Three Fifths Equals One Third

Just off the top of my head I can think of two decent Democrat presidents.  Men that I like, or who loved the Constitution, or were pragmatic or competent in a way I could respect.  Two.  Truman and Cleveland.  

Going back to Jackson, 1828 -- 1829, really, but elected. Jackson was a monster of egotism, like, I'd argue, TR.  Huge and forceful personalities.  TR never fought a duel, but he did love a strenuous life that included charging up a hill not named San Juan, as it was not named Bunker.  But TR was mentally healthy.  

Van Buren invented, crafted the spoils system, which turned into the civil service, which has turned into the bureaucracy we have now, appendage of the apparatchik state.  So, smart, crafty ... what did they call him?  The Red Fox.  Red hair gives us the red, but the fox is from his character.  

Polk was notable, but not good, not good.  But up to a certain point, that's inevitable.  Democrat is the party of slavery.  No Democrat could be good.

Is this Presentism?  I don't think so. That Party had a platform, and slavery was at the heart of it.  You can never wash off that stink.  They don't even have the decency to change the name.  

All but actual Abolitionists had problems with african heritage.  Lincoln said he wouldn't marry a black woman.  To have a problem with that now is Presentism.  Mere ignorance or lack of experience is not the same as the positive assertion that the black man "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect" -- you know, the Democrat position.  The Republican Party was founded on anti-slavery.  Biden's party called us the "Black Republicans" ... the ultra MAGA Black Republicans.  

All Klansmen were Democrats. No Republican was a Klansman.  But I'm being Presentist.  How dare I remember and hold the Democrats to the stink of their hateful heritage.   I should pay them a fine, a sort of reparation. 

Buchanan you should know about already.  The Biden of the Nineteenth Century.  Prince of Chaos.  

Wilson's favorite film was Birth of a Nation, KKK I mean AKA The Clansman.  (The Nation was the CSA.)  (Fun Fact: Hitler's favorite film was King Kong -- he also loved Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.  Which of these three is not like the others...)  

Wilson and FDR were disasters for the Constitution.  JFK was smoke and mirrors, and LBJ was like Jackson -- a monster of ego with only emotion to guide him.  Inept Carter, disgraceful clinton, anti-american BO.  Biden barely exists.  We know where he is by listening for the derisive laughter.  

It's this slavery thing.  Not an american problem -- human.  There's an idiot movie glorifying some african warrior women somehow.  Couldn't they find any african women who were really heroic?  Instead of making these slavers into role models?  How Bidenesque.  In this context I can't say black is white, but down is up and wrong is right. 

So how could there have been a United States without slavery?  Not possible.  There is a United States because of the three fifth compromise.  Certain non-citizens were to be counted as 3/5 of a citizen for purposes of House representation.  It's so inconsistent that it's crazy.  But it's the only way the South would accept the Constitution.  Because of the South's, the Democrats', Peculiar Institution.  

Tough beans.  That's how history works.  But I was wondering about the alternative, the only actually honorable alternative.  No compromise.  So, from the start, a United States, and a Confederate States, in whatever year that would have coalesced, 1789ish.  No President Washington -- not for the North, and he wouldn't have served the Slave South.

The North would have been industrial and commercial.  The South would have been agricultural and slave-based, and martial and expansionist.  Both would have moved westward.  The North would have had no great principle to defend -- the great principle of the Constitution.  It would have tried to keep slavery out of the Northwest Territory.  But an equivalent of the "popular sovereignty" doctrine would have prevailed -- there would have been no "Union" over which to fight a "civil war".  

The South had a military ethos unknown to the North.  So North America would have been mostly slavelands.  Bye bye Mexico.  Louisiana Purchase is a non-starter, given Jefferson was a southerner.  And so on.

With all our enlightened modern principles we don't even know that a human fetus is human.  So why can't a human being be a slave.  If you don't know -- that thing about a fetus -- I'll leave it for you to puzzle out.  You probably know that a human being can't be a slave -- to think otherwise is politically incorrect, and actually incorrect.  No human can be a slave; all fetuses can be aborted; therefore I won't bother to formulate this into a syllogism.  

The outcome of polling data depends on how the questions are asked.  The Civil War was about States rights -- the right to own property ... most notably slaves.  During our current Cultural War, it's about a woman's right to choose ... most notably abortion.  

Finish the euphemism ... moron.  

If there had been no three-fifths compromise, there would have been no need for Hitler.  You know, to create the Nazi Party.  It would have happened many decades sooner, in North America.  And, to be parsimonious with our diction, the Party would have been called Democrat.  

I mean, grand Nazi Party planks like eugenics and euthanasia, and other eu- things ... well, we here in america, some of us, have euabortion and eutranz and euequity and eutolerance and I could go on and on because it's ease once you get the idea.  The idea is, label your things doubleplus eugood, and their things ultra maga supremecist.  

These armbands © are hard to find.  

The point is that it's complicated.  Purity isn't the virtue we were taught that it was, when we were idealistic and naive children, or adolescents, or sophomores, or educators, or bureaucrats. We all start out as abortable clots of globby goo, not to say viable young-ones with fully developed nervous systems including higher brain function.  But we outgrow that embarrassing awkwardness, and we gain, somehow, human worth, with nuance and gravitas, and suchlike yeswecans.  Tolerance, did I say?  

And somewhere along the way, somehow, we have to suppose that in this best of all possible worlds (because it is the only world, and a good God would not allow needless suffering) even such a vile three-fifths of a compromise as tolerating slavery is tolerated, until maturity is suffered to come unto its full term.  

What trimester does 3/5 fall into?  Somehow that math makes it seem like a fetus is 1/3 of a person.  

Somehow this became about abortionism.  Or do you prefer euphemisms. 

J