Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest: It's going to be hard not to feature E.W. Jackson daily (47 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No, He's Not Right (6+ / 0-)

    A compromise that allowed the slave states to count 3/5 of the slave population, or 1/5 of the slave population, or to count all their slaves put together as one extra person, is objectively pro-slavery -- it gave the slave states a benefit for being slave states.

    On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog... but everybody knows if you're a jackass.

    by stevemb on Thu May 23, 2013 at 06:40:08 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  The 3/5ths provision was a blatant PRO-slavery (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Old Sailor

      article. It was counting your "possessions" as partial voters. Exactly how many slaves got to cast 3/5 of a vote as they saw fit? The provision was inserted at the insistence of the slaveocracy.

      "They will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the American economy. The full faith and credit of the United States of America is not a bargaining chip."

      by TofG on Thu May 23, 2013 at 07:20:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with you-- (0+ / 0-)

      --that allowing any count of slaves toward Representatives/Electoral College is tilting the balance of power towards slave states.

      I agree that a 0/5ths clause would have been better, in terms of giving the South (and slavery!) less power--but it's likely we'd not have had a nation, either.

      Absent the 3/5ths clause, the South would have had more political power; the 3/5ths clause reduced Southern power from that (otherwise constitutional) baseline.

      It seems to me it's a glass 3/5 full // 2/5 empty situation: 5/5 would have been, in your words, "objectively pro-slavery" and any fraction of that is still pro-slavery, but less so. So, 3/5 is anti-slavery relative to 5/5, but pro-slavery relative to any smaller fraction....

      "There is just one way to save yourself, and that's to get together and work and fight for everybody." ---Woody Guthrie (quoted by Jim Hightower in The Progressive Populist April 1, 2012, p3)

      by CitizenJoe on Thu May 23, 2013 at 07:43:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That wasn't the question (0+ / 0-)

        In general, population was counted towards representation.

        Maybe, in some abstract moral sense, slaves shouldn't have been counted among the population. Long afterwards, the slave owners would claim that slaves weren't people -- that didn't seem to be the case back then.

        But that issue wasn't being raised.

        Slaves were far from the only persons (note that the Constitution only uses that term when it discusses slavery -- some of those circumlocutions were quite long) that couldn't vote.

        The extreme radicals of the French revolution allowed people paying a quite low level of taxes fo vote. Even they didn't allow every male to vote. (And votes for women were something not even discussed in those days.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site