To: Svartalfiar
Yes, and the reason slaves were counted as 3/5 was to REDUCE the representation from slave states in the House, which, if slaves had been counted as 1.0 instead of 0.6 would have been that much greater.
In 1790, the slave states had 30/69 seats in the House. Had their slaves been counted as 1.0, even though they could not vote and were not citizens, they could well have commanded a majority.
The 3/5 clause was an anti-slavery measure.
41 posted on
08/15/2017 8:06:05 PM PDT by
Jim Noble
(Single payer is coming. Which kind do you like?)
To: Jim Noble
47 posted on
08/16/2017 7:29:01 AM PDT by
jurroppi1
(The Left doesnÂ’t have ideas, it has cliches. H/T Flick Lives)
To: Jim Noble
The 3/5 clause was an anti-slavery measure.
Kind of. If the northern states had their way, slaves would have been counted a 0/5 of a person. The 3/5 number was a compromise between not counting and fully counting. My point, however, was not the 3/5 number, it was the implied term 'slave'. Not 'Negro', 'black', or any such term, it was all-encompassing. It included white slaves, yellow slaves, indentured servants, etc. Yes, the majority of slaves were black, but the Constitution did not specify them at all.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson