Slaves Counted as 3/5

[PLAYER57832]

Just before I run off my big trap on this can someone explain to me. Would the slaves have voted or would their owners vote for them?

Neither. Slaves were not permitted to vote. Slave owners did not "vote for their slaves." Per person, a southerner's vote counted more than a white male northerner's vote (I think I'm getting that right).

Basically. It meant that the population in southern states was given as higher than the real legal voting population. Because house seats are allocated based on relative population, it gave southern states more power in the house. And yes, effectively made the southern males' vote a bit more powerful than the northern male's vote for those seats. For the Senate, it might have changed the lines within the state. That would have given the powerful plantation holders more or equal power to groups of urban, less rural poor folks. It would not have changed the state power within the Senate, though.

[jimboston]

That is, the society was of course racist and sexist and.... However, this amendment made no pronouncement or change. It was purely about whether the south or the north should have more power.

Except that the balance of power would determine whether or not slavery would be able to be stopped or not. If the south had gained the balance, slavery would have been around for much longer than it was. The compromise was put in place to make sure the south couldn't become powerful enough to continue slavery indefinitely.

Also true. So from a purely abstract sense - the 3/5ths rule indirectly brought about an end to slavery because it gave the south less power... I think that makes sense to me right now.

Not necessarily. It gave less power to the south than counting slaves at 100%.

It gave more power than counting them as cattle.

One can argue that the population that should be counted when we talk about voting distribution should only be the voting population. At the time of the Constitution this would have been what? White Property Holders?

It was NOT a step towards ending slavery... that's a ridiculous proposition.

[thegreekdog]

That is, the society was of course racist and sexist and.... However, this amendment made no pronouncement or change. It was purely about whether the south or the north should have more power.

Except that the balance of power would determine whether or not slavery would be able to be stopped or not. If the south had gained the balance, slavery would have been around for much longer than it was. The compromise was put in place to make sure the south couldn't become powerful enough to continue slavery indefinitely.

Also true. So from a purely abstract sense - the 3/5ths rule indirectly brought about an end to slavery because it gave the south less power... I think that makes sense to me right now.

Not necessarily. It gave less power to the south than counting slaves at 100%.

It gave more power than counting them as cattle.

One can argue that the population that should be counted when we talk about voting distribution should only be the voting population. At the time of the Constitution this would have been what? White Property Holders?

It was NOT a step towards ending slavery... that's a ridiculous proposition.

It depends on your definition of step. What if slaves counted as one person? I would argue that would be a step in extending slavery past 1864.

[PLAYER57832]

That is, the society was of course racist and sexist and.... However, this amendment made no pronouncement or change. It was purely about whether the south or the north should have more power.

Except that the balance of power would determine whether or not slavery would be able to be stopped or not. If the south had gained the balance, slavery would have been around for much longer than it was. The compromise was put in place to make sure the south couldn't become powerful enough to continue slavery indefinitely.

True, but slavery was only an incidental part of the equation. That is, the north only cared about slavery in the sense of competing with paid jobs.

The north did not really and truly care about freeing blacks, they only wanted more power for themselves. The real shift did not come until the advent of farm machinery... but that gets onto some other topics.

[PLAYER57832]

That is, the society was of course racist and sexist and.... However, this amendment made no pronouncement or change. It was purely about whether the south or the north should have more power.

Except that the balance of power would determine whether or not slavery would be able to be stopped or not. If the south had gained the balance, slavery would have been around for much longer than it was. The compromise was put in place to make sure the south couldn't become powerful enough to continue slavery indefinitely.

Also true. So from a purely abstract sense - the 3/5ths rule indirectly brought about an end to slavery because it gave the south less power... I think that makes sense to me right now.

Not necessarily. It gave less power to the south than counting slaves at 100%.

It gave more power than counting them as cattle.

One can argue that the population that should be counted when we talk about voting distribution should only be the voting population. At the time of the Constitution this would have been what? White Property Holders?

