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.
‘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...
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.
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.
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.