Conquer Club

Ok, so it's in our constitution, that at our founding, in a compromise between the north and the south, slaves were to be counted as 3 for every 5. Why do people think this is a bad thing? I think this was a good thing (IT STARTED THE PATH OF ENDING SLAVERY!)

It WAS a bad thing, but I also think it was a generous first step toward ending slavery.

Phatscotty wrote:Ok, so it's in our constitution, that at our founding, in a compromise between the north and the south, slaves were to be counted as 3 for every 5. Why do people think this is a bad thing?

This wasn't a step towards ending slavery. It was voter manipulation intended to give the south greater influence on elections.

If it was the slaves that actually got to vote that would be one thing. Instead the slave owners got additional voting powers..

At the time, it wasn't a "bad thing" - it granted some additional congressional representation based on population.

It was a racist policy in that obviously, African Americans were not considered "equal" to European Americans, but in and of itself, the policy did no harm.

If I recall, in today's population counts to determine voting districts, children aren't fully counted, either; only voters - or those legally entitled to vote are counted fully when determining these districts. Not a racist policy, but is it a bad thing?

GabonX wrote:This wasn't a step towards ending slavery. It was voter manipulation intended to give the south greater influence on elections.

stahrgazer wrote:At the time, it wasn't a "bad thing" - it granted some additional congressional representation based on population.

It was a racist policy in that obviously, African Americans were not considered "equal" to European Americans, but in and of itself, the policy did no harm.

Sorry Gabon, but you're completely wrong, as are the 3 people who voted that the policy was racist. Without the 3/5ths rule, we might still have slavery, or it at least would have lasted longer than it did. It was actually the Southern states who fought to have slaves counted as full people (just without voting rights) because that would have given them more representatives than the North, effectively providing a blanket protection against the repeal of slavery. The abolitionists in attendance during the Constitutional Convention knew that the only chance to end slavery in the future would be to keep slaves from being counted as full people in the present. They didn't want slaves to count at all as a person by turning the slaveholders' own arguments that blacks were the same as cattle to be bought and sold, and if cattle weren't counted in the population, then neither should the blacks. The 3/5th compromise did grant some additional representation to the south, as stahr stated, but it was put in place to keep the South from becoming powerful enough to block abolition later on down the road. It was actually a completely brilliant method as there is no way the Constitution would have passed without it.

If I'm completely wrong why did you repeat 75% (three out of four sentences) of what I said?

Also, you stated that without the 3/5ths compromise we might still have slavery today. My understanding is that a course of events referred to as the Civil War resulted in the abolition of slavery. How then did the 3/5ths compromise affect the course of the Civil War such that the abolition of slavery was a result?

GabonX wrote:If I'm completely wrong why did you repeat 75% (three out of four sentences) of what I said?

Also, you stated that without the 3/5ths compromise we might still have slavery today. My understanding is that a course of events referred to as the Civil War resulted in the abolition of slavery. How did the 3/5ths compromise affect the course of the Civil War such that the abolition of slavery was a result?

Well technically, the Civil War was originally fought over State's Rights. And the balance of power was upset by more Slave Free states being admitted than Slaveholding which upset the Senate balance. There may have been indirect causation as the parity in the Senate was achieved before the Civil War through various compromise agreements like the Mason-Dixon Line and whatnot. Probably inspired by the original 3/5 compromise.

Sorry Gabon, but you're completely wrong, as are the 3 people who voted that the policy was racist. Without the 3/5ths rule, we might still have slavery,

No sir you are wrong. The policy was inherently racist. Just because it was a step to ending slavery doesn't mean there aren't racist connotations to considering a black man's vote to be less than a white mans.

safariguy5 wrote:

GabonX wrote:If I'm completely wrong why did you repeat 75% (three out of four sentences) of what I said?

Also, you stated that without the 3/5ths compromise we might still have slavery today. My understanding is that a course of events referred to as the Civil War resulted in the abolition of slavery. How did the 3/5ths compromise affect the course of the Civil War such that the abolition of slavery was a result?

Well technically, the Civil War was originally fought over State's Rights. And the balance of power was upset by more Slave Free states being admitted than Slaveholding which upset the Senate balance. There may have been indirect causation as the parity in the Senate was achieved before the Civil War through various compromise agreements like the Mason-Dixon Line and whatnot. Probably inspired by the original 3/5 compromise.

Me thinks you need to reread what GabonX wrote.

events referred to as the Civil War resulted in the abolition of slavery.

Especially the bolded part. He's not saying that slavery was the cause of it (though, it certainly was a main reason, as Lincoln was an abolitionist and the moment he was sworn in, the South began to secede from the Union), but the outlawing of it was a result of the Civil War.

And FYI, that policy= bad juju. aka, racist.

Night Strike wrote:Without the 3/5ths rule, we might still have slavery

Yes, and I might be the Queen of France.

You could argue that this just exasperated the whole thing. If our founding fathers had the tits to confront this issue at the beginning than waiting until 70ish years later, we might have avoided the bloodiest American war in history.

Really, the only thing this was was an attempt at bipartisanship so that the Union could be formed smoothly.

A critical point that you guys seem to be missing is that the slaves weren't given 3/5ths of a vote. Instead the slave owners got additional votes proportional to the number of slaves they owned...

GabonX wrote:A critical point that you guys seem to be missing is that the slaves weren't given 3/5ths of a vote. Instead the slave owners got additional votes proportional to the number of slaves they owned...

I thought it just increased the population so that they'd have more seats in the House...

Army of GOD wrote:

GabonX wrote:A critical point that you guys seem to be missing is that the slaves weren't given 3/5ths of a vote. Instead the slave owners got additional votes proportional to the number of slaves they owned...

I thought it just increased the population so that they'd have more seats in the House...

And without actually giving slaves the right to vote, how is what you're saying any different in effect from what I said?

GabonX wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

GabonX wrote:A critical point that you guys seem to be missing is that the slaves weren't given 3/5ths of a vote. Instead the slave owners got additional votes proportional to the number of slaves they owned...

I thought it just increased the population so that they'd have more seats in the House...

And without actually giving slaves the right to vote, how is what you're saying any different in effect from what I said?

You specified the slave holders getting more votes. Not everyone in the south owned slaves.

Army of GOD wrote:

GabonX wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

GabonX wrote:A critical point that you guys seem to be missing is that the slaves weren't given 3/5ths of a vote. Instead the slave owners got additional votes proportional to the number of slaves they owned...

I thought it just increased the population so that they'd have more seats in the House...

And without actually giving slaves the right to vote, how is what you're saying any different in effect from what I said?

You specified the slave holders getting more votes. Not everyone in the south owned slaves.

That's fair..

Slave owners didn't get disproportional voting rights compared to other citizens of their own state but they did get additional voting powers relative to people in other states, ie increased representation in Congress and increased power in Presidential elections.

So Gabon, if slaves were counted fully as 1 person each then what would the slave-owning South's representation have been in the House of Representatives compared to what they ended up getting?

Phatscotty wrote:Ok, so it's in our constitution, that at our founding, in a compromise between the north and the south, slaves were to be counted as 3 for every 5. Why do people think this is a bad thing?

Why don't you have an option in your poll for "Both", because that's what it was.

stahrgazer wrote:At the time, it wasn't a "bad thing" - it granted some additional congressional representation based on population.

It was a racist policy in that obviously, African Americans were not considered "equal" to European Americans, but in and of itself, the policy did no harm.

If I recall, in today's population counts to determine voting districts, children aren't fully counted, either; only voters - or those legally entitled to vote are counted fully when determining these districts. Not a racist policy, but is it a bad thing?

When you have a constitution that states that all men are created equal and then go on to count one race as 3/5's the harm is done not only to the race affected by the mere act of labeling less than equal, but also to the constitution itself which can be shown to be a work of pure hypocricy.

By your "at the time it wasnt a bad thing" you justify nearly every evil done to every person or every group, simply because it was accepted at the time by the ruling majority. And that most certainly includes all discrimination and abuse including rape of many women along the way. Nice arguement.

AAFitz wrote:When you have a constitution that states that all men are created equal and then go on to count one race as 3/5's the harm is done not only to the race affected by the mere act of labeling less than equal, but also to the constitution itself which can be shown to be a work of pure hypocricy.

By your "at the time it wasnt a bad thing" you justify nearly every evil done to every person or every group, simply because it was accepted at the time by the ruling majority. And that most certainly includes all discrimination and abuse including rape of many women along the way. Nice arguement.

Our Constitution was built to have a method of rectifying problems by using amendments. The only way to give abolitionists a chance to remove slavery in the future would be to limit the population count of slaves so that the southern states would not gain overwhelming majorities in the House (as well as voting in southern presidents due to higher electoral college numbers). Passing the Constitution was more important than fixing everything all at once when it was written. If slavery had been outlawed when it was written, the Constitution never would have passed. Southerners wanted to treat slaves as property while still counting them as people for the census, which was an absurd position the abolitionists couldn't allow to succeed. They utilized the 3/5th provision to placate the southerners while still making sure slavery could be repealed in the future.

By the way, the Civil War only led to the freedom of slaves in the Northern states through the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln's advisers informed him that the best course of action would be to free slaves in the North while the Southern states had no say, that way when the war was won, they would be able to remove slavery everywhere. The Southern states had succeeded from the Union, so the executive order did not apply to them. As a condition of their reinstatement after the war, each state had to agree to stopping the practice of slavery.

DangerBoy wrote:So Gabon, if slaves were counted fully as 1 person each then what would the slave-owning South's representation have been in the House of Representatives compared to what they ended up getting?

More..

And the slaves still wouldn't have got a say for their "vote"

GabonX wrote:

DangerBoy wrote:So Gabon, if slaves were counted fully as 1 person each then what would the slave-owning South's representation have been in the House of Representatives compared to what they ended up getting?

More..

