Posted on 04/10/2019 1:54:52 AM PDT by blueplum
“The three-fifths provision as to apportionment of US House seats was meant as a way to limit the political power of the slave states and was based on slave status, not race. Free Blacks were counted in full for purposes of apportionment. I doubt that slaves at the time knew or cared much about the provision.
Yet as a Northern delegate in the Constitutional Convention noted, the logic of the three-fifths rule implicitly contradicted the principle of equality that was elsewhere applied even as to slaves. It is that broader sense of Black slaves being treated in any respect in the Constitution as of less consequence and value than free persons that animates the current controversy. I suggest though that such a focus misses the greater point: that the Constitutional Convention failed to end slavery or at least put it on a swift path to extinction.”
But it is interesting that even though the 3/5ths rule was pushed by the northern states, the Confederate States constitution contained the same rule.
You realize spaces were white too - right?
“As I recall, 3/5 did not pertain to free blacks.”
I hadn’t heard that, but if that is true (which is probably the case), then that COMPLETELY blows away the racism argument.
His comment wasn’t racist but he’s a republican, so... isn’t it amazing how when Obama was President he was so super - duper smart that the rest of us just didn’t understand him because we’re merely mortals but every republican including President Trump is just dumber than a bag of hair.
“The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached among state delegates during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. Whether, and if so, how, slaves would be counted when determining a state’s total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years. The compromise solution was to count three out of every five slaves as a person for this purpose. Its effect was to give the southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored, but fewer than if slaves and free people had been counted equally. The compromise was proposed by delegate James Wilson and seconded by Charles Pinckney on June 11, 1787”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise
1789 - George Washington elected president. Only 6% of the population can vote.
1856 - Vote expanded to all white men North Carolina is the last state to remove property ownership as a requirement to vote.
https://a.s.kqed.net/pdf/education/digitalmedia/us-voting-rights-timeline.pdf
It was estimated that the 3/5 clause gave the South an edge of about 6% in Congress from 1789-1860.
So it definitely protected the South.
It’s also interesting to note that the “stick” part (representation was the “carrot”) was that the South would have to count 3 out of 5 slaves toward TAXATION. But this element was never implemented as the US never taxed the states, instead relying on land sales and the tariff. Ultimately the 3/5 compromise was a win/win for the South.
It was racist but it was also antislavery. Because slave states wanted them counted So they could have more white proslavery representatives in government.
FIFY.
For all intents and purposes they had NO representation so were essentially non-persons (representationally speaking).
There has been more willful ignorance about the true meaning of the Three-Fifths Compromise than almost anything else in the Constitution. The left being the most egregious in lying or misrepresenting it.
This is a pet peeve of mine as you know.
Are these people, some of whom have PHDs, really not intelligent enough to understand? Or are they just misrepresenting this for the benefit of their voter base which is not intelligent enough to understand or whom they don’t want to understand cause it’s such a good line to use to rile them up?
It could not be more simple, if you were against slavery, you would not want to count the slaves at all. Slave owners WANTED THEM COUNTED FULLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Right.
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.