"David Lentz"  wrote in message
news:3fl3e.97$Ms3.76{at}twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> "Kurt Ullman"  wrote in message
> news:Ckh3e.3369$x4.3274{at}newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> In article , "David
Lentz"
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Scott v. Sandford never refered to person has three fifths of a person:
>> >
>> >
>>     The interesting thing is that the 3/5 of a person was a NORTHERN
>> thing.  Since Congresscritters, etc. were going to be apportioned
>> based on population (census, not who could vote) the North did not
>> want the slaves counted at all (largely to keep the
>> Congresscritters, etc., up North). THe 3/5 was a compromise.
>
> For the historically challenged.
>
> One, the three/fifths reference is from the Constitution.
>
> Two, it was not a northern thing, or even a southern thing    It was a
> compromise.  The North wanted slaves to count for purposes of taxation but
> not representation.    The South wantedt the opposite, count for
> representation, but not for taxation.
>
> Further note, there no characterization in Constitution of anybody as
> three/fifths of a person.  The description pertained only to taxation and
> representation.    Al Gore's debate charaterization was dead wrong.

"Only"?  They tax us and they say they represent us.  Doesn't that pretty
much cover the waterfront?

Jeff




--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 4/1/05 8:47:54 PM ---