Posted on 12/11/2019 7:41:18 AM PST by ladyjane
Yes, it was all about power. The southern states wanted all slaves counted fully so they could get more representation in congress and more electoral votes. The Northerners didn’t want slaves counted at all - something this so-called history teacher apparently doesn’t understand.
No.
There were no Republicans OR Democrats at the time the 3/5s compromise was reached. There was a Federalist Party and a Democratic-Republican Party.
Slave states wanted slaves counted as a full person for purposes of representation. Free states didn’t want slaves counted all.
I always wondered where the 3/5 rule came from. It seemed really arbitrary and unjust.
The first time I filed my federal income tax after coming back from Vietnam with a war bride wife (1972), the IRS would only let me claim 3/5 of a dependent until she became a citizen. She passed her citizenship test and became a citizen 3 years later, at which time I could claim her as a whole dependent.
Great example of compromise.
What would be better no constitution at all?
It took awhile, and “a few people died” (/s), but in the end we fixed it.
God made each person 100% a person. The government can’t make a person 70% of a person. Blacks/Slaves were ALWAYS 100% persons.
They weren’t treated as 100%, but that doesn’t change the facts.
Indians that paid tax were included. Only those NOT paying tax were excluded
Did they ask what Nations are still practicing slavery to this day? Oh, and child trafficing and Oh, and women like 3 class citizens... Oh, and killing homosexuals?
“If Southern states had counted the slaves as full persons hiand let them vote, the slaves would have outnumbered the white population ...”
So you think there were more slaves than free folk? Doubtful.
If the slaves had been counted in the population, the southern states would have had the representation they needed to keep slavery legal
This was actually a maneuver by anti slavery forces to dilute the voting power of the pro slavery states
If people were ever educated on fact
See above
Correct, and if slaves had been counted as “full people”, the slave states would have had a permanent majority in Congress. It’s ironic that the people who whine about “3/5 of a person” are unwittingly siding with the slavers who only cynically wanted to use slaves to get more political power for themselves.
“Nobody wanted to count Indians.”
Ah, so this is what they mean when they say politics has been so much more partisan nowadays.
No you make yourself look stupid when you read the words “adding to the whole Number of free Persons...three fifths of all other Persons” and then make the illogical leap that somehow slaves were considered 3/5 of a person. You don’t have to parse anything. All you have to do is read and comprehend. Start developing those skills now and maybe you can contribute to the conversation in some rational way at some point in the future. Most likely the distant future.
BTW..do they ever theorize how much worse the slaves would have been without the U.S.Constitution?
SEVEN!
And the 13 colonies would have have become the United States of America, the Constitution would not have been ratified.
It was a compromise to get the Constitution approved. The 3/5 apportionment was for the selection of legislature, and those who supported slavery demanded that slaves count towards the number of legislators apportioned to the slave states. Those in opposition to slavery didn't want the slaves to count at all. But when that was proposed, the states that supported slavery threatened to oppose the adoption of the constitution.
So the compromise was proposed, with the hope that by reducing the number of slave supporting legislators in the congress, that eventually slavery could be outlawed.
This is VERY different than the popular myth taught by "progressives" in schools that the 3/5 value was because slaves weren't seen as having the same level of "humanity."
Mark
Not sure I understand your comment … the Indians were viewed as largely being effectively foreigners, not participating in either the civil society nor the government of the several States.
You have it exactly backwards. Slave states wanted slaves counted the same as every other person; non-slave states didn’t want them counted at all, since counting slaves would increase the slave states’ representation in the House.
The compromise—count them as 3/5ths was a slight victory for the slave states.
As has been pointed out, Democrats and Republicans didn’t exist at the time. Many blacks also get the 3/5ths Compromise wrong. If the slave states could have pulled it off, they’d’ve counted slaves as two free people.
I preferred Rufus is pimping 3 girls. At $40/trick how many tricks will it take to pay for his $200/day crack habit?
_________________________________
Or
If Tyrone has 5 baby mamas and four baby mamas have 2 babies and one baby mama has 3 babies, how much does Tyrone have to pay in child support?
I should have qualified the statement:
Slaves accounted for a huge percentage of the population in most Southern states, in some cases, such as South Carolina in 1780 and 1820, outnumbering Whites.
Slave, Free Black, and White Population, 1780-1830
I've been listening to too much Dinesh D'Souza. Thanks for keeping me on my toes.
yup. Ang call all the women ho’s and have them running crack for them to the hood. The hood being subsidized government housing in Philly and Brooklyn.
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.