Last week Michele Bachmann said And Glenn Beck defended the comments and argued It seems like the 3/5 clause was still a victory for the south. ANY representation of slaves in the population count gave them a better chance of having more representatives in Congress. Do I have this completely wrong? I'm not a constitutional expert so I'd like to hear from some of the lawyers in here.
The South wanted slaves to count as one full person for representation. Of course, they wouldn't have the right to vote. In this case, Beck (and whoever gave him the information) was correct. You don't have to be a lawyer; any cursury reading of history will tell you the same thing.
Whoa. The 3/5th clause absolutely was a blow against slavery, as maxiep points out. The constitution also outlawed the importation of new slaves starting in 1800. John Quincy Adams? LOL. John Adams was certainly an abolitionist, but I think his son was a teenager (at most) when the constitution was written, and later spent much of his time abroad as an ambassador. He didn't have much to do with anything at the time Bachman talks about. The 3/5ths clause was a compromise. The south wanted 5/5ths, the north wanted 0/5ths. The southern states benefited from seats in the House of Representatives based upon the census which counted blacks and indians as population.
I'm not arguing that. It was definitely detrimental to slave owners. It got the sticky issue off the table and the southern states on board with the constitution. I'm talking about the ramifications of the compromise. The Founding Fathers never intended to use the 3/5 compromise to end slavery. On a scale of %0 to %100 of representation %60 is a pretty big concession. Your still counting the majority of slaves. It seems like the 3/5 agreement actually helped to keep slavery alive, because the slave holding states benefited from their slaves being counted at all. The practical effect of that, far from making easier to abolish slavery, made it more difficult. It gave added weight to southern political power in Congress, it inflated Southern power in the apportioning of electoral votes, which led to a streak of Southern presidents.
Agreed. It was a cowardly concession and an avoidance of duty that resulted later in the worst war this country has ever fought. It also changed the political makeup of this country forever by giving "dissidents" their way (slavery) and allowing them to firmly establish their barbaric way of life as a cornerstone in the foundation of our country's morals (or lack of).
I don't know how anyone can blame the founding fathers for the 3/5 clause. Without that compromise, the United States of America would almost certainly have collapsed. The Articles of Confederation was on its last legs and I doubt either side (North or South) would have approved the Constitution without the compromise. Did it put off conflict and resolution of the slavery issue? Absolutely. Did this resolution mean another several generations of slaves were kept in the South? Yes. Without the Constitution, though, the South might not have been forced to give up slavery in the 1860's... the peculiar institution might have gone strong in the CSA for even longer than it did. We simply don't know. Giving credit or blame regarding three-fifths for anything other than helping allow the ratification of the Constitution requires too much speculation IMO. Ed O.
In the late 18th century, the southern states were not dissidents any more than the northern states were. I'm not sure why you would think that they were. Ed O.
it's a good thing that the religious right in England at the time abolished slavery and got the ball rolling worldwide.
Foiled you? I just found the criticisms of Bachman and Beck for knowing their history to be off. There have been far worse blunders on this board, some of which I've authored myself. I repped you, just because you took the effort to admit that you didn't know everything about the subject matter.
Why do you think it backfired? It seemed like the OP had a question and it's being discussed. Maybe I'm missing the "gotcha!" implied in the thread? Ed O.
Agreed, that's one of the tough things about making assertions about history. It's hard to put things in context since we are so far removed from the actual events.
Agreed. I reread it and added the appropriate rep to bluefrog. Legitimate discourse is such a rare thing here, I automatically put on my flame suit prior to jumping into any OT thread.
http://www.amazon.com/John-Adams-David-McCullough/dp/0684813637 This book is rated 4.5 stars out of 5 by 893 readers. It makes it easier to put things into context when a guy like McCullough sifts through a mountain of Adams' correspondence and quotes much of it. FWIW, I read it.
Me, too. I thought that it was required reading to join S2? And to have read a bio of each PotUS at least up until Pierce? Ed O.
