Why the 3/5ths Compromise Was Anti-Slavery


Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,027
Location
Denver, CO
#2
Oddly, the 3/5ths compromise worked out to be a penalty in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College.
This penalty grew over time.
Without the 3/5ths compromise, the United States would not have controlled the pace and nature of western settlement, and there would have been a significant amount of slavery crossing over the Ohio river.
Had they founders' attempts to restrict slavery been steadfastly maintained, a Civil War on the scale that occurred may have been prevented. But that is not what happened. More territory was added to the area of coerced labor, in Louisiana, Florida and Texas. When slavery was permitted in Missouri, where there was almost no cotton grown and free blacks could have supplemented immigration, the course towards Civil War was set.
Without the 3/5ths clause national development policies in the Great Lakes and the Illinois Central Railroad may have been blocked and there probably would have more and perhaps several expansionist wars. Without the 3/5ths clause the Mexican/American war would have been fought for total conquest of Mexico, at least until it became obvious that Mexican resistance made that too expensive a proposition.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,357
#3



Well, I don't know about all that . But, Lincoln in the mid 1850's noted the inequity to Northern voters, of that clause in the Constitution by comparing its effect on Maine and South Carolina.

Lincoln noted by that Maine with approx. twice the white population of SC, but, had exactly the same number of representatives in Congress as SC, all due to operation of the 3/5's Clause.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,027
Location
Denver, CO
#4
Lincoln's example notwithstanding, by 1850 New York had 33 representatives and Virginia had 13. New York had a huge influence of immigration, and development policies.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,357
#5
As noted by Lincoln, Northern voters were being cheated of their due representation in Congress by a deliberate manipulation of the count of voters.

Lincoln did not advocate ignoring the clear writing of the Constitution, but, he declared he was under no obligation to continue that inequity, with any new states.
 

Carronade

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
4,407
Location
Pennsylvania
#6
Well, I don't know about all that . But, Lincoln in the mid 1850's noted the inequity to Northern voters, of that clause in the Constitution by comparing its effect on Maine and South Carolina.

Lincoln noted by that Maine with approx. twice the white population of SC, but, had exactly the same number of representatives in Congress as SC, all due to operation of the 3/5's Clause.
He was assuming that if the 3/5 clause didn't exist, slaves would not count at all for purposes of representation; but if the Constitution had not established a distinction between "free persons" and "other persons", we would be left with something like "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers." Slaves would count as 100% and the slave states would actually have more representatives.

Sure, slaves would not be able to vote, but neither could white or free women at that time, and no one ever suggested that they should not be counted in the states' apportionment. Nor was it suggested, until the 14th Amendment, that representation should depend on exactly who a state allowed to vote. Suffrage and apportionment were two different things.

The other option would be for the Constitution to state specifically that the apportionment would be based solely on free persons. Even if the census did still count the numbers of slaves, they would not be considered for purposes of representation.

Of course each of these options was unacceptable to one part of the country, hence the compromise. There may not have been anyone who thought counting 3/5 of "other persons" was exactly right; but that's how things get done.
 

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
1,587
Location
Corona, California
#9
Honestly, I have some doubts regarding PragerU's video (I would agree on their viewpoints on other non-ACW videos) we have to remember the Three-Fifths Compromise was made ironically by two Northerners (just like the cotton gin) for two reasons: money and power, since the Northern and Southern colonies/states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia were so disparate in terms of population and wealth that there needed to be a way to balance proportional representation so every colony/state had a chance which is why it was created in the first place to give all inhabitants in those states a chance.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,871
#10
Honestly, I have some doubts regarding PragerU's video (I would agree on their viewpoints on other non-ACW videos) we have to remember the Three-Fifths Compromise was made ironically by two Northerners (just like the cotton gin) for two reasons: money and power, since the Northern and Southern colonies/states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia were so disparate in terms of population and wealth that there needed to be a way to balance proportional representation so every colony/state had a chance which is why it was created in the first place to give all inhabitants in those states a chance.
Can you be more specific?
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,871
#12
Well in 1790, the populations of the North and South were only slight apart from one another if one were to count the free citizenry there is a bit of a gap which is why there was a Three-Fifths Compromise.
Thanks for your response.
And it had nothing to do with representation in Congress?
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,357
#13
He was assuming that if the 3/5 clause didn't exist, slaves would not count at all for purposes of representation; but if the Constitution had not established a distinction between "free persons" and "other persons", we would be left with something like "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers." Slaves would count as 100% and the slave states would actually have more representatives.
Sure, slaves would not be able to vote, but neither could white or free women at that time, and no one ever suggested that they should not be counted in the states' apportionment. Nor was it suggested, until the 14th Amendment, that representation should depend on exactly who a state allowed to vote. Suffrage and apportionment were two different things.
The other option would be for the Constitution to state specifically that the apportionment would be based solely on free persons. Even if the census did still count the numbers of slaves, they would not be considered for purposes of representation.
Of course each of these options was unacceptable to one part of the country, hence the compromise. There may not have been anyone who thought counting 3/5 of "other persons" was exactly right; but that's how things get done.[/QUOTE








All of that is true, but, in ref. to the OP, I think Lincoln's argument shows how inasmuch as the 3/5's Clause, in his time, , worked to the disadvantage of the Free State's true representation in Congress in direct comparison with the Slave States, couled not be considered anti-slavery.

Lincoln's main point though, was to refute, the claims of Stephen Douglas, et. al., that the issue of Slavery in Kansas was strictly a local matter and not an issue of a National character.
 



Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top