Why the 3/5ths Compromise Was Anti-Slavery

[MisterVeritis]

And like I said, that's a senseless point to try to make, as it deliberately and dishonestly ignores the bigger picture. If you give the masters more political power to keep the slavery system going, then it's a pro-slavery compromise, period. The exact number doesn't matter. It rewarded slavers for holding slaves, hence it was unabashedly pro-slavery.

Pay attention. Smart people are trying to help you learn.

The compromise resulted in less political power for the slave-holding states than if the slaves had been counted as whole people. Let us know when that sinks in. If it sinks in.

[spunkloaf]

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

It was all about power. After all, what good does it do a slave to be represented by a congressperson at all if they can't even vote?

It's the political epitome of slavery. "We force you to live here, we benefit from your labor, AND five of you counts as three constituents in our congressional districts, even though you have absolutely no stake in our voting or political system." If you ask me, the Compromise was a bad one, and it gave the south too much power. It's probably one of the greatest flaws that has continued to divide our nation, even today.

[Jets]

The Constitution in and of itself was a compromise. We were “divided” from the get go. The saving grace was that the AOC was an anathema.

[Chris]

It was all about power. After all, what good does it do a slave to be represented by a congressperson at all if they can't even vote?

It's the political epitome of slavery. "We force you to live here, we benefit from your labor, AND five of you counts as three constituents in our congressional districts, even though you have absolutely no stake in our voting or political system." If you ask me, the Compromise was a bad one, and it gave the south too much power. It's probably one of the greatest flaws that has continued to divide our nation, even today.

We've already arrived at the conclusion it was all about power. The more Reps you have the more powerful you are. In order to attain that power, the North denigrated slave to less than person status.

Vote? I believe only land-owners had the franchise then. Lots were not able to vote.

[Chris]

And like I said, that's a senseless point to try to make, as it deliberately and dishonestly ignores the bigger picture. If you give the masters more political power to keep the slavery system going, then it's a pro-slavery compromise, period. The exact number doesn't matter. It rewarded slavers for holding slaves, hence it was unabashedly pro-slavery.

Slavery was dealt with in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.