Why the 3/5ths Compromise Was Anti-Slavery

[Chris]

You had to be a landowner to vote so poor whites did not count either.

True but the Compromise was about the number of Representatives in Congress.

[mamooth]

It makes sense, what's said in the video, but I suspect we will see those who don't like discussing it show up.

It made no sense, and I suspect that's why you just threw out a video, declared it was obviously right, and avoided discussing it any further.

The video claims that since the 3/5 compromise gave southern states more representation, it gave slaves more representation, so it was really anti-slavery. That's absurd. The slaves didn't get more representation. Their masters got more representation. That makes it pro-slavery.

The other point was that the USA wouldn't have been formed without the compromise. That's a red herring, as the USA being formed is neither pro or anti slavery.

As others have said, it was compromise that favored the slavers, making it pro-slavery.

[Chris]

It made no sense, and I suspect that's why you just threw out a video, declared it was obviously right, and avoided discussing it any further.

The video claims that since the 3/5 compromise gave southern states more representation, it gave slaves more representation, so it was really anti-slavery. That's absurd. The slaves didn't get more representation. Their masters got more representation. That makes it pro-slavery.

The other point was that the USA wouldn't have been formed without the compromise. That's a red herring, as the USA being formed is neither pro or anti slavery.

As others have said, it was compromise that favored the slavers, making it pro-slavery.

You really should listen to the video before commenting on it.

[MisterVeritis]

I sure wished my tractor and combine could vote!

It is far more valuable that they are counted in the census.

[MisterVeritis]

It made no sense, and I suspect that's why you just threw out a video, declared it was obviously right, and avoided discussing it any further.

The video claims that since the 3/5 compromise gave southern states more {ahem, Less} representation, it gave slaves more representation, so it was really anti-slavery. That's absurd. The slaves didn't get more representation. Their masters got more representation. That makes it pro-slavery.

The other point was that the USA wouldn't have been formed without the compromise. That's a red herring, as the USA being formed is neither pro or anti slavery.

As others have said, it was compromise that favored the slavers, making it pro-slavery.

You err.

[Captdon]

You had to be a landowner to vote so poor whites did not count either.

No. We're talking about representation in the House of Representatives. You're talking about who could vote. You're correct but not on topic.

[Captdon]

You really should listen to the video before commenting on it.

He's the resident loon.

[Lummy]

Is that not obvious? Yes, occasionally morons will suggest that this was some kind of racial theory that dehumanized blacks but they are not to be taken seriously.

Being blacks and liberals that make that interpretation.

[Lummy]

"The three-fifths compromise was the result of difficult, but necessary, political barganing..."

One of the earliest examples of how blacks have confounded the law and buggered up civil liberties. Tell me that isn't the main consequence of bringing them here to this day and probably forever.

[Lummy]

He's the resident loon.

Yeah, well I didn't quite believe that woman either, trying to patch up an academic rift.