Talk:Slave power

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 3/5 rule?

Sorry I can't cite, but didn't the three-fifths compromise also come into the rhetoric around the "Slave power"? Northerners essentially argued that because Southern states' apportionment of Representatives and Electors were boosted by adding 3/5 of the slave population into the mix, the white Southern electorates were overrepresented and thus disproportionately powerful in the House and in Presidential elections. --Jfruh (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The 3/5ths rule was made in 1789, to prevent disproportionate representation of slave-holding states in the House of Representatives, but at that time there was no strong antagonism between North and South on the basis of slaveholding (slavery was still legal in many northern states), and many southerners still agreed that slavery was morally reprehensible, and should be abolished eventually.

It was only in the 1840s and 1850s (especially with the war of 1848, as it says in the article), when most Southern politicians and public spokesmen came around to the position that slavery was a "positive good", and southerners or southern-sympathetic northerners, seemed to have disproportionate influence in all three branches of the U.S. federal government, that the "Slave Power" became an important political slogan. AnonMoos 03:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the 3/5ths compromise was still part of the constitution 1848, and certainly could have formed part of the discourse during that period as well.

I think you might be somewhat overstating the harmony in the early republic as well. Gary Wills has a book called "Negro President: Jefferson and the Slave Power". I haven't read it but much of what I put above comes from reading reviews of it. Basically, Jefferson was called a "Negro president" by his contemporary opponents because he was elected on the strength of southern votes, which were exaggerated by the 3/5ths compromise. Not sure if the phrase "slave power" was used then though. Guess I gotta read the book. :) --Jfruh (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

---

There were some implicit tensions in 1789, but in 1789 slavery still existed in a number of northern states, many prominent southerners were among the loudest in theoretically deploring the existence of slavery, and at that time (before slavery gained in economic function after the invention of the cotton gin) it was possible to view slavery as an antiquated relic which was bound to wither away eventually. As late as 1807-1808, Congress voted by a large majority to abolish the slave trade (importation of new slaves from abroad) at the earliest date this was possible under the constitution, and the first "sectional" political crisis over slavery didn't occur until 1819-1820 (see Missouri compromise). AnonMoos 09:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The 3/5ths rule was made in 1789, to prevent disportionate representation of slave-holding states in the House of Representatives Unless I am mis-reading your meaning I would have thought the truth was exactly the opposite; the 3/5th rule enabled disproportionate representation of slaveholding states in the period it was in effect. South Carolina, to take the most extreme example, had many extra representatives and additional power in the electoral college because the representation was based on 60% of the slave population who obviously could not vote. Thus the system rewarded the slaveowning regions with political power. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DMorpheus (talk • contribs) 19:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Each state's number of representatives in the House is/was based on the overall TOTAL population of that state (as revealed by decennial censuses), regardless of citizenship, voting ability, or whatever. It included slaves in the 19th century, and includes illegal immigrants and homeless people today. (The only exemption was "Indians not taxed", which effectively meant enclaves free from most direct state government control.) In that context, 3/5 was a selective discount on the criterion of the indiscriminate TOTAL population of each state (which was otherwise used). AnonMoos 20:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Wikipedia has an article on Three-fifths compromise... AnonMoos 20:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)