Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: afortiori

“Actually, it was free northern states that wanted blacks to be counted as 3/5ths of a person for apportionment purposes. This issue was completely separate from disenfranchisement of blacks.”

I thought it was the other way around, the free states wanted the slaves to not count as a person (with respect to apportionment) and the slave states wanted them to be counted as a full person. Being counted counted as a full person gave greater voting power to the slaveholders. The 3/5ths thing was a compromise, but it’s possible that slavery could have been eliminsted earlier had the slaves been counted as zero. I’m google-less at the moment, but someone jump in here and correct me if I’m wrong.


10 posted on 03/08/2008 2:13:44 PM PST by Over30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: Over30

You’re right. The southern states wanted to count the slaves in when it came to determining the number of Congressmen a state would have, but not allow the slaves to vote. The three-fifths measure was a compromise — one that still gave extra power to the voters of slaveholding states.


11 posted on 03/08/2008 2:29:30 PM PST by TheMole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Over30
I probably should have phrased it that free northern states didn't want black slaves to be counted at all as a whole person, leading to the 3/5ths compromise, rather than 3/5ths being the North's original preference.
12 posted on 03/08/2008 6:22:33 PM PST by afortiori
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson