Slaves Counted as 3/5

[DangerBoy]

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.

Uh yeah, that was the choice given the times and how the founders wanted to eventually watch slavery as an institution fade away, while getting the support of the southern colonies at the same time.

[pimpdave]

Rewriting history is easy when people are as willfully ignorant as Scotty.

[GabonX]

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?

Counting slaves as three fifths of a person gave the states additional voting power. How exactly did giving slave states increased legislative power act to bring about the end of slavery?

My view is that it didn't.

They had to invent other laws to protect it with latitude lines as the country expanded westward.

This has nothing to do with the 3/5ths compromise.

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?

I don't see that at all..

I see the exact opposite.

[keyborn]

The 3/5 compromise allowed the Southern states to count 3/5 of their slaves towards a states population, therefore giving them more representation in the House of Representatives. Of course, the South wanted to count them all (while denying them citizenship, and merely referring to them as property), while the North didn't want the slaves in the population count period. The compromise was necessary or we might not have the Constitution as we know it today. Slavery itself was racist, thus, from it we have racist policies.

As far as the secession of the Southern states goes, the issue wasn't about representation in the House of Representatives at all. At the beginning of the Civil War, there were about 22 million people in the North and about 9 million people in the South. Of the 9 million in the South, about 4 million were slaves. Count 100% of those slaves, and you still have an overwhelming majority of northern representation in the House. The issue was the balance of power in the Senate. The South was outvoted in the Senate on every bill concerning slavery or states' rights, and when Lincoln was elected, the South felt that the country had elected an abolitionist, and that they no longer had a voice in the national government. By the way, Lincoln was not considered, nor did he consider himself, to be an abolitionist. He said slavery was wrong, but he simply wanted to keep slavery from spreading to the western states. Remember, the definition of an abolitionist was someone who wanted to abolish, or end slavery.

Oh, and by the way, it is the Declaration of Independence that states "all men are created equal", not the Constitution.

[Phatscotty]

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..

yes, but if a slave was counted as one, then a slave state would hold a lot more seats of representatives, and likewise be a lot stronger. The 3/5 clause was an abolitionist position

[Phatscotty]

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?

There were plenty of African Americans in the north, who were considered equal, who owned their own land. Boston was 15% black at the time if the revolution. They were all counted as 1, and could vote.....

please, do not confuse african americans with slaves, and please do not combine all blacks in all of America to be in the south. It's a common mistake, but still the truth.

[DangerBoy]

Counting slaves as three fifths of a person gave the states additional voting power. How exactly did giving slave states increased legislative power act to bring about the end of slavery?

My view is that it didn't.

It decreased the amount of power that the southern states would have had in the House of Reps had slaves been counted as a full person. I won't harass you about this because I see you're set in your view. Perhaps it's just something you can ponder over time and change your mind on. I know I've had views about history that I've changed, but it never happened overnight. If not, that's no biggie either. I respect your right to disagree

They had to invent other laws to protect it with latitude lines as the country expanded westward.

This has nothing to do with the 3/5ths compromise.

What I was talking about was the fact that the Congress had to pass things like the Missouri Compromise. They did this because they (the southern states) couldn't get their agenda through the House.

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?

I don't see that at all..

I see the exact opposite.

Well, if that's not the case then the Civil War should've happened before Lincoln. But like I said, I must respect your right to disagree on something like that. It's fun to argue the wouldas, shouldas, and couldas.

As far as the secession of the Southern states goes, the issue wasn't about representation in the House of Representatives at all. At the beginning of the Civil War, there were about 22 million people in the North and about 9 million people in the South. Of the 9 million in the South, about 4 million were slaves. Count 100% of those slaves, and you still have an overwhelming majority of northern representation in the House. The issue was the balance of power in the Senate. The South was outvoted in the Senate on every bill concerning slavery or states' rights, and when Lincoln was elected, the South felt that the country had elected an abolitionist, and that they no longer had a voice in the national government.

