The entire leftist, woke and Demonrats is all about who can bow the fastest an farthest.
Posted on 05/08/2021 4:39:32 AM PDT by Republican Wildcat
The compromise limited the disproportionate influence the slave states had in Congress but it did not eliminate it.
—
It was a compromise! Not supposed to limit it, but to keep it from immediate take over and expanding to future states and territories!
—
The Northwest Ordinance, Missouri Compromise, and Compromise of 1850 had more to do with restricting the spread of slavery to the territories than the 3/5ths compromise did.
—
The later laws were LATER and where certainly influenced by the original 3/5ths ... The Northwest Ordinance 1789, The Missouri Compromise 1820, The Compromise of 1850
I did not say the Civil War would not have happened, just without the 3/5ths slavery would not have been an issue (”slavery as an ISSUE in the Civil War would never have happened.”) - as you know the original issue was taxation
At the time the South was compromising on the 3/5ths provision, there were no free states.
And euphemistically calling northern slave states “free states” does not change anything.
It does help to explain why you so often misspeak.
You garble historical facts, make assumptions, and arrive at conclusions that can not be supported with formal documentation.
It might be pretty to think that fully counting slaves in apportioning House seats among the states was a step towards the recognition of human equality, but few people would have thought that way at the time, and that wasn't why slaveowners liked the idea.
It would certainly be clever to think that Northerners who opposed fully counting slaves were actually enemies of the way to equality, but they had legitimate fears that apportioning seats that way would encourage Southern states to remain slave states -- and support pro-slavery moves in Congress.
It was a compromise, a glass half full and half empty. Both sides had to give something up. At the time, the free states could have contented themselves that they prevented slave states from dominating Congress. Today, critics see it as a sell-out that allowed the slave states more votes in Congress than they deserved.
... Joseph didn’t take the bait — unlike fellow CNN host Chris Cuomo, who began the 10 p.m. hand-off by hinting at a conspiracy behind Republicans accurately discussing history.
CNN doesn't hire the smartest people...
Today, critics see it as a sell-out that allowed the slave states more votes in Congress than they deserved.
—
And had today’s critics been alive then and able to influence the outcome, we’d still be a British colony or worse a collection of warring separate states.
Today’s critics can’t make meaningful compromises and that’s half or more of the problem; the other half is their not just shortsightedness, but their near total blindness to any outcome that doesn’t fit their narrative of the moment.
Your logic is a bit backwards on that one - the entire reason it was fought against for them to count as a whole person was to reduce the slave states from using their slaves to gain more political power over the free states. Blacks in the non-slave states were not slaves and counted as a whole person in the census.
Because they weren't property. Slaves were. What reason does property need congressional representation for?
If they had counted as a full person as the slave states wanted, the slave states would have had more House seats and more Electoral votes.
I understand that, but that sentence you a responding to was not written to be separated from the other one.
The entire leftist, woke and Demonrats is all about who can bow the fastest an farthest.
“It would certainly be clever to think that Northerners who opposed fully counting slaves were actually enemies of the way to equality . . .”
Many, if not most Northerners, historically have opposed equality.
The reasons I say that is because of the way Northerners treated black people when they owned them as slaves; and the way Northerners treated black people after they were freed.
Pretty much everybody back then was a racist by today’s standards. Still, the idea that somehow slaveowners who wanted representation for their states to be increased because of the slaves they owned weren’t taking a step on the way to equality and Northerners weren’t blocking that step. And that is what I said, though you want to twist it into something else.
There was no Dem party at the time of the Framing. There were 13 quasi independent states maneuvering to create a compact that would serve individual interests while providing a government to protect
general interests. What was being done was interest group politics of a very high order, not theology.
Touche.
Yep. Blacks misunderstand the 3/5ths rule, as they do so many things.
Had it not come into existence, America could very well still have African slaves today.
The stupid, it burns.
Replace “Northerners” with “Southerners” and your statement would be equally true.
robowombat: "There was no Dem party at the time of the Framing.
There were 13 quasi independent states maneuvering to create a compact that would serve individual interests while providing a government to protect general interests."
Anti-Federalists like Jefferson, Monroe & George Clinton were the opposition Democrats of their time.
They opposed ratifying the Constitution, became the anti-Administration faction under President Washington and in 1792 formed the opposition "Democratics" party.
"Democratics" in opposition claimed to support "strict construction", but once elected in 1801 they did whatever they wanted, including policies they'd previously opposed.
The 1787 Constitutional Convention debates over slavery were among pro-Constitution Federalists though slavery-defenders threatened to oppose the Constitution if slavery was not protected.
Those threats made them the opposition Democrats of the 1787 Convention.
PIF: "It was a compromise!
Not supposed to limit it, but to keep it from immediate take over and expanding to future states and territories!"
PIF is here projecting backwards from the debates of 1820 & 1850 to those of 1787.
But in 1787 the distinction between slave & free states was not as clear-cut as it later became.
Nor was there in 1787 any suggestion of a threat that slave-states could somehow prevent other states from abolishing slavery.
That argument was never publicly made before the 1857 SCOTUS Dred Scott decision.
The issue in 1787 was whether slaves should count as "persons".
Southerners argued slaves should not count if the subject was proportional taxation, but should count for proportional representation.
Northerners said, in effect: "but you can't have it both ways".
So 3/5 was the compromise which preserved the Union.
In the longer run we focus on the 3/5 of slaves as giving Southern states more representatives.
However, Northern states successfully compensated by allowing millions of poor immigrants to settle in Northern Big Cities, ruled over by Democrat political bosses.
From roughly 1820 on these Northern Democrat Big City immigrant bosses allied with Southern Democrat slaveholders to rule in Washington, DC, until secession in 1861.
During all this time, so long as Democrats remained united, the original pro-Constitution Federalists, National Republicans, Whigs & anti-slavery Republicans remained distinct minorities.
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.