I criticized one statement: 'Virginia was the most populous state in the first 9 elections' and that's not even close to being accurate!
Then you indulge in some bombastic flourish about how the 3/5 agreement tainted those first 9 election which when I thoroughly explained wasn't
so, you go off on a tangent about local elections which was no part of your initial faulty post.
There is no need to digress into pretzel like contortions in an attempt to validate a debunked presentation of the facts. That's CNN's job!
My
initial post was the one you quoted: "Of the antebellum South and the future CSA, I blame those citizens who voted in year after year elected officials who promised -- decade after decade, to maintain, protect and expand the practice of human bondage. Ponder that, Confederate defenders."
Which is true. Front to back. Southerners voted in these slavery supporters up and down the line, decade after decade till and even during the Civil War.
And my point about Virginia (of which I was a few years off) was this: Eight of the first nine presidential races were won by a Virginian.
& THIS: "the South dominated congress for near all of the first quarter of our history."
My 3/5ths point still stands, and for those new to the thread -- this was the follow -up post (with two words added for accuracy) in full:
Originally Posted by
Paperview 
The 3/5th clause was primarily about reapportionment.
The North did not want the slaves counted - because they were property, much as a horse or cow was property.
In fact at the Constitutional Convention, some Northern reps even argued if property could be counted for reapportionment, why not their own horses?
The south wanted full count to beef up their numbers in Congress,
which it did -- they just didn't want those same people -- er, property, to vote
or to actually have representation.
That would kinda jam up their plans.
It was a dirty compromise - because the southerners said they would not ratify the Constitution if they could not give their slave property at least 3/5ths representation in Congress.
Without giving them representation. They used their slaves as hostages to the negotiation.
The deal was done, then
the South dominated congress for near all of the first quarter of our history.
Eight of the first nine presidential races were won by a Virginian - which was the most populous state *until 1820.
And this:
Every single president, with the exception of two (from the North, the Adams') until 1850 - was a slaveowner."
It seems totally lost on him.
Pointing out the South wanted to count the slaves as
more than 3/5ths and the North didn't want to count them at all is a long, tired, worn out Lost Cause talking point. There is nothing to infer from this - other than Southern slaveholders wanted even MORE representation in Congress for people ...er, property "
who had no representation in Congress, and were viewed as nothing more than farm animals".
You can pick on the bones of a few years error and miss the general point being made here all you want from this point on. I don't care. The statements stand.
