4 ms·

> I don't think you can plausibly win your argument that the 3/5ths Compromise had the intent, let alone the effect, of abolishing slavery. I can try! The sla

by bhupy 5y ago

> I don't think you can plausibly win your argument that the 3/5ths Compromise had the intent, let alone the effect, of abolishing slavery. I can try! The slave states hoped to have their slaves count has whole persons on the matter of counting the population for apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives. This would have greatly increased their power without any meaningful representation for the people in question. The Three-Fifths compromise diluted the power of the slave states by only counting them as 3/5 of a Person. If the slave states wanted more seats in the House (and by extension, more power), all they had to do was free their slaves. That's the incentive. > But I don't have to have that argument with you, because you've forgotten about the other slavery clauses. Again, which slavery clauses? I'm just asking you to be specific. If it's as straightforward as you think it is, this shouldn't be hard for you. > you have only to reconcile their own words about the morality of slavery with their actions. Which society's morality? That of the 18th Century, or that of today? I think the entire point is that the morality of slavery has changed over time. Public opinion about homosexuality has dramatically changed just in the last 20 years. The morality of homophobia in the 18th century is very different from its morality today. That's the whole point. While the Founders definitely saw slavery as evil back then, it was still the status quo. The perceived wickedness of the institution even back then was very different from the perceived wickedness of the institution today. Put another way, failing to ratify the 13th Amendment in 1865 would have been really bad. Repealing the 13th Amendment today would be decidedly worse.

tptacek 5y ago
It's obviously not hard for me, since I've already cited an academic paper on this thread that spells this out in detail, enumerating the pro-slavery clauses. You can go read it now and we can put aside the discussion of who knew what when. Obviously, your claim that the 3/5ths Compromise is "the only clauses(sic) in the US Constitution that addressed slavery in any form" is trivially refuted --- even removing the words "in any form" from your claim, it's still false.
monocasa 5y ago
> If the slave states wanted more seats in the House (and by extension, more power), all they had to do was free their slaves. That's the incentive. You arguably get greater returns by keeping your slaves, but practicing forced breeding programs (which very much existed on plantations). If you can get slaves to produce 40% more children than they would without being raped, you end up ahead in representation without giving up your slaves.

by bhupy 5y ago

tptacek 5y ago

It's obviously not hard for me, since I've already cited an academic paper on this thread that spells this out in detail, enumerating the pro-slavery clauses. You can go read it now and we can put aside the discussion of who knew what when. Obviously, your claim that the 3/5ths Compromise is "the only clauses(sic) in the US Constitution that addressed slavery in any form" is trivially refuted --- even removing the words "in any form" from your claim, it's still false.

monocasa 5y ago

> If the slave states wanted more seats in the House (and by extension, more power), all they had to do was free their slaves. That's the incentive. You arguably get greater returns by keeping your slaves, but practicing forced breeding programs (which very much existed on plantations). If you can get slaves to produce 40% more children than they would without being raped, you end up ahead in representation without giving up your slaves.