Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hogwash. The southern states repeatedly passed laws that reinforced slavery. Ever hear of the Fugitive Slave Laws, Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850, Kansas-Nebraska Act, etc.?
What on earth is your point here? How in any manner is what you are writing related to my posts?
My point was that the South enjoyed disproportionately larger representation in Congress by counting as 3/5ths of a person, people whom they actually did not represent in any manner. It would have been like Northerners counting 3/5ths of their farm machinery in determining their populations
Do you have something to say about that? I cannot find it in any of your posts.
What on earth is your point here? How in any manner is what you are writing related to my posts?
My point was that the South enjoyed disproportionately larger representation in Congress by counting as 3/5ths of a person, people whom they actually did not represent in any manner. It would have been like Northerners counting 3/5ths of their farm machinery in determining their populations
Do you have something to say about that? I cannot find it in any of your posts.
Again, you are incorrect in stating that the South enjoyed larger representation by counting slaves as 3/5ths than they would have counting them as whole people. Representation in the House of Representatives is based on population. The more population, the more representation.
My point, as previously stated, is that it is ironic that counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person was more beneficial to slaves than if they had been counted as full persons. Yet uneducated people think that they were counted as 3/5ths because the Southerners didn't think of them as 5/5ths human. That is false; Southerners wanted to count slaves as 5/5ths so they could get more Representatives. Northerners did not want to count them at all because they wanted to reduce the influence of the pro-slavery voting Southerners.
If you still do not understand the concept, there is plenty of information available on the internet that may explain it better than I have.
Retroit, Grandstander's point in all of this has been blindingly simple: Southerners were being overrepresented by virtue of receiving ANY representation quota based on their slaves. See, slaves weren't citizens, weren't able to vote, etc... The southern voters also weren't voting "on behalf" of the slaves, but directly AGAINST the interests of slaves.
Thus, the idea that southern voters would receive ANY representation on their behalf is indistinguishable from Northerners receiving additional representatives on the basis of "number of factories in the state" or "number of garden implements". The 3/5 compromise inflated the votes of southern citizens by 60% rather than deflating it, because the slaves had no vote themselves. It would be absurd to claim that the slaves were gaining representation because their owners, with a vested interest in the eternal servitude of their subjects, had a vote.
Slaves were property (and not citizens) to Southerners and to the Constitution, as interpreted. So why would slaveholder states also receive representation on the basis of this peculiar kind of property?
Finally, the fact that southern legislators passed laws (or lobbied to pass laws) that preserved slavery doesn't mean that they would have acquiesced to federal laws restricting slavery. The Civil War proves that! If one can try to protect one's position using multiple means, why would they not do it? In this case, southerners - even if they believed the federal government had no jurisdiction over southern slavery - passed laws which attempted to moot or quiet the controversy.
Ignoring all this off-thread tripe, just a comment - Jesus was a Rabbi according to the original Greek version of the Bible. And that is a Hebrew teacher.
Retroit, Grandstander's point in all of this has been blindingly simple: Southerners were being overrepresented by virtue of receiving ANY representation quota based on their slaves. See, slaves weren't citizens, weren't able to vote, etc... The southern voters also weren't voting "on behalf" of the slaves, but directly AGAINST the interests of slaves.
Thus, the idea that southern voters would receive ANY representation on their behalf is indistinguishable from Northerners receiving additional representatives on the basis of "number of factories in the state" or "number of garden implements". The 3/5 compromise inflated the votes of southern citizens by 60% rather than deflating it, because the slaves had no vote themselves. It would be absurd to claim that the slaves were gaining representation because their owners, with a vested interest in the eternal servitude of their subjects, had a vote.
Slaves were property (and not citizens) to Southerners and to the Constitution, as interpreted. So why would slaveholder states also receive representation on the basis of this peculiar kind of property?
Finally, the fact that southern legislators passed laws (or lobbied to pass laws) that preserved slavery doesn't mean that they would have acquiesced to federal laws restricting slavery. The Civil War proves that! If one can try to protect one's position using multiple means, why would they not do it? In this case, southerners - even if they believed the federal government had no jurisdiction over southern slavery - passed laws which attempted to moot or quiet the controversy.
Do you, or do you not, find it ironic that counting slaves as 3/5ths people was actually more beneficial to them than if they had been counted as whole persons?
Do you, or do you not, find it ironic that counting slaves as 3/5ths people was actually more beneficial to them than if they had been counted as whole persons?
No. Because they weren't counted as persons at all, because they weren't citizens. It's only ironic in the context of under-informed talking points that some people make for effect in the modern context (viewed as 3/5ths of a person...). In that case only, yes.
Do you, or do you not, find it ironic that counting slaves as 3/5ths people was actually more beneficial to them than if they had been counted as whole persons?
That slaves were better served by being counted for representation as 3/5 of a person vs. a whole person is true. What a previous poster was communicating though was that they should not have been counted at all since they had no rights as citizens. Therefore, the 3/5 clause was actually a benefit to southern slave-owners rather than a detriment. Had slaves not been counted at all, they (the slaves) would have been better off than being counted as 3/5 of a person. As it was, the 3/5 clause was a huge benefit to southern supporters of slavery.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.