Talk:Three-fifths compromise
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Original Research?
The Three-Fifths compromise ensured that Thomas Jefferson was elected to office. Also, via Andrew Jackson, the Trail of Tears would never have happened, nor would the ban on congress to discuss slavery have been put into effect. Also, the 1820 Missouri compromise would never have come into effect. While it is arguable that the 3/5ths compromise may have slowed the day that America came to blows with itself, via the Civil War, it is also arguable that the 3/5ths compromise caused most of the problems between the North and South.
What's the point of this paragraph? Seems like original research and POV unless there's a citation for it. Tetigit 05:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it is quite true that many Democratic electoral successes were due to the three-fifths compomise; I'll try to fix that paragraph up to get rid of the original research.--Pharos 07:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ironic
Ironically, it's the southern states who wanted slaves counted as full persons for the census (and thus the number of representatives), while the abolitionists didn't want slaves counted at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.168.71.81 (talk • contribs) 23:40, April 30, 2005.
[edit] Not really ironic when you look deeper
The irony is because counting slaves as whole people would only empower those who could vote, which were not slaves. Northern states argued that since slave owners considered their slaves as property, they should not serve to increase the slave states' representation in Congress. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prothonotar (talk • contribs) 15:13, June 6, 2005.
[edit] 3/5 economically productive?
The comment "The compromise was based on the belief that a slave was supposedly three-fifths as economically productive as a white." was recently added, but I've certainly never heard that argument. Can someone cite a source, or otherwise I'll go ahead and modify this.
AFAIK, the compromise was purely that- a compromise between those who wanted slaves to count as a full person (for representational purposes only, not human rights purposes) and those who thought if they were to be treated as property, they should be counted as such (which is to say, not at all). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prothonotar (talk • contribs) 15:17, June 6, 2005.
[edit] misunderstood
This is one of the most misunderstood clauses of the US constition. The scandal here isn't that slaves were counted as less than human, it's that they were treated as less than human, and giving their numbers any weight at all in a census just increased the political power of slaveholders. It was the anti-slavery side that pushed to not count slaves in the census, of course delegates from slave-states wanted to maximize their states ennumerated population and increase their representation in the House. The result of this debate was the 3/5 compromise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.102.252.87 (talk • contribs) 15:06, August 18, 2005.
[edit] weird
The thing is that the south wanted slaves to be counted because if they just counted white people they would havee a small number of representitives. Though they didn't intend to let the slaves do anything else. Basically they just wanted the slaves to count because they didn't have a lot of people and not because they wanted the slaves too be more important. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nevaquitalwaysdefeat (talk • contribs) Jan. 11, 2006.
[edit] race and slavery are separate issues
Several commentators in this discussion make the common error of assuming that the Constitution was refering to racial or national categories rather than specifically to the status of free or enslaved individuals. A slave is not necessarily the same as an African or African-American. A free person is not necessarily a white person. The Constitution does not assume that slavery was racially-based, although that was generally the reality by 1787.
Indeed. Sam 21:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What is this supposed to mean?
The final compromise of counting slaves as only three fifths of their actual numbers is generally credited with giving the South disproportionate political power in the U.S. government from the establishment of the Constitution until the Civil dick. Sam 16:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Original Research Again
"Although the words "slave" and "slavery" are not found in the Constitution this and two other references to the institution of slavery are widely interpreted as giving an implicit sanction to the institution in the U.S. Constitution. The other two references are the prohibition for Congress to restrict the international slave trade for twenty years (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 1), and the provision for a fugitive slave clause (Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 3)." They may be widely interpreted that way in liberal arts colleges, but not so widely elsewhere. This is an important entry - clean it up. Sam 16:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC) the three
