Homey don't play fractions!
Posted on 12/11/2019 7:41:18 AM PST by ladyjane
Just teach the facts.
= = =
The fact is, we are teaching Social Engineering. Get over it.
It was done so the slave states could not dominate the congress on the backs of a population inflated by slaves that cannot vote. It was the slave owners that wanted the slaves to count equal to a white person so they could have more congressmen and ensure that the slaves stayed slaves. But lefties are too stupid to realize that the 3/5 compromise actually was in the best interests of the slaves.
I know why the compromise was reached.
So what?
In fact, while on the subject, slavery should have been abolished at the very founding of this nation. That it wasnt was both disgraceful and stupid.
“The southern states should not have been allowed ANY voting apportionment for the people they held in bondage.”
True. However, at that moment, we were facing the global superpower Britain. The only possible hope the colonies to survive as a new nation was unity. This was no idle threat. The Brits returned in 1812, and they tried to split us up during the Civil War as well.
Allowing them full representation would let the south get outsized power in Congress due to extra congressmen allotted due to a large population that included slaves. Allowing them NO counting of slaves towards population would have given them little incentive to join the union.
So there was a compromise. It was written by very smart men who considered it deeply. We stuck together and repelled the Brits, soon afterwards we ended slavery.
Nobody was claiming a slave was 3/5 of a person as pop culture for morons says today. It was a rebuke to the south that wanted to fully claim them as citizens, while holding them captive.
I know why the compromise was reached.
So what?
In fact, while on the subject, slavery should have been abolished at the very founding of this nation. That it wasnt was both disgraceful and stupid.
*************
Then there wouldn’t have been a nation founded. The issue was that deeply held by those who held to it.
Presentism is the idiocy. Judging the past by the beliefs and morals of the present.
That’s what stupid people do. That’s why the left is always doing it.
I love you but the truth was the complete opposite
Your recollection is correct
This thread brings out the ignorant in search of the answer which will make friends lol
The Leftist ispired history revisionists totally mischaracterize the purpose and intention of 3/5ths compromise.
It’s purpose and intent was to DIMINISH the possible representation in Congress of the slave owning states. Because slaves essentially had no direct representation, as they were not considered free citizens and could not vote, THEIR POPULATION NUMBERS were not considered equal with the population of free citizens. By that means, slave owning states apportionment of seats in Congress than it would have been if slaves were counted the same as free citizens.
The compromised was NOT to diminish the person of the slave, it was to diminish the Congressional representation of slave owning states.
It’s two issues
Enfranchisement which was denied to many back then ...like you for example...in many states it was only men on property tax rolls
And it was about congressional apportionment
It was not about morality
I think you might have it backwards, Balding_Eagle-the 3/5 Compromise was an anti-slavery measure to reduce the apportionment for governmental representation in the House.
The Democrats wanted each slave to be counted fully to increase their clout in Congress. The Republicans didn’t want that.
Hence the compromise.
No. First at the time there was no Republican political party. Second, the concern was that the slave holding states would have a far greater number of representatives than the free states if both slave and free population were wholly counted. So the 3/5 compromise was to prevent the slave states from having too much power in Congress.
Teach history.
Teach civics.
OMG! It sounds like you want to bring back slavery!
False.
Correct.
I find it fascinating that you hear it, loudly, often, and belligerently from the Left that the 3/5 Compromise was an indication of how whites have viewed blacks throughout history in this country.
In their pea-brains, this is an indication that whites think blacks are only 3/5 of a human being, and is an indication of devaluing their humanity due to inherent racism.
You hear that out of prominent Democrats, even today.
I have to laugh at the thought of saying to one of them who buys this: “So...in your calculus, the slave holders actually held blacks in higher regard than those who wanted to free them?”
The short circuit sparks would be fun to watch.
Proto-Democrats wanted slaves counted as a full person although they would not be allowed to vote.
This meant that the master's vote would be more valuable. This would often happen in the UK where there would be districts where there were perhaps five people who could actually vote, all of them were in some ways owned by the local lord. It meant that whoever he wanted in that seat was elected.
The Proto-Republicans wanted only voters actually counted for Congress seat apportionment.
The 3/5th thing made no one happy but it did reduce the power of the slave states to the point that they were not able to force slavery on the whole country.
To compare it to something modern, Congressional seat apportionment is made on raw population numbers. So the illegals and HB-1 visa holders in California, the foreign diplomats in Virginia and the UN delegates in New York are all counted. So a district that is made up of 100 Americans has no more power then a district that has 10 Americans and 90 foreigners. This reduces the power of the voted depending on where he lives.
It is my personal opinion that only American citizens should be counted for Congressional seat apportionment. It would reduce somewhat the power of the big cities.
The Republicans wanted them to be counted as a full person like anyone else.
Neat trick considering the Constitution was ratified in 1789 while the Republican Party wasn't established until 1854 and the Democratic party wasn't established until 1828.
All free persons counted as a full person, whether white or black, "excluding Indians not taxed."
Shocking that they failed to refer to Indians as "Native Americans."
‘My recollection was that the Southern states wanted slaves counted in full, while Northern states didn’t want slaves counted at all. Is that why this 3/5 was put into the constitution?’
you are correct...
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.