I'll have to think this over. Everything I've read on our system of government says that the Senate was where all states had equal power, and this was where the slaveholding states would be on equal ground with the free states. It would be the House of Representatives where the south would've benefitted from counting slaves as a full person.

[Army of GOD]

As far as the secession of the Southern states goes, the issue wasn't about representation in the House of Representatives at all. At the beginning of the Civil War, there were about 22 million people in the North and about 9 million people in the South. Of the 9 million in the South, about 4 million were slaves. Count 100% of those slaves, and you still have an overwhelming majority of northern representation in the House. The issue was the balance of power in the Senate. The South was outvoted in the Senate on every bill concerning slavery or states' rights, and when Lincoln was elected, the South felt that the country had elected an abolitionist, and that they no longer had a voice in the national government.

I'll have to think this over. Everything I've read on our system of government says that the Senate was where all states had equal power, and this was where the slaveholding states would be on equal ground with the free states. It would be the House of Representatives where the south would've benefitted from counting slaves as a full person.[/quote]

The only way the North could've had more power than the South in the Senate is just by having more states (2 senators per state). I could see that being true because Northern states tend to be smaller and more populated.

[GabonX]

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..

yes, but if a slave was counted as one, then a slave state would hold a lot more seats of representatives, and likewise be a lot stronger. The 3/5 clause was an abolitionist position

It decreased the amount of power that the southern states would have had in the House of Reps had slaves been counted as a full person. I won't harass you about this because I see you're set in your view. Perhaps it's just something you can ponder over time and change your mind on. I know I've had views about history that I've changed, but it never happened overnight. If not, that's no biggie either. I respect your right to disagree

I see what you guys are saying but I think you guys view this to favorably. I mean sure, the south would have had even more power if they had counted slaves as full people, but it doesn't change the fact that counting them as 3/5ths gave slave states additional voting powers.

If I'm in a car accident and I fracture my leg instead of my spine, that's obviously better than breaking my spine. Depending on the nature of the fracture I may walk again one day, possibly with need of a cane, but I certainly wouldn't say that having my leg broken was a good thing or that it was the first step towards walking...

[Night Strike]

I see what you guys are saying but I think you guys view this to favorably. I mean sure, the south would have had even more power if they had counted slaves as full people, but it doesn't change the fact that counting them as 3/5ths gave slave states additional voting powers.

Without the compromise, the Constitution could not have passed. Sometime it is necessary to tolerate some evil for a time in order to completely remove that evil in the future. If we had not made that compromise, the US probably would have fragmented as it had already been shown that the Articles of Confederation would be unable to hold the country together.

[GabonX]

I see what you guys are saying but I think you guys view this to favorably. I mean sure, the south would have had even more power if they had counted slaves as full people, but it doesn't change the fact that counting them as 3/5ths gave slave states additional voting powers.

Without the compromise, the Constitution could not have passed. Sometime it is necessary to tolerate some evil for a time in order to completely remove that evil in the future. If we had not made that compromise, the US probably would have fragmented as it had already been shown that the Articles of Confederation would be unable to hold the country together.

I don't dispute anything here, and I realize that the abolitionists had some influence, hence the term "compromise".

That said, I recognize that the slave owners also had interest in the 3/5ths compromise and that they gained from it. Just because something could be worse doesn't mean it isn't bad..

[Phatscotty]

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

slavery was the bad thing. I guess anything that took 2 generations and almost a million dead soldiers that didnt happen overnight is bad tho.

Our forebearers did everything they could. I guess I would respect the argument that we should have formed to different countries. I have never heard that though, just a bunch of failed school history.

[Phatscotty]

The 3/5 compromise allowed the Southern states to count 3/5 of their slaves towards a states population, therefore giving them more representation in the House of Representatives. Of course, the South wanted to count them all (while denying them citizenship, and merely referring to them as property), while the North didn't want the slaves in the population count period. The compromise was necessary or we might not have the Constitution as we know it today. Slavery itself was racist, thus, from it we have racist policies.

