“Republican state lawmakers have defended the infamous “Three-Fifths Compromise” — the constitutional agreement by which enslaved people would count as three-fifths of a person for representation purposes — by arguing that it was actually somehow anti-slavery.”
The whole process of determining a slave as less than a person and to be a person without any privileges of human decency is ridiculous. The democratic south wanted to use the number of slaves as a tool to increase votes in congress while denying them the basic rights guaranteed in the Constitution for financial reasons. The republicans rather than jump the democrats for this thinking, allowed the south to still do it, but not as bad to balance the power in congress. Course they were still enslaved and inconsistently treated but not as a whole person. Which ideology was worse, fire or frying pan?
wy69
“Which ideology was worse, fire or frying pan?
Getting a British bayonet up your wazoo when they returned because you could not come to a temporary agreement with someone you had a dispute with. You are engaging in feminine emotion-based thinking.
Look at the old Ben Franklin cartoon. “Join or Die”.
Compromises had to be made. If the 3/5 compromise wasn’t made to punt the ball down the road, the Brits were going to return to destroy them.
Your thinking is basically that after a plane crash, a man and woman who survive and find a cabin cannot strip and share that one sleeping bag to ward off hypothermia because they aren’t married.
This was pure survival.