It was NOT a step towards ending slavery... that's a ridiculous proposition.

It depends on your definition of step. What if slaves counted as one person? I would argue that would be a step in extending slavery past 1864.

Gotta agree with jimboston here. If anything, this was a way to give the south more power than if slaves were not counted at all, and thus ensured that the "slavery way" would continue.

By the way didn't the original amendment count only slaves and not free blacks?

[thegreekdog]

That is, the society was of course racist and sexist and.... However, this amendment made no pronouncement or change. It was purely about whether the south or the north should have more power.

Except that the balance of power would determine whether or not slavery would be able to be stopped or not. If the south had gained the balance, slavery would have been around for much longer than it was. The compromise was put in place to make sure the south couldn't become powerful enough to continue slavery indefinitely.

True, but slavery was only an incidental part of the equation. That is, the north only cared about slavery in the sense of competing with paid jobs.

The north did not really and truly care about freeing blacks, they only wanted more power for themselves. The real shift did not come until the advent of farm machinery... but that gets onto some other topics.

This sounds bad, but who cares what the motivation was? The end result, maybe, was that the south had less power because of the 3/5ths rule and thus could not continue the institution of slavery (albeit helped out by a civil war).

[thegreekdog]

Gotta agree with jimboston here. If anything, this was a way to give the south more power than if slaves were not counted at all, and thus ensured that the "slavery way" would continue.

Yes, but slaves not counting at all was not a realistic option unless we wanted to have two United States.

By the way didn't the original amendment count only slaves and not free blacks?

I don't think it was an amendment.

[jimboston]

It depends on your definition of step.

Is this what the debate has disintegrated into?

[PLAYER57832]

Gotta agree with jimboston here. If anything, this was a way to give the south more power than if slaves were not counted at all, and thus ensured that the "slavery way" would continue.

Yes, but slaves not counting at all was not a realistic option unless we wanted to have two United States.

Actually, that was the argument of the north at the time.

I think you are seeing the debate as opposite what it truly was. The argument was not the north arguing for a full vote and the south for none. The argument was that the south wanted all slaves counted fully, but the north did not want them counted at all. This compromise was therefore to count blacks somewhat, but not fully.

By the way didn't the original amendment count only slaves and not free blacks?

I don't think it was an amendment.

I will have to research this.

[jimboston]

Yes, but slaves not counting at all was not a realistic option unless we wanted to have two United States.

Yes, but the slaves counting as full-citizens was not a realistic option unless we wanted to have two United States.

Hence the term compromise.

[jimboston]

OK... Player is agreeing with me again.

f*ck!

OK... you're right, it's wasn't racist at all!

[PLAYER57832]

Yes, but slaves not counting at all was not a realistic option unless we wanted to have two United States.

Yes, but the slaves counting as full-citizens was not a realistic option unless we wanted to have two United States.

Hence the term compromise.

No one was seriously considering blacks to be full citizen. This is the irony I think you both are missing. It was not at all about giving blacks power, it was about allocating power to the white men.

[thegreekdog]

Wait... what?

I'm not saying it wasn't racist. It was racist!

I'm saying that if we had one slave = one person (for purposes of the southern white voting bloc), we'd have had slavery for a longer time (possibly). That's all I'm saying.

And yes, it depends on what your definition of "step" is. As you well know, I'm a lawyer. And we liked to use phrases like "it depends" which helps us justify our high hourly fees.

[jimboston]

No one was seriously considering blacks to be full citizen. This is the irony I think you both are missing. It was not at all about giving blacks power, it was about allocating power to the white men.

I am not missing anything.

Yes... the compromise was about allocating power between white southerners and white northerners. I get that.

The question originally asked though... was the policy racist? or was it the first step towards abolishing slavery.

The answer to that question is that it was a racist policy. Just look at your answer... it was to distribute power amongst WHITE men. The only reason there was even a question is because slavery existed. Slavery is racist. A question of policy that derives from slavery is racist.

