Posted on 05/04/2021 7:16:47 PM PDT by Olog-hai
A Tennessee Republican falsely declared Tuesday that an 18th century policy designating a slave as three-fifths of a person was adopted for “the purpose of ending slavery,” commenting amid a debate over whether educators should be restricted while teaching about systematic racism in America.
During lengthy debate on the GOP-controlled House floor, several (b)lack lawmakers expressed concerns about the bill’s impact on how certain subjects would be taught in schools, specifically highlighting the Three-Fifths Compromise. The policy was made during the nation’s Constitutional Convention in 1787 and classified that three-fifths of a state’s slave population could be counted toward its total population when apportioning taxes and states’ representation in Congress.
Historians largely agree the compromise gave slaveholding states inordinate power over choosing a president — and decisions of the Continental Congress. That clout eventually faded when Northern state populations began to rapidly rise.
Rep. Justin Lafferty, who is white, stood up and talked at length about what he saw as sparking the compromise. At one point he asked colleagues to note on paper their best guess for the reasons that led to the policy.
“By limiting the number of population in the count, they specifically limited the number of representatives who would be available in the slave holding states and they did it for the purpose of ending slavery,” said Lafferty, from Knoxville. “Well before Abraham Lincoln. Well before Civil War.” …
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
If all slaves had been counted the same as others, the Democrat slaveholding south would have been predominant in the Congress from the beginning, Actually, there would have been no union because the Northern states would not have permitted themselves to be dominated by the Southern states. Few know this because history is not taught in school any more.
Of course it was anti-slavery to keep the sleeve states from having inordinate power in congress.
Blacks were also being taught that, if they voted to end slavery that they would face economic oblivion.
Blacks themselves would have voted for slavery.
Think illegal aliens....
I didn’t know there were many opinion polls done of slaves.
Historians largely agree the compromise gave slaveholding states inordinate power over choosing a president — and decisions of the Continental Congress. That clout eventually faded when Northern state populations began to rapidly rise.The AP acknowledges the truth, but gives a false reason.
“The Slave Trade Act of 1794 was a law passed by the United States Congress that prohibited American ships from engaging the international slave trade. It was signed into law by President George Washington on March 22, 1794. This was the first of several anti-slavery trade-acts of Congress. In 1800, Congress strengthened it by sharply raising the fines and awarding informants the entire value of any ship seized.”
“In August 1795, Providence, Rhode Island merchant John Brown conspired to trade in slaves.[4][5] Brown conspired with a Captain Peleg Wood with the ship Hope to be used in the slave trade. By November Hope was engaged in the slave trade, and in March 1796, the owners of the ship were fined by Rhode Island the amount of £200 for trading in slaves, which had been outlawed in that state. On a voyage in 1796 Brown’s ship traveled to Havana, Cuba with 229 slaves. This trading voyage led to a trial of Brown in 1796 for violating the statute. Brown became the first American tried in federal court under the Slave Trade Act of 1794.[5] On October 5, 1797, Brown lost his case and was forced to forfeit the ship in accordance with the law.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Trade_Act_of_1794
If they wanted to end slavery so bad, why not just end slavery right then and and not put the Three-Fifths Compromise in the Constitution?
Which “they” do you speak of?
Obviously the slave states did not want to end slavery, and the states would be too divided among themselves to fight the British. Good luck telling the AP propagandists that.
he is correct
It was a compromise, nothing less or more, between pro-slavery and anti-slavery states.
Funny how he had the same name as the radical abolitionist.
You’re forgetting who owned slaves at the time...Washington, Jefferson...etc etc..
They vote for the slave party today, after almost 170 years of being free from slavery and where most of their income is self-earned.
Do you think they would have voted for freedom when 100% of their income was dependent upon being provided for?
solely economics....
” During lengthy debate on the GOP-controlled House floor, “
I’m confoozed...
“Funny how he had the same name as the radical abolitionist.”
How is a person that believes that people should not be held in slavery be radical?
Tennessee House.
Actions rather than beliefs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.