Talk:Three-fifths Compromise

Original Research?

The Three-Fifths compromise ensured that Thomas Jefferson was elected to office. Also, via Andrew Jackson, the Trail of Tears would never have happened, nor would the ban on congress to discuss slavery have been put into effect. Also, the 1820 Missouri compromise would never have come into effect. While it is arguable that the 3/5ths compromise may have slowed the day that America came to blows with itself, via the Civil War, it is also arguable that the 3/5ths compromise caused most of the problems between the North and South.

What's the point of this paragraph? Seems like original research and POV unless there's a citation for it. Tetigit 05:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is quite true that many Democratic electoral successes were due to the three-fifths compomise; I'll try to fix that paragraph up to get rid of the original research.--Pharos 07:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That was not OR. It is all demonstrated in Garry Wills book already cited as a reference for the article. DMorpheus 13:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ironic

Ironically, it's the southern states who wanted slaves counted as full persons for the census (and thus the number of representatives), while the abolitionists didn't want slaves counted at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.71.81 (talk • contribs) 23:40, April 30, 2005 (UTC)

Oh my god. Do you understand what the word "Ironic" really means? It is not Ironic. You are simply displaying your hidden partisan agenda, which nobody could possibly figure out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.176.5.79 (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Not really ironic when you look deeper

The irony is because counting slaves as whole people would only empower those who could vote, which were not slaves. Northern states argued that since slave owners considered their slaves as property, they should not serve to increase the slave states' representation in Congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prothonotar (talk • contribs) 15:13, June 6, 2005 (UTC)

3/5 economically productive?

The comment "The compromise was based on the belief that a slave was supposedly three-fifths as economically productive as a white." was recently added, but I've certainly never heard that argument. Can someone cite a source, or otherwise I'll go ahead and modify this.

AFAIK, the compromise was purely that- a compromise between those who wanted slaves to count as a full person (for representational purposes only, not human rights purposes) and those who thought if they were to be treated as property, they should be counted as such (which is to say, not at all). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prothonotar (talk • contribs) 15:17, June 6, 2005 (UTC)

Oh no. I'm going to have to be the evil devil's advocate and defend the south's position. The South's position that a slave be counted for representation is logical within the theory of American democracy of the time. Women also did not vote, but were counted for puposes of representation. The reason is that American democracy was founded on the idea that government is unnatural and its existence is a compromise between the power of collective defense and other benefits of organization and the natural state of mankind where everyone walks around in a loin cloth making up his own rules according to the dictates of his own reason and consciounce. (okay, so i added the loin cloth part.) The exception to this is the family, which they felt was the only natural form of human organization. A vote was per family, with the adult male representing his own family. Thus even though he was the only one voting, his vote counted for him and all his dependants. The South felt that since slaves were dependants as well, they should be counted for purposes of representation just like other non-voting members of society, like women. Basejumper2 07:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is nonsense even on its own terms. No one counted 3/5ths of the white women or 3/5ths of the white kids. Where did the 3/5ths come from? Can you cite any sources for this theory? DMorpheus 15:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Nobody counted 3/5ths of the white women or 3/5ths of the kids. They counted ALL of them. So the south was correct. Just like those non voting citizens were counted completely, so to the non voting slaves should have been counted as a whole person. The 3/5ths was a random number chosen to give the south most of what they wanted, but still deny them enough of what the logically deserved to give free states the hope of gaining enough of a numerical advantage in Congress to eventually end slavery. Basejumper2 13:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite a source for this novel argument? DMorpheus 13:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think so. DMorpheus 18:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

misunderstood

This is one of the most misunderstood clauses of the US constition. The scandal here isn't that slaves were counted as less than human, it's that they were treated as less than human, and giving their numbers any weight at all in a census just increased the political power of slaveholders. It was the anti-slavery side that pushed to not count slaves in the census, of course delegates from slave-states wanted to maximize their states ennumerated population and increase their representation in the House. The result of this debate was the 3/5 compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.252.87 (talk • contribs) 15:06, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

weird

The thing is that the south wanted slaves to be counted because if they just counted white people they would havee a small number of representitives. Though they didn't intend to let the slaves do anything else. Basically they just wanted the slaves to count because they didn't have a lot of people and not because they wanted the slaves too be more important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevaquitalwaysdefeat (talk • contribs) Jan. 11, 2006 (UTC)

It is not wierd, this is partisan politics on the most basic level. Look at the immigration issue. Democrats want illegals voting so they can have, dun dun dun (drumroll please), more political power. It is really very simple. 70.176.5.79 22:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The 3/5ths compromise was about slaves and permanently endentured persons, not white and black. Free blacks counted 1 for 1. Basejumper2 13:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

race and slavery are separate issues

Several commentators in this discussion make the common error of assuming that the Constitution was refering to racial or national categories rather than specifically to the status of free or enslaved individuals. A slave is not necessarily the same as an African or African-American. A free person is not necessarily a white person. The Constitution does not assume that slavery was racially-based, although that was generally the reality by 1787.

Indeed. Sam 21:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Though race and slavery are separate issue, regarding the compromise it was guided drafted to refer to black slaves. Though when you look at the numbers of Africans brought to the North American continent, they out number the natives. This only being that a census wasn't really taken regarding Native North Americans. Though there were slaves of many different races on this land, the majority is generally thought of when referencing. This of course would lead towards African Americans. The wording of this compromise and the Constitution is very smart as to not mention race. It was created with thought but thought towards Africans and the African Americans. Common sense. Look into what slavery actually was..a money maker. Where did most slaves come from? It's almost as if the above person was trying to find a loophole to splinter away from race or national categories with the above comment. The creators of the Constitution were highly educated when it came to manipulation of words. Anyone with a grasp for wording can manipulate words to guide it towards other meanings with an underlining obvