4 ms·
> No, it was because the slave states didn't want to lose slavery in a Senate vote. Sorry, that is simply not true. Virginia, a slave state, was by far the mos
by Turing_Machine 4y ago
> No, it was because the slave states didn't want to lose slavery in a Senate vote.
Sorry, that is simply not true. Virginia, a slave state, was by far the most populous state at the time the Constitution was adopted.
- Kbelicius 4y ago> Virginia, a slave state, was by far the most populous state at the time the Constitution was adopted. Only if you count slaves and I don't see why you would in this context.
- clarionbell 4y agoHence something called "3/5 compromise" which diluted political power of slave holders and while keeping slaves under their heel.
- Turing_Machine 4y agoThat is exactly correct. It was the slave states that wanted slaves fully counted, while the free states didn't want them to count at all. People who go off about "3/5 of a person" don't realize that doing that made the slave states weaker, not stronger.
- Kbelicius 4y ago> People who go off about "3/5 of a person" don't realize that doing that made the slave states weaker, not stronger. That would be true only if the slaves could vote. Since they could not it made those states stronger.
- Kbelicius 4y agoNo, it increased the political power of slave holders since slaves couldn't vote but were counted as if they could.
- Turing_Machine 4y agoWomen, children, and slaves were all counted for purposes of representation (slaves at 3/5 --- which made the slave states weaker, not stronger) even though they couldn't vote. Children can't vote to this day but still count in terms of representation in the House.