 9:02am.
Lying is no problem for the Democrat politician with the MSM on their side.
Thanks for the link Bob
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 9:12am.
And the link refuting the "segreationists became repbublicans lie". Some here may have noticed myself and Jer going round and round about this. Next time, I'll post your link, sit back, and smile.
You see, I too grow weary of the democrat lie. Thanks again.
I hear ya
Submitted by Bob Parks on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 9:16am.
I just use the link myself because so many progressives use the "Dixiecrat" excuse when presented with the Democrat legacy. I'm personally quite tired of responding to it.
Thanks for the Link
Submitted by ahusser on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 11:56am.
I enjoyed the Link. The only thing missing was the overt racism of Woodrow Wilson and his re-segregation fo the Federal Government.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
Platinum Parks
Submitted by stratman on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 4:14pm.
Superb post, Mr. Parks, and useful link concerning the Democrat lie of historical Civil Rights support.
Slavery existed in the North
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 10:19am.
Slavery existed in the North as well. Also, federalists and anti-federalists held slaves.And China still sells diesel to this day.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 11:58am.
What is your point other than making everyone aware of your love of incest in every single blog?
Interesting
Submitted by ckc1227 on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 12:27pm.
Aren't you the one who brought up incest in this blog?
Even More Interesting.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 1:10pm.
Still waiting for a reply to this post from you. THEN, THEN we can open a new conversation.
++++
#25 Will you remove your foot from my butt?Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 6:11pm.
You are the one acting like this was some kind of a big brouhaha. That the Chinese can now take out our entire Navy with one attack submarine popping up in a battlegroup.
~
+++++
Or this one ---
++++
#27 Sorry. Did not know I was picking a fight.Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 6:03pm.
Also did not know we were at war with the Chinese. When I say diesel, when anyone says diesel, it is kinda understood that it is a diesel-electric. ~
~
++++
Or this one ---
++++
#28 I thought about it and guess what? I am ticked off.Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 6:02pm.
20 years in the Navy, I got to have this guy stick his foot up my butt because I said Diesel.
~
+++++
Or this one ---
++++
#37 Have we met?Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 6:46pm.
What is with you and the constant non sequitors?
IF MY STATEMENT IS WRONG. PROVE IT.
I don't need you and your damn red herrings crawling up my rear.
+++++
You got an issue with me, finish one conversation before you whip out that girlyman foot of yours and start waving it around.
As I figured.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 1:18am.
Cut & Run ckc1227 drops his little snot rant slam posts on other users then runs off and posts16 me too snores in other blogs.
Whatever. Still waiting for your response in the original forum. I saw your 16 posts AFTER I called you out for the 2nd time now.
The NYT races forward to
Submitted by ThisnThat on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 8:44am.
The NYT races forward to declare the Constitution un-constitutional, or racist, or hateful...
And at the same time, tries to convince us that the Koran is truely a magnificent testament to The Religion of Peace.
And they do this publically, with no concept of how deranged they truely are.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
OK, That Does It
Submitted by Winghunter on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 9:01am.
There comes a level of subversion that can no longer be ignored - and they stepped over that line so long ago.
The Constitution IS a
Submitted by Cowboy on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 9:10am.
The Constitution IS a document of negative rights It defines the limitations of government authority. That is what it was intended to do.
That is why libs hate it so much.
That is why the proposal to require Constitutional authority for a federal law is excellent.
That is why reading it to Congress is important so that they can defend and protect it according to their oath to do so.
And those three fifths
Submitted by HockeyKid on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 9:19am.
(rounding to the nearest whole letter, 3/5 of the 9 letters in "newspaper" leaves 6 letters)
are clearly "new pap".
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Apparently the NYT does not understand "amendment"
Submitted by c5then on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 9:27am.
And here I thought they were all supposed to be so educated and enlightened.
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.) " It doesn't mention the color of anybody. It only distinguishes between "Free" persons and "all other" persons". News flash to the NYT, there were more than black people who were slaves.
The 13th amendment reads..."Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." So each and every person, being free, is now counted as a whole.
The main body of the Constitution also prohibits any direct tax upon the states or the people unless it is apportioned (see above). Will the liberals go with that or will they bring up the 16th amendment?
Why is it that almost every liberal argument is hypocritical?
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
If Libs were "staging" the reading of the Constitution
Submitted by ekslib on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 9:36am.
the New York Times would say the play deserved a (Tony) Award for Best Choreography.
Let's get some facts
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 9:41am.
Let's get some facts straight: the Constitution does not say blacks are 3/5 of a person. Whites were also among the ranks of the slaves. Additionally, American Indians often held slaves, a good number resulting from warfare amongst the bands and tribes and raids on the colonists. Free blacks also held slaves. So Mr. Parks and others should drop the revisionist racist angle. There was no monopoly on slavery by any one "race".Thin Liberal Skin
Submitted by Bob Parks on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 9:59am.
Putting words in one's mouth is a tried-and-true desperation tactic of the left. IF Satchmo had read the New York Times piece along with my rebuttal, I was responding to their attack on Republicans using blacks. It was the NY Times that implied Republicans may think of blacks as 3/5ths of a person, not I. I never said it was so written into the Constitution, nor did I write blacks have a monopoly on slavery.
