General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsVA GOP Lt. Gov. Candidate says blacks responsible for genocide, supports 3/5 of a person amendment
Virginia Republican: Black civil rights leaders responsible for genocide
By Stephen C. Webster
Sunday, May 19, 2013 16:48 EDT
A Virginia Republican who on Saturday secured the nomination to run for Lt. Governor said in an online video published last year that he believes black civil rights leaders are responsible for a genocide of African-American children by supporting Democrats and reproductive choice.
snip
The Democrat Party has created an unholy alliance between certain so-called civil rights leaders and Planned Parenthood, which has killed unborn black babies by the tens of millions, he said in a video published to his official YouTube page. Planned Parenthood has been far more lethal to black lives than the KKK ever was.
During his last run for public office, Jackson insisted that the so-called 3/5ths clause in the Constitution, which counted slaves as 3/5ths of a man, was an anti-slavery amendment designed to reduce the voting power of slave-owning states. That woefully wrong theory was originally floated by Republican conspiracy theorist Glenn Beck and apparently repeated by Jackson without examination.
In the video published last year, Jackson adds that Democrats and their black civil rights allies are partners in this genocide, going on to insist the persecution of LGBT people is nothing like the persecution of African-Americans throughout U.S. history.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/19/virginia-republican-black-civil-rights-leaders-responsible-for-genocide/
Bonhomme Richard
(9,000 posts)the voting power of slave-owning states"
I thought I had just read that in a biography of Thomas Jefferson as fact.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Slaves could not vote, but by counting them as 3/5 of a person for the census the slave states were able to cite a higher population to receive additional representation in Congress.
Bucky
(54,003 posts)The Articles Congress, before the Constitution, had no representation by population at all. So the compromise neither increased nor decreased the voting power of the slaveholding states.
The 3/5s clause was a compromise between the states with and without slaves who could not agree on whether or not to count slaves. After all, it's not like they had universal manhood suffrage in more than a few places in 1787. But the real intent behind it is to represent the greater wealth of the tobacco-exporting slave-holding states. Under the Articles of Confederation, their allotted contribution to Congress to pay for confederal expenses went by state population, but included the 3/5s calculation because (1) the people in the South were richer at the time and (2) it was assumed that a slave didn't earn as much wealth as a free man. By the way, free persons of color were counted as 5/5s of a white man for purposes of representation and Confederal contributions quotas, even though in most states they couldn't vote.
sakabatou
(42,152 posts)Bucky
(54,003 posts)Shakes head
wandy
(3,539 posts)Boomerproud
(7,952 posts)The stupid AND hate are strong with this one.
IDemo
(16,926 posts)Two traits guaranteed to get his base to the polls, unfortunately.
cali
(114,904 posts)he's a loathsome creature but he clearly does not support the "3/5ths clause". He misinterprets it but no where does he say that he supports it.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Sounds like support to me, I think my subject line accurately reflects what he said.
Loup Garou
(99 posts)MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Those of us who are black and aren't right wingers look on people like this as an embarrassment.
This guy is, most certainly, someone's "crazy uncle."
olddots
(10,237 posts)n.t