7 ms·

Where is racism "literally written" into the constitution? edit: look I know it's bad form on here to complain about being downvoted, but I was asking an hones

Where is racism "literally written" into the constitution? edit: look I know it's bad form on here to complain about being downvoted, but I was asking an honest question. Chill, people.

56quarters 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise 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.
_rend 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise The Three-fifths Compromise was a compromise reached among state delegates during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. Delegates disputed whether and how slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population, as this number would determine a state's number of seats in the House of Representatives and how much it would pay in taxes. The compromise counted three out of every five slaves as people... In the US Constitution, the Three-fifths Compromise is part of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3: 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 [italics added].[2]
- TheCoelacanth 6y ago
  Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 is even more damning I think. Basically saying that importation of slaves must be allowed for at least the first 19 years of the country's existence. > The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
  - buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
    How is that damning? The alternative was to create the union without the south. Then slavery would have continued much longer in the south. How would it have been better for the north to refuse to compromise? The constitution brought the end of slavery. It didn’t prop it up.
    - Technically 6y ago
      I'd argue the damning point is that we still use the original constitution.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Ok - but that expired a long time ago, and the Civil Rights act was passed in 1964. Is the complaint that we haven’t erased the slavery related stuff from the record? What has this got to do with people being racist now?
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > the Civil Rights act was passed in 1964. A Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. Civil Rights Acts were also passed in 1866, 1871, 1875, 1957, 1960, 1968, and 1991. But the passage of a Civil Rights Act is not, in and of itself, an indication of the end of systemic racism.
      - sanity31415 6y ago
        What evidence would prove that systemic racism doesn't exist?
      - zepto 6y ago
        “But the passage of a Civil Rights Act is not, in and of itself, an indication of the end of systemic racism“ Systemic racism is rampant in every country I have lived in, the US included. But you are changing the subject. The question is about why it matters that it was once part of the constitution if it is no longer?
nxc18 6y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise I guess I am conflating the history of slavery in the US with racism.
- mike00632 6y ago
  Racism was already codified into the American institution of slavery before the revolution. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States At the time of writing the constitution, slavery was expressly racist.
  - paulus_magnus2 6y ago
    Probably putting the comment too deep to be noticed but racism (or xenophobia) has always been there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamestown_Polish_craftsmen#Strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamestown_Polish_craftsmen#Str... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1619_Jamestown_craftsmen_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1619_Jamestown_craftsmen_strik... The Jamestown craftsmen's strike of 1619 took place in the settlement of Jamestown in the Virginia colony.[1] It was the first documented strike in North America.[2] Skilled craftsmen were sent by the Virginia Company to Jamestown to produce pitch, tar, and turpentine used for shipbuilding.[3] When the colony held its first election in 1619, many settlers were not allowed to vote on the grounds that they were not of English descent, and they went on strike.[2] Due to the importance of the skilled workers in producing valuable naval stores for the colony, company leaders bowed to labor pressure and gave full voting rights to continental workers.[1]
    - Technically 6y ago
      Not to mention that this land was occupied before the white man showed up.
vzcx 6y ago
I assume he is talking about the 3/5 compromise. I wonder if you could tell us, GP, which states wanted that number to be one and which wanted it to be zero?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- wilsynet 6y ago
  Let’s put this in more context. Of course slaves weren’t allowed to vote, and 3/5ths meant that the South would get more representation as recognition of the economic strength they were bringing to the union. It’s not like the Northern vs Southern states were arguing about whether a slave’s vote was worth 0, 3/5, or 1. This was about ascribing more (or less) power to slave owners.
  - jki275 6y ago
    No... the 3/5 compromise reduced the power of the south, because it kept them from getting representation for those they refused to allow to vote. The south wanted 1, the north wanted 0. The 3/5 compromise was one of the forces that eventually brought about the end of slavery. It didn’t increase the south’s representation, it decreased it.
    - jtdev 6y ago
      Oh wait... we don’t actually want to learn about history here unless it reinforces our identity politics mindset. Please remember this before posting logical, factual information.
      - jki275 6y ago
        We live in a totally post fact world. Nobody wants to hear truth, they just make up whatever story they want to believe and pretend that makes it fact.
    - wilsynet 6y ago
dragonwriter 6y ago
Aside from the place mentioned in numerous sibling comments, Article I Sec. 9. Cl. 1 (it's not phrased in racial terms, but it's literally Constitutional protection of the slave trade.)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
TheGRS 6y ago
You're welcome to look it up before making a flippant question next time.
blackrock 6y ago
If you seriously don’t know about this, then the parent poster’s comment about schooling, is completely accurate. > Our (non-higher) education system in the US is nothing to be proud of and wildly inconsistent at best.