I had read it and I know what
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 10:25am.
I had read it and I know what you were responding to. I didn't put any words in your mouth. I didn't say that you thought blacks were 3/5 of a person. I am pointing out that blacks were not mentioned in the Constitution since whites were also slaves as well as the fact that Indians and Free blacks held slaves. Additionally, I am taking issue with your revisionist racist angle, that being that slave holders and/or the South was racist. Do you think Free blacks who held black slaves were racist against blacks? And for your further information, I am not a liberal.Read What You Wrote
Submitted by Bob Parks on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 10:37am.
I never said it did and the NY Times asked if Republicans thought blacks were 3/5ths of a person. This was all in context of the GOP wanting the Constitutionality of legislation being taken into account. I don't see anyone claiming the 3/5ths Clause is in the Constitution.
Sigh. I know you didn't say
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 10:45am.
Sigh. I know you didn't say that. I wasn't addressing you at all, although I do see how it might have come off that way. I wasn't addressing you or any specific person. The bit about the racist angle is the painting of the South with a broad brush. Racists and non-racists owned slaves, federalists and anti-federalists owned slaves. Members wishing to count slaves as a full person could be found in all groups, just as slaves and owners could be found amongst all "races". It wasn't just "Southern racists".Sigh. You're an effing liar.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 11:39am.
"I wasn't addressing you at all..."
Who wrote this:
"So Mr. Parks and others should drop the revisionist racist angle..."
Phweet. I know. I really know you know my address.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 12:09pm.
I know you know you said my address is painted with a broad brush on the side of my house. I own paint. You own paint. I know you know I wasn't knowing what to say about knowing you and I addressiing my statement about knowing you knowing my address.... What? INCEST IS BEST!
Whose post made more sense? Mine or the Incestmo troll?
Sit back and enjoy as Incestmo explains slavery to Mr. Parks
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 10:34am.
LOL.
Ah yes...SoL
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 11:02am.
This is becoming a pattern with the the incest boy.
Attack the blogger, then say "no I didn't say that", followed by twisting leaps of illogic....this is several days running, now.
Too bad we don't have emotes, here. We have a great one on the Gator boards, a beautiful train wreck. That's what we need.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
B: next, will Mr. Parks be directed to read "Caligula Shrugged"?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 11:18am.
LOL
Reading through NewsBusters
Submitted by Van Halen on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 9:40am.
Reading through NewsBusters this AM gave me a laugh. It's article after article of Leftwing fury about the new Congress. It's like watching the Left meltdown over Nov 2 all over again. Racists! Bigots! Homophobes! Constitution-lovers! America-firsters!
What fun!
Wow.
Submitted by prosanity on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 10:02am.
This piece is devastating. Awesome work Bob.
All of civility depends on being able to contain the rage of individuals. ~ Joshua Lederberg
Proper Constitutional Process
Submitted by redandgearhead on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 10:09am.
And the 3/5ths count was removed by the proper constitutional amendment process and not by Executive Order or overreach by the Executive Branch or Judicial reinterpretation by the 9th Circuit.
Desperation is a stinky
Submitted by johnsonl on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 10:17am.
Desperation is a stinky cologne.
Interpretation as garbled communications
Submitted by KC Mulville on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 10:25am.
There's a scene in the movie Patton where headquarters delivers bad news to George C. Scott. They tell him to stop what he's doing. He answers, "That's what you think it says. I think it was garbled in transmission." He then uses the "garbled" excuse to continue on with his own plans.
The idea that the Constitution is an interpretive mystery is no different than calling it garbled communications. It's just a way to fend off any Constitutional restraint. It's essentially bragging that the Constitution isn't going to stop you. It's disobeying the authority of the Constitution. It's a way to frustrate the restraints of law
In other words, it's lawlessness.
Thank you Mr Parks*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 10:52am.
Great article and once again exposing the liberal media bias and their open collusion with the far left to continue to spew revisionist history.
BTW: If you continue to debate with satchperv, just ask him if he thinks slaves engaged in consensual incest and you have his attention all day long and he will show you that the label of "liberal" is the least offensive accusation you can throw at him.
annoying
Submitted by soosan on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 11:58am.
I find this back handed accusation of race baiting annoying and offensive. I pray I live to see this kind of stuff stop.
A quote:
Submitted by HockeyKid on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 12:07pm.
"The Republican Party is the ship; all else is the sea." - Frederick Douglass
(Now watch the Democrap simps try to claim he meant a SLAVE ship, and it was so powerful that not even the sea of wonderful Democraps could save the poor souls held aboard. Rush is right--lefties are just so easy to predict.)
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
"Certainly the Republican
Submitted by ckc1227 on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 12:33pm.
"Certainly the Republican leadership is not trying to suggest that African-Americans still be counted as three-fifths of a person."
Why would they? Does the Constitution say Blacks are only three-fifths of a person?
I suppose they're afraid the
Submitted by ant on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 1:27pm.
I suppose they're afraid the Republicans want to go back to making an S that looks like an f also. The length of their reaching whenever they try to paint their enemies is so often absurd, but call them socialists and it's "Ha! Ridiculous! Wherever did you get that idea?"