3 ms·

The tyranny of the majority that Madison complained about was because he wanted to preserve the power of rich people from all the poors. The system they created

The tyranny of the majority that Madison complained about was because he wanted to preserve the power of rich people from all the poors. The system they created now enshrines the tyranny of the the minority due to the concessions to slave and small states.

psunavy03 3y ago
Motivated reasoning. In the 1790 US Census, the largest state, Virginia, was a slave state. 48.7 percent of the total free and enslaved population of the country in 1790 lived in slave states. What's more, out of the smallest 7 states by population, only one of them (Georgia) was a slave state. The 2-person Senate and the 3/5ths compromise limited the power of SLAVE states to try to claim power in the Federal government by counting their slaves as population.
- dmead 3y ago
  The 3/5ths compromise and the Senate were to appease the slave states. I don't know where you're getting this somehow getting they were limited by this. The 3/5ths compromise gave them a sure representation in congress over a population they held as property.
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    The slave states' proposal was that slaves count fully towards representation. The 3/5ths compromise lowered the representation that slave states got.
    - banana_feather 3y ago
      ...And the non slave states wanted them to not be counted at all, because counting them at all would permit slave states to exploit them to gain political power in two branches of government without having to extend them any rights. The slave states still won, they just didn't get the whole hog in this instance.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - least 3y ago
    > I don't know where you're getting this somehow getting they were limited by this. I don't know where you're getting that this wasn't limiting them, given that their initial proposal was that each slave was to be counted as a person for the sake of apportioning representatives in the lower house. It's called a compromise because it's somewhere between the two different proposals from the two sides of this particular matter.
- banana_feather 3y ago
  >The 2-person Senate and the 3/5ths compromise limited the power of SLAVE states to try to claim power in the Federal government by counting their slaves as population. In 1789, there were 8 slave states and 5 free states. Giving each state 2 votes in the senate and counting their enslaved population at all was without question a political benefit to slave states.
- watwut 3y ago
  > The 2-person Senate and the 3/5ths compromise limited the power of SLAVE states to try to claim power in the Federal government by counting their slaves as population. Yeah, giving slave owners more power on behalf of them having slaves is totally limiting their power. The 3/5ths compromise is literally that - the more slaves your state have, the more the slave owners count.

psunavy03 3y ago

Motivated reasoning. In the 1790 US Census, the largest state, Virginia, was a slave state. 48.7 percent of the total free and enslaved population of the country in 1790 lived in slave states. What's more, out of the smallest 7 states by population, only one of them (Georgia) was a slave state. The 2-person Senate and the 3/5ths compromise limited the power of SLAVE states to try to claim power in the Federal government by counting their slaves as population.

dmead 3y ago
The 3/5ths compromise and the Senate were to appease the slave states. I don't know where you're getting this somehow getting they were limited by this. The 3/5ths compromise gave them a sure representation in congress over a population they held as property.
- josephcsible 3y ago
  The slave states' proposal was that slaves count fully towards representation. The 3/5ths compromise lowered the representation that slave states got.
  - banana_feather 3y ago
    ...And the non slave states wanted them to not be counted at all, because counting them at all would permit slave states to exploit them to gain political power in two branches of government without having to extend them any rights. The slave states still won, they just didn't get the whole hog in this instance.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- least 3y ago
  > I don't know where you're getting this somehow getting they were limited by this. I don't know where you're getting that this wasn't limiting them, given that their initial proposal was that each slave was to be counted as a person for the sake of apportioning representatives in the lower house. It's called a compromise because it's somewhere between the two different proposals from the two sides of this particular matter.
banana_feather 3y ago
>The 2-person Senate and the 3/5ths compromise limited the power of SLAVE states to try to claim power in the Federal government by counting their slaves as population. In 1789, there were 8 slave states and 5 free states. Giving each state 2 votes in the senate and counting their enslaved population at all was without question a political benefit to slave states.
watwut 3y ago
> The 2-person Senate and the 3/5ths compromise limited the power of SLAVE states to try to claim power in the Federal government by counting their slaves as population. Yeah, giving slave owners more power on behalf of them having slaves is totally limiting their power. The 3/5ths compromise is literally that - the more slaves your state have, the more the slave owners count.