Posted on 05/08/2021 4:39:32 AM PDT by Republican Wildcat
Any semblance to truth uttered by a demonrat is purely coincidental...
Lemon is correct. Regardless of whether slaves were counted as a whole person or as 3/5ths of a person the end result was still to grant slave states a disproportionately large representation in the House of Representatives.
—
Wrong - counting Negro slaves as 3/5ths of a person keep the South from dominating the House and furthering the spread of slavery - which was the South’s goal; more than 3/5ths they would dominate, at 3/5ths they did not dominate, hence the compromise. Had the South dominated as you inferred, then slavery would have spread to all other states, and slavery as an issue in the Civil War would never have happened.
It’s like what democrats are trying to do with illegal immigrants by counting them in the census. The southern states wanted to count the slaves to get more power, the northern states didn’t want to count them. Again, the left just twisting it all around to try to buffalo the electorate to thinking it’s all about “right wing, white supremacist republicans”. CNN is a major source of misinformation that stokes racial hatred.
The real issue was not giving the slaves the vote. It was that the slave holder personally voted on behalf of each of his slaves. If he had 500 slaves he personally cast 501 votes. the purpose of the compromise was to reduce the electorate power of the slave holder.
‘...the end result was still to grant slave states a disproportionately large representation in the House of Representatives.’
the whole point of the compromise, which you seem to have missed, was to prevent sufficient disproportion in representation to expand slavery to the entirety of the western territories...without it, there would be no constituion as we know it today, as the slave states would never have ratified it...
‘Had the South dominated as you inferred, then slavery would have spread to all other states, and slavery as an issue in the Civil War would never have happened.’
disagree; there still would have been strife amounting to open warfare; but it may have been the free states seceding instead...
it would be an interesting exercise to determine the ramifications of that...
Lemon is incorrect; as are you.
The South wanted to count slaves as whole persons for the purpose of representation in Congress. True, slaves could not vote but neither could women and children at the time; and women and children were counted as whole persons for the purpose of representation in Congress. No one in the North disputed that.
It (counting slaves as whole persons) would have been a first step by the South, albeit a baby-step, towards recognizing the concept of racial equality. The North would have none of it.
Had the South insisted on counting slaves as whole persons, the North would never have agreed to form our nation.
In hindsight, the South should have realized that the North was going to be trouble.
Why would any Republican go on Don Lemon’s show? What do expect? To be treated well?
Lemon is an idiot.
Weren't slaves property in all slave states?
And who were the slave states?
New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.
Also, Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia were slave states. Don't ever forget to cast 4/13ths responsibility in that direction.
“Counting negro slaves as a whole person would have permitted the South to take both Houses and have made slavery in every state legal - it was about stopping the spread of slavery, not some racial discrimination/representation ploy.”
When the Constitution was being debated 13 of the 13 states were slave states.
Or did you not know that?
The purpose was to reduce representation in congress of the cotton states where a relatively high number of slaves lived, and to increase the representation of the northern states where relatively few slaves lived.
When the 3/5ths compromise was being debated slavery was legal in all states.
The record shows that of the 13 original states, 13 of them voted to enshrine slavery into the United States Constitution.
“the whole point of the compromise, which you seem to have missed, was to prevent sufficient disproportion in representation to expand slavery to the entirety of the western territories . . .”
Was the expansion of slavery into the western territories an issue at the time the constitution was being debated?
The reason I ask is because 13 of the original 13 states were slave states.
And of those 13 slaves states, 13 voted to enshrine slavery into the United States Constitution.
I’ve concluded the so-called Biden Administration is about getting revenge on whitey. I wouldn’t be surprised if he starts pushing that whites only get 3/5 of a vote....or proposes white be made slaves for 100 years to balance things out!
The difference being that women and children were not property, could not be bought and sold, and had rights and privileges that slaves did not.
It (counting slaves as whole persons) would have been a first step by the South, albeit a baby-step, towards recognizing the concept of racial equality. The North would have none of it.
Oh absolute utter nonsense. Recognizing slaves as a whole person for the purposes of congressional representation would have done nothing but increase the disproportionate representation of slave states in Congress at the expense of the free states. The suggestion that it might have led to blacks, free or slave, being recognized as equals is idiotic.
Had the South insisted on counting slaves as whole persons, the North would never have agreed to form our nation
Same with not counting them at all. Hence the compromise.
In hindsight, the South should have realized that the North was going to be trouble.
The North should have done likewise.
Voting had nothing to do with it. The purpose was to give slave states a disproportionate number of representatives in the House.
The compromise limited the disproportionate influence the slave states had in Congress but it did not eliminate it.
Had the South dominated as you inferred, then slavery would have spread to all other states, and slavery as an issue in the Civil War would never have happened.
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.
Lemon and Fredo saying they don’t know. Oh, imagine my surprise!
If they had a clue, they would celebrate the 3/5ths compromise.
It accelerated the eventual freedom of the slaves.
When the Constitution was being debated 13 of the 13 states were slave states.
Or did you not know that?
—
Geewilikers Mr Wizard, how amazing you are to imagine that the founders could not envision the country growing beyond the original 13. You should have been there to tell them it was pointless compromise!
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.