I remember reading a raving review when that first came out. I think my dad actually has it. It's on my to-do list
I hate to do it, but I have to turn your LOL around and LOL right back at you! That was until John QUINCY Adams became the sixth president of the United States...You are correct about the relevancy to Bachman, but he was a little more than an ambassador.
That's kind of a fascinating quote to me. Given a time that the South would've been independent without the North fighting them, I think you would've seen that. It already had happened in isolated cases prior to the war (Nat Turner, Denmark Vesey, Harper's Ferry) and was happening around the world (Haiti, Russia, Cuba, British VI, Panama, etc). I'm digressing, though.
I almost brought that up, and I'm glad someone did. There was just about as much time between 1776 and him becoming president as there was between him becoming president and Lincoln becoming president. Ed O.
The 3/5th thing really did work. By the time the Civil War started, the North had enormous advantages in the House when it came to voting for Bills that helped establish the railroads, among other things. The South had railroads, but they were disconnected; a line from Savannah to Atlanta... Those Northeastern Liberals were quite content to have their beef from the stockyards in Chicago shipped to them via an actual railroad. I use the term Northeastern Liberal not as some sort of insult, but to illustrate how long the term (like John Kerry) has been part of the political lexicon. Partway through the Civil War, the Northeastern Liberals would have been happy to let the South secede and become a separate country. They whined back then like they do now. And think they should run everything.
Do you think the founding fathers had the foresight to see that 80 something years later the 3/5 clause would have weakened the South's power in the House?
So basically women and slaves, who could note vote, would give districts more power because they were giving more house seats, right? And yet these people could still not vote, thus giving a select few more power. Is it wrong that I draw a conclusion between certain groups that have a lot of children, and thus inflate their amount of house seats, but the children still don't vote?
Representation and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers ... . The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct." -- Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States
I believe that only adult males were counted, with slaves counting as 3/5 of a free person. (Not sure how free non-whites/non-Christians were counted...) Ed O.
Women were first counted in the 1850 census. They were first allowed to be equivalent of head of household in 1860.