End of conversation.

[jimboston]

It depends on nothing... in no way shape or form can you argue that the policy was a step towards abolishing slavery. I don't care how you f*cking define the word "step".

[PLAYER57832]

I never said it wasn't a racist concept. I just don't think the intent of those putting the amendment forward was racism, it was greed. The racism was integral to society as a whole.

[jimboston]

I never said it wasn't a racist concept. I just don't think the intent of those putting the amendment forward was racism, it was greed. The racism was integral to society as a whole.

Moot.

The policy was racist.

[thegreekdog]

It depends on nothing... in no way shape or form can you argue that the policy was a step towards abolishing slavery. I don't care how you f*cking define the word "step".

I just did argue that. I argued that without the step, slavery may have continued longer.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm saying that if we had one slave = one person (for purposes of the southern white voting bloc), we'd have had slavery for a longer time (possibly). That's all I'm saying..

Except I thought you were saying that 3/5 was a move toward abolition?

I don't follow your thinking here. Giving blacks a partial census count in no way moves them closer to being considered humanity or closer to freedom. As for the voting block bit, yes, I suppose anything that gave the south more power would have increased the potential for longer slavery. However, it also might just haveincreased the southern-northern divide more quickly and resulted in an earlier civil war.

Remember, the war was faught over the divide. Slavery was sort of "incidental", though integral in the sense that southern power depended upon cheap slave labor.

[jimboston]

It depends on nothing... in no way shape or form can you argue that the policy was a step towards abolishing slavery. I don't care how you f*cking define the word "step".

I just did argue that. I argued that without the step, slavery may have continued longer.

No you didn't.

[thegreekdog]

I'm getting extremely frustrated here.

Which is more likely to result in the freeing of slaves:

(1) Southerners having less voting power.
(2) Southerners having more voting power.

Which is more likely to result in southerners having less voting power:

(1) Slaves count as one person.
(2) Slaves count as 3/5ths of a person.

The answers are (1) and (2).

[jimboston]

I'm saying that if we had one slave = one person (for purposes of the southern white voting bloc), we'd have had slavery for a longer time (possibly). That's all I'm saying..

Except I thought you were saying that 3/5 was a move toward abolition?

I don't follow your thinking here. Giving blacks a partial census count in no way moves them closer to being considered humanity or closer to freedom. As for the voting block bit, yes, I suppose anything that gave the south more power would have increased the potential for longer slavery. However, it also might just haveincreased the southern-northern divide more quickly and resulted in an earlier civil war.

Remember, the war was faught over the divide. Slavery was sort of "incidental", though integral in the sense that southern power depended upon cheap slave labor.

No... i was NOT saying it was a step towards abolition.

Greek said that.

I said it was racist period.

[thegreekdog]

It depends on nothing... in no way shape or form can you argue that the policy was a step towards abolishing slavery. I don't care how you f*cking define the word "step".

I just did argue that. I argued that without the step, slavery may have continued longer.

No you didn't.

Is this what we have degenerated to?

FACT - I argued (and continue to argue) that the policy was a step towards the freeing of the slaves.

[jimboston]

I'm getting extremely frustrated here.

Which is more likely to result in the freeing of slaves:

(1) Southerners having less voting power.
(2) Southerners having more voting power.

Which is more likely to result in southerners having less voting power:

(1) Slaves count as one person.
(2) Slaves count as 3/5ths of a person.

The answers are (1) and (2).

The answers are (2) and (2).

Once slaves are free they become southerners.

[jimboston]

It depends on nothing... in no way shape or form can you argue that the policy was a step towards abolishing slavery. I don't care how you f*cking define the word "step".

I just did argue that. I argued that without the step, slavery may have continued longer.

No you didn't.

Is this what we have degenerated to?

FACT - I argued (and continue to argue) that the policy was a step towards the freeing of the slaves.

FACT - You are NOT arguing this point. You just think you are. You are in fact arguing about how to argue.