Emory University President on the Three-Fifths Compromise: a Great ‘Pragmatic’ Solution

Young_ChitlinYoung_Chitlin YCN Chief/FCC Member/#RedVelvetSquad Member/IC Task Force General/Future LawyerASUville, PhoenixPosts: 21,837 ✭✭✭✭✭
By: Max Rivlin-Nadler

Writing in the winter issue of Emory Magazine, President James Wagner rhapsodizes about the need for compromise in a politically turbulent society. He points out that the constitution was in itself a compromise. Another example he cites, is the Three-Fifths Compromise, which legally represented slaves as less than a person. He writes:
One instance of constitutional compromise was the agreement to count three-fifths of the slave population for purposes of state representation in Congress. Southern delegates wanted to count the whole slave population, which would have given the South greater influence over national policy. Northern delegates argued that slaves should not be counted at all, because they had no vote. As the price for achieving the ultimate aim of the Constitution-"to form a more perfect union"-the two sides compromised on this immediate issue of how to count slaves in the new nation. Pragmatic half-victories kept in view the higher aspiration of drawing the country more closely together.

He then goes on to explain that compromises, like the Three-Fifths Compromise, keep our country great. Let's think of a bunch of other compromises that he could have used instead of the one that is horrible and forever a stain on our nation:

- The Affordable Care Act

- Voting Rights Acts

- Bicameral Legislature

- Do all homework, you get to watch The Simpsons

That took me two minutes.

Also, the whole piece is pretty much about why he's cutting back on the humanities:
At Emory of late we have had many discussions about the ideal-and the reality-of the liberal arts within a research university. All of us who love Emory share a determination that the university will continue trailblazing the best way for research universities to contribute to human well-being and stewardship of the earth in the twenty-first century. This is a high and worthy aspiration. It is tempered by the hard reality that the resources to achieve this aspiration are not boundless; our university cannot do everything we might wish to do, or everything that other universities do. Different visions of what we should be doing inevitably will compete. But in the end, we must set our sights on that higher goal-the flourishing liberal arts research university in service to our twenty-first-century society.

Foot goes where? In mouth. In mouth, sir.
¡No contaban con mi astucia!
5 Grand wrote: »
I see a lot of people saying they'd "give" family members money.

Thats not what you want to do.

You want to set up a trust fund so they get a monthly payment. You can set up a trust fund so your mother gets, say, $10,000 a month for the rest of her life. According to my math, $10,000 per month for 20 years is $2.4 million. That's better than giving her $2.4 million up front because she can blow it all in a matter of days and then she'll want more and you'd feel obligated to give it to her.

So if you win, don't "give" anybody anything. Set up a trust fund.

Now that I think about it, I could set up a trust fund for my brother. I'd give him $10,000 a month. He's about 45 now so $10,000 per month for 40 years is only $4.8 million. That makes more sense than giving him the money in one lump sum.

AggyAF wrote: »
Anyone else think it's crazy only about 10 posters regularly post here and we got damn near 500 pages?

All the other sports threads on here are people with hobbies. This is football - the beautiful game. We eat, sleep and drink football.

hqg-277.gif


Sign In or Register to comment.