As far as the secession of the Southern states goes, the issue wasn't about representation in the House of Representatives at all. At the beginning of the Civil War, there were about 22 million people in the North and about 9 million people in the South. Of the 9 million in the South, about 4 million were slaves. Count 100% of those slaves, and you still have an overwhelming majority of northern representation in the House. The issue was the balance of power in the Senate. The South was outvoted in the Senate on every bill concerning slavery or states' rights, and when Lincoln was elected, the South felt that the country had elected an abolitionist, and that they no longer had a voice in the national government. By the way, Lincoln was not considered, nor did he consider himself, to be an abolitionist. He said slavery was wrong, but he simply wanted to keep slavery from spreading to the western states. Remember, the definition of an abolitionist was someone who wanted to abolish, or end slavery.

Oh, and by the way, it is the Declaration of Independence that states "all men are created equal", not the Constitution.

your numbers pre-civil war may be good, but they do not reflect the numbers of 1776. At that time Virginia was the strongest and biggest. Georgia was just a territory, among other things. in the early to mid 1800's, John Quincy Adams was silenced every time he tried to introduce an abolitionist bill by an overpowering South. Luckily, he was Abraham Lincolns mentor, and was able to finally go about ending slavery. I have always said, slavery could not be ended overnight, but our first generation of American born Citizens saw the end of slavery, and their children are the ones who fought to end it and preserve the Union. It took an American born generation, who grew up with the constitution, and the Declaration that "all men are created equal, endowed by our creator with..." to finally end slavery.

[keyborn]

As far as the secession of the Southern states goes, the issue wasn't about representation in the House of Representatives at all. At the beginning of the Civil War, there were about 22 million people in the North and about 9 million people in the South. Of the 9 million in the South, about 4 million were slaves. Count 100% of those slaves, and you still have an overwhelming majority of northern representation in the House. The issue was the balance of power in the Senate. The South was outvoted in the Senate on every bill concerning slavery or states' rights, and when Lincoln was elected, the South felt that the country had elected an abolitionist, and that they no longer had a voice in the national government.

The only way the North could've had more power than the South in the Senate is just by having more states (2 senators per state). I could see that being true because Northern states tend to be smaller and more populated.

When South Carolina seceded from the Union in December 1860, there were 33 states in the Union. 18 were free states and 15 were slaves states. The balance of power in the Senate between free states and slaves states had been disrupted when California entered the Union as a free state in 1850. The South was hopelessly outvoted in the Senate on most bills having to do with slavery during the decade of the 1850's.

One notable exception was the Kansas-Nebraska Act which basically undid the Missouri Compromise and allowed settlers in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska decide for themselves if slavery should be allowed there. This would result in chaos in Kansas and a bloody civil war would erupt between pro-slavery and anti slavery forces.

[jimboston]

It was racist.

[keyborn]

The 3/5 compromise allowed the Southern states to count 3/5 of their slaves towards a states population, therefore giving them more representation in the House of Representatives. Of course, the South wanted to count them all (while denying them citizenship, and merely referring to them as property), while the North didn't want the slaves in the population count period. The compromise was necessary or we might not have the Constitution as we know it today. Slavery itself was racist, thus, from it we have racist policies.

As far as the secession of the Southern states goes, the issue wasn't about representation in the House of Representatives at all. At the beginning of the Civil War, there were about 22 million people in the North and about 9 million people in the South. Of the 9 million in the South, about 4 million were slaves. Count 100% of those slaves, and you still have an overwhelming majority of northern representation in the House. The issue was the balance of power in the Senate. The South was outvoted in the Senate on every bill concerning slavery or states' rights, and when Lincoln was elected, the South felt that the country had elected an abolitionist, and that they no longer had a voice in the national government. By the way, Lincoln was not considered, nor did he consider himself, to be an abolitionist. He said slavery was wrong, but he simply wanted to keep slavery from spreading to the western states. Remember, the definition of an abolitionist was someone who wanted to abolish, or end slavery.