And the slaves still wouldn't have got a say for their "vote"

So counting them as 3/5ths of a person kept the Southern slave holders from protecting the institution in the House. They had to invent other laws to protect it with latitude lines as the country expanded westward. Obviously, it took presidential leadership to end it once and for all, but you see how the founders were limiting slaveholders' power in the House of Representatives, right?

Night Strike wrote:

AAFitz wrote:When you have a constitution that states that all men are created equal and then go on to count one race as 3/5's the harm is done not only to the race affected by the mere act of labeling less than equal, but also to the constitution itself which can be shown to be a work of pure hypocricy.

By your "at the time it wasnt a bad thing" you justify nearly every evil done to every person or every group, simply because it was accepted at the time by the ruling majority. And that most certainly includes all discrimination and abuse including rape of many women along the way. Nice arguement.

Our Constitution was built to have a method of rectifying problems by using amendments. The only way to give abolitionists a chance to remove slavery in the future would be to limit the population count of slaves so that the southern states would not gain overwhelming majorities in the House (as well as voting in southern presidents due to higher electoral college numbers). Passing the Constitution was more important than fixing everything all at once when it was written. If slavery had been outlawed when it was written, the Constitution never would have passed. Southerners wanted to treat slaves as property while still counting them as people for the census, which was an absurd position the abolitionists couldn't allow to succeed. They utilized the 3/5th provision to placate the southerners while still making sure slavery could be repealed in the future.

By the way, the Civil War only led to the freedom of slaves in the Northern states through the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln's advisers informed him that the best course of action would be to free slaves in the North while the Southern states had no say, that way when the war was won, they would be able to remove slavery everywhere. The Southern states had succeeded from the Union, so the executive order did not apply to them. As a condition of their reinstatement after the war, each state had to agree to stopping the practice of slavery.

That's not technically right. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves in the Southern States still in rebellion. Lincoln's advisers warned that emancipating all the slaves might push the loyal border states like Maryland and Kentucky into the Southern cause. Therefore, to keep the border states secure, the proclamation freed the slaves in the South, but was somewhat of a hollow order because only the parts of the south controlled by the Union Army was this actually occurring.

DangerBoy wrote:

GabonX wrote:

DangerBoy wrote:So Gabon, if slaves were counted fully as 1 person each then what would the slave-owning South's representation have been in the House of Representatives compared to what they ended up getting?

More..

And the slaves still wouldn't have got a say for their "vote"

So counting them as 3/5ths of a person kept the Southern slave holders from protecting the institution in the House. They had to invent other laws to protect it with latitude lines as the country expanded westward. Obviously, it took presidential leadership to end it once and for all, but you see how the founders were limiting slaveholders' power in the House of Representatives, right?

It's not like the choice was between enumerating slaves as a person or 3/5 of a person. Slaves could have been enumerated as not having a vote, which would kinda make sense, given that they couldn't.

Night Strike wrote:By the way, the Civil War only led to the freedom of slaves in the Northern states

Night Strike wrote:As a condition of [the Confederate States] reinstatement after the war, each state had to agree to stopping the practice of slavery.

ok,... so the Civil War did lead to the freedom of all black slaves. History fail.




So I think that the consensus is that it was completely racist but that's ok because the white people got the country of their dreams.

Night Strike wrote:

AAFitz wrote:When you have a constitution that states that all men are created equal and then go on to count one race as 3/5's the harm is done not only to the race affected by the mere act of labeling less than equal, but also to the constitution itself which can be shown to be a work of pure hypocricy.

By your "at the time it wasnt a bad thing" you justify nearly every evil done to every person or every group, simply because it was accepted at the time by the ruling majority. And that most certainly includes all discrimination and abuse including rape of many women along the way. Nice arguement.

Our Constitution was built to have a method of rectifying problems by using amendments. The only way to give abolitionists a chance to remove slavery in the future would be to limit the population count of slaves so that the southern states would not gain overwhelming majorities in the House (as well as voting in southern presidents due to higher electoral college numbers). Passing the Constitution was more important than fixing everything all at once when it was written. If slavery had been outlawed when it was written, the Constitution never would have passed. Southerners wanted to treat slaves as property while still counting them as people for the census, which was an absurd position the abolitionists couldn't allow to succeed. They utilized the 3/5th provision to placate the southerners while still making sure slavery could be repealed in the future.

By the way, the Civil War only led to the freedom of slaves in the Northern states through the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln's advisers informed him that the best course of action would be to free slaves in the North while the Southern states had no say, that way when the war was won, they would be able to remove slavery everywhere. The Southern states had succeeded from the Union, so the executive order did not apply to them. As a condition of their reinstatement after the war, each state had to agree to stopping the practice of slavery.

i agree....and no shit.
i did not say it was not an effective document. i said it was filled with hypocricy and that by diminishing the value of some humans while at the same time stating they were equal harm was indeed done. perhaps it was justified, and perhaps it was not...but there most certainly was harm done to the integrity of the constitution in the process. the reason we still have great evil in this world is because of people like yourself who enable and encourage it by saying it was not wrong simply because you think it was necessary instead of having the courage to stand up against the evil, regardless of the percieved consequences.