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.
sure i did. a shift in power that did not even manifest any of that power for 75 years???
If the shift had taken place 10, 20, or even 30 years after the compromise and lesgislation to reduce or repeal slavery were introduced, then one could say the shift of power was beneficail anti-slavery on a national scale.
Individual Northren states started abolishing slavery...not the House.
So...no the shift was meaningless.
No one said it worked.
That doesn't mean it wasn't put there for that reason.
And liberals are against states rights. Yet, it was states rights that started the abolition of slavery. Liberal are pro-slavery.
The GOP sure knows how to pick'em following Allen Keys, Allen West, Herman Caine and Ben Carson, the Black Knight du jure E.W. Jackson the GOP's candidate for Lt Governor of Virginia is reported to have claimed that the 3/5ths Compromise recognizing slaves for the purpose of determining state representation in the House was a "anti-slavery.
Yes, it was an attempt to prevent the slave states from getting more representation in congress, by counting of the slave population. Remember, slaves could not vote.
It's always curious how liberals distort the truth in order to fit their current political ideology and world views.
The 3/5ths compromise was exactly what it says it is. A compromise.
The North didn't want to count slaves, and why would they? Slaves were property, they didn't get to vote, they didn't have the rights of citizens. Counting slaves to give the South greater representation in Congress was clearly against the North's interests.
But it wasn't against abolitionist interests. And there were abolitionists at the time. The reason it does work for abolitionists, or anti-slavery activists, is that it's an official recognition, both by the South and by the United States, that the slaves weren't just property. And that's a foot-in-the-door for the argument that if the slaves were people, not just property, that they have to be treated like people.
As for the North or the South not being distinct political groups, the North and the South were always distinct political groups The North was largely settled by people wanting to escape Europe and European culture. The South was settled by people wanting to extend Europe's power and culture. That fundamental difference, combined with the very basic differences in geography and climate, fueled the division in our country from its very inception.
That doesn't mean it wasn't put there for that reason.
And liberals are against states rights. Yet, it was states rights that started the abolition of slavery. Liberal are pro-slavery.
It was a movement started in the church too, so it's a double whammy. Not only was slavery and equal rights in this country movements that started in the churches, but they started at the state level. It was the politicians, judges and bureaucrats in the federal government, and the Democrat Party, that were on the wrong side of history. The progs hate that truth.
It was a movement started in the church too, so it's a double whammy. Not only was slavery and equal rights in this country movements that started in the churches, but they started at the state level. It was the politicians, judges and bureaucrats in the federal government, and the Democrat Party, that were on the wrong side of history. The progs hate that truth.
Except for the fact that the Republican Party in 1860 WAS the party of the "progs". It's too bad they aren't progressive today.
However, learning about the real reason for the 3/5th clause actually WAS anti-slavery. It gave the south less representation in congress, therefore limiting their strength.
Is simple arithmetic so beyond your grasp as to not understand that by using fractional persons the slave states increase their population for the purpose of representation?
The three-fifths figure was the outgrowth of a debate that had taken place within the Continental Congress in 1783. The Articles of Confederation had apportioned taxes not according to population but according to land values. The states consistently undervalued their land in order to reduce their tax burden. To rectify this situation, a special committee recommended apportioning taxes by population. The Continental Congress debated the ratio of slaves to free persons at great length. Northerners favored a 4-to-3 ratio, while southerners favored a 2-to-1 or 4-to-1 ratio. Finally, James Madison suggested a compromise: a 5-to-3 ratio. All but two states--New Hampshire and Rhode Island--approved this recommendation. But because the Articles of Confederation required unanimous agreement, the proposal was defeated. When the Constitutional Convention met in 1787, it adopted Madison's earlier suggestion.
The Three-Fifths Compromise greatly augmented southern political power. In the Continental Congress, where each state had an equal vote, there were only five states in which slavery was a major institution. Thus the southern states had about 38 percent of the seats in the Continental Congress. Because of the 1787 Three-Fifths Compromise, the southern states had nearly 45 percent of the seats in the first U.S. Congress, which took office in 1790.
Progressives are against state rights and don't want churches influencing public policy. They always have been.
States rights and the church began the abolition of slavery and we are to believe it was progressives?
Do you think you're talikng to a bunch of dumbasses or something to buy your crap?
Church figured more prominently in lifestyles in 1860 then they do now, simply as a matter of necessity. There weren't as many outlets for social activity back then. So it's hardly surprising that a humanist movement was driven by PROGRESSIVE church groups. And as for slavery, keep this on the down-low, you don't want people to figure it out, but it was the slave states advocating for states' rights. The Progressive Republican Party was advocating for the federal government to abolish slavery. So, ssshhh, it's very hush-hush.
Church figured more prominently in lifestyles in 1860 then they do now, simply as a matter of necessity. There weren't as many outlets for social activity back then. So it's hardly surprising that a humanist movement was driven by PROGRESSIVE church groups. And as for slavery, keep this on the down-low, you don't want people to figure it out, but it was the slave states advocating for states' rights. The Progressive Republican Party was advocating for the federal government to abolish slavery. So, ssshhh, it's very hush-hush.
I don't care who was advocating for what. The states and church began the abolition of slavery, not the federal government. It was a states rights issue. Just because some states wanted slavery legal doesn't mean it wasn't a states rights issue.
It's funny, whenever Republicans do something present day progressives like then Republicans magically turn into progressives.
Republicans were really for abolition of slavery, women's sufferage and civil rights. And Democrats were against all those things. Then, like magic, sometime in the late 1960s, everyone just switched parties for no particular reason. So Republicans weren't anti-women racists, but anti-women racists joined their party. lols.
Progressive use the term "states rights" as code for "they approve slavery and Jim Crow laws." Even though it was the states that outlawed slavery and never implemented Jim Crow laws in the first place.
Except for the fact that the Republican Party in 1860 WAS the party of the "progs". It's too bad they aren't progressive today.
They still are, in the context that liberty and human rights, including federalism, are progressive ideas. The current progs want more power in the hands of government, by eroding federalism, and supplanting the rights and freedoms of the people.
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.
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.