Where is racism "literally written" into the constitution? edit: look I know it's bad form on here to complain about being downvoted, but I was asking an honest question. Chill, people.

56quarters 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise 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.

_rend 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise The Three-fifths Compromise was a compromise reached among state delegates during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. Delegates disputed whether and how slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population, as this number would determine a state's number of seats in the House of Representatives and how much it would pay in taxes. The compromise counted three out of every five slaves as people... In the US Constitution, the Three-fifths Compromise is part of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3: 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 [italics added].[2]

TheCoelacanth 6y ago
Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 is even more damning I think. Basically saying that importation of slaves must be allowed for at least the first 19 years of the country's existence. > The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
- buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
  How is that damning? The alternative was to create the union without the south. Then slavery would have continued much longer in the south. How would it have been better for the north to refuse to compromise? The constitution brought the end of slavery. It didn’t prop it up.
  - Technically 6y ago
    I'd argue the damning point is that we still use the original constitution.
- zepto 6y ago
  Ok - but that expired a long time ago, and the Civil Rights act was passed in 1964. Is the complaint that we haven’t erased the slavery related stuff from the record? What has this got to do with people being racist now?
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > the Civil Rights act was passed in 1964. A Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. Civil Rights Acts were also passed in 1866, 1871, 1875, 1957, 1960, 1968, and 1991. But the passage of a Civil Rights Act is not, in and of itself, an indication of the end of systemic racism.
    - sanity31415 6y ago
      What evidence would prove that systemic racism doesn't exist?
    - zepto 6y ago
      “But the passage of a Civil Rights Act is not, in and of itself, an indication of the end of systemic racism“ Systemic racism is rampant in every country I have lived in, the US included. But you are changing the subject. The question is about why it matters that it was once part of the constitution if it is no longer?

nxc18 6y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise I guess I am conflating the history of slavery in the US with racism.

mike00632 6y ago
Racism was already codified into the American institution of slavery before the revolution. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States At the time of writing the constitution, slavery was expressly racist.
- paulus_magnus2 6y ago
  Probably putting the comment too deep to be noticed but racism (or xenophobia) has always been there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamestown_Polish_craftsmen#Strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamestown_Polish_craftsmen#Str... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1619_Jamestown_craftsmen_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1619_Jamestown_craftsmen_strik... The Jamestown craftsmen's strike of 1619 took place in the settlement of Jamestown in the Virginia colony.[1] It was the first documented strike in North America.[2] Skilled craftsmen were sent by the Virginia Company to Jamestown to produce pitch, tar, and turpentine used for shipbuilding.[3] When the colony held its first election in 1619, many settlers were not allowed to vote on the grounds that they were not of English descent, and they went on strike.[2] Due to the importance of the skilled workers in producing valuable naval stores for the colony, company leaders bowed to labor pressure and gave full voting rights to continental workers.[1]
  - Technically 6y ago
    Not to mention that this land was occupied before the white man showed up.

vzcx 6y ago

I assume he is talking about the 3/5 compromise. I wonder if you could tell us, GP, which states wanted that number to be one and which wanted it to be zero?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
wilsynet 6y ago
Let’s put this in more context. Of course slaves weren’t allowed to vote, and 3/5ths meant that the South would get more representation as recognition of the economic strength they were bringing to the union. It’s not like the Northern vs Southern states were arguing about whether a slave’s vote was worth 0, 3/5, or 1. This was about ascribing more (or less) power to slave owners.
- jki275 6y ago
  No... the 3/5 compromise reduced the power of the south, because it kept them from getting representation for those they refused to allow to vote. The south wanted 1, the north wanted 0. The 3/5 compromise was one of the forces that eventually brought about the end of slavery. It didn’t increase the south’s representation, it decreased it.
  - jtdev 6y ago
    Oh wait... we don’t actually want to learn about history here unless it reinforces our identity politics mindset. Please remember this before posting logical, factual information.
    - jki275 6y ago
      We live in a totally post fact world. Nobody wants to hear truth, they just make up whatever story they want to believe and pretend that makes it fact.
  - wilsynet 6y ago

dragonwriter 6y ago

Aside from the place mentioned in numerous sibling comments, Article I Sec. 9. Cl. 1 (it's not phrased in racial terms, but it's literally Constitutional protection of the slave trade.)

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

TheGRS 6y ago

You're welcome to look it up before making a flippant question next time.

blackrock 6y ago

If you seriously don’t know about this, then the parent poster’s comment about schooling, is completely accurate. > Our (non-higher) education system in the US is nothing to be proud of and wildly inconsistent at best.