Oh, and by the way, it is the Declaration of Independence that states "all men are created equal", not the Constitution.

your numbers pre-civil war may be good, but they do not reflect the numbers of 1776. At that time Virginia was the strongest and biggest. Georgia was just a territory, among other things. in the early to mid 1800's, John Quincy Adams was silenced every time he tried to introduce an abolitionist bill by an overpowering South. Luckily, he was Abraham Lincolns mentor, and was able to finally go about ending slavery. I have always said, slavery could not be ended overnight, but our first generation of American born Citizens saw the end of slavery, and their children are the ones who fought to end it and preserve the Union. It took an American born generation, who grew up with the constitution, and the Declaration that "all men are created equal, endowed by our creator with..." to finally end slavery.

I agree with your statement here, but I was making the point that the 3/5 Compromise was necessary for both sides to move along with the writing of the Constitution in 1787, and that it really had no bearing on the secession of the southern states in 1860-61. The house of Congress in which the South had equal clout with the North was the Senate...until 1850. (See the previous post about this.) South Carolina believed by Dec. 1860, that it had no choice but to leave the Union as they felt Congress and the President were set against their interests, and they believed that the Federal government was going to abolish slavery.

[Juan_Bottom]

I see what you guys are saying but I think you guys view this to favorably. I mean sure, the south would have had even more power if they had counted slaves as full people, but it doesn't change the fact that counting them as 3/5ths gave slave states additional voting powers.

Without the compromise, the Constitution could not have passed. Sometime it is necessary to tolerate some evil for a time in order to completely remove that evil in the future. If we had not made that compromise, the US probably would have fragmented as it had already been shown that the Articles of Confederation would be unable to hold the country together.

I don't think that I could ever compromise for something that is evil. Could you ever be talked into spitting on the Bible? Even if it leads to my own death I could never compromise on my morals. I always get caught being mystified when leaders make decisions like this. I look at leaders as leaders, and sometimes I see them acting more as followers.

[safariguy5]

I see what you guys are saying but I think you guys view this to favorably. I mean sure, the south would have had even more power if they had counted slaves as full people, but it doesn't change the fact that counting them as 3/5ths gave slave states additional voting powers.

Without the compromise, the Constitution could not have passed. Sometime it is necessary to tolerate some evil for a time in order to completely remove that evil in the future. If we had not made that compromise, the US probably would have fragmented as it had already been shown that the Articles of Confederation would be unable to hold the country together.

I don't think that I could ever compromise for something that is evil. Could you ever be talked into spitting on the Bible? Even if it leads to my own death I could never compromise on my morals. I always get caught being mystified when leaders make decisions like this. I look at leaders as leaders, and sometimes I see them acting more as followers.

Yes, but what is considered "evil" or "morally wrong" changes over time. At one point, women were considered to be good at bearing children and keeping the house only. Nowadays, that would be considered a sexist and misogynistic viewpoint, but in earlier times would have been considered a normal viewpoint.

[Phatscotty]

I see what you guys are saying but I think you guys view this to favorably. I mean sure, the south would have had even more power if they had counted slaves as full people, but it doesn't change the fact that counting them as 3/5ths gave slave states additional voting powers.

Without the compromise, the Constitution could not have passed. Sometime it is necessary to tolerate some evil for a time in order to completely remove that evil in the future. If we had not made that compromise, the US probably would have fragmented as it had already been shown that the Articles of Confederation would be unable to hold the country together.

I don't think that I could ever compromise for something that is evil. Could you ever be talked into spitting on the Bible? Even if it leads to my own death I could never compromise on my morals. I always get caught being mystified when leaders make decisions like this. I look at leaders as leaders, and sometimes I see them acting more as followers.

That's fine, but your are looking at 16th century "life as I was born into" through 21st century glasses. Slavery was the way of life for the original colonist. French, German, English, Dutch, Norwegian, Spanish, Portuguese, Russians, even some Africans did come to America willingly.

Four great migrations defined the history of black people in America: the violent removal of Africans to the east coast of North America known as the Middle Passage; the relocation of one million slaves to the interior of the antebellum South; the movement of more than six million blacks to the industrial cities of the north and west a century later; and since the late 1960s, the arrival of black immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean, South America, and Europe. These epic migraA-tions have made and remade African American life.

http://www.powells.com/biblio/2-9780670021376-0

Any American who owned a slave was eradicated within 2 generations of America's birth. and life was not so sweet for them after the Declaration. Many of our founders were abolitionists, and our forbearers used the tools granted to them to work "tirelessly" to end slavery. America and our Constitution is was ended slavery.

[Night Strike]

I don't think that I could ever compromise for something that is evil. Could you ever be talked into spitting on the Bible? Even if it leads to my own death I could never compromise on my morals. I always get caught being mystified when leaders make decisions like this. I look at leaders as leaders, and sometimes I see them acting more as followers.

I don't see the 3/5ths compromise as being a compromise of a person's moral position. It was a political compromise settled between people who morally supported or abhorred slavery. The abolitionists made sure that the full population of slaves were not counted so that they could revisit the issue in the future. They knew that their position was morally superior and would eventually win out, but in order to deal with the more pressing issue of replacing the Articles, those concerns had to be put on the back-burner.

The exact same thing came with the passage of the 15th amendment. Groups fighting for the right for women to vote wanted to include sex in the language of the amendment, but they chose to set their desires aside to make sure blacks got the right to vote as quickly as possible. They knew they'd eventually get the right to vote, so they passed it up to take care of the more pressing issue of black voting.

I have always said, slavery could not be ended overnight, but our first generation of American born Citizens saw the end of slavery, and their children are the ones who fought to end it and preserve the Union. It took an American born generation, who grew up with the constitution, and the Declaration that "all men are created equal, endowed by our creator with..." to finally end slavery.

This might be the best historical post I've ever read on this forum. I had never realized that statement, but its truth and implications have a resounding impact.

[Phatscotty]

Thanks man. I can't credit anyone else for it either.

[nagerous]

Abraham Lincoln got elected with a policy that said there would be no further extension to slavery. He never stated that it would be abolished completely and some people say that the emancipation proclamation during the civil war was in fact a political move to weaken the South's resolve and one that wasn't initially intended to be properly carried out after the war. This compromise about 3/5 is undoubtedly racist but you seriously have to add some political context to the time and therefore when analysing it properly it can be seen as the first step towards a progression of ending slavery.

George Washington himself was a slave owner and even though he treated them properly as I discovered when walking around his Mount Vernon estate. Does this make him, the founder of the US constitution a racist too? Does that make the majority of US presidents racists for bowing to public pressure and not pushing forth integration policies fast enough until the 1960s?

[Phatscotty]

Abraham Lincoln got elected with a policy that said there would be no further extension to slavery. He never stated that it would be abolished completely.....

So, you would rather Lincoln did not get elected?

No further extension is still a step in the right direction. I guess we only have to look a couple years down the road to see how it worked out, eh?

[Phatscotty]

I am fascinated on how split the poll is.

I have to wonder which side is a product of a failing education system?

[nagerous]

Abraham Lincoln got elected with a policy that said there would be no further extension to slavery. He never stated that it would be abolished completely.....

So, you would rather Lincoln did not get elected?

No further extension is still a step in the right direction. I guess we only have to look a couple years down the road to see how it worked out, eh?

Lol wat?

He was the best candidate at the time. That was my entire point as per progressive politics. We can only move forward one step at a time.. The policy as per 3//5ths therefore was the first step rather than a completely racist policy. It was a compromise between the racists and non-racists of the time and therefore to pen everyone who signed the constitution as a racist seems a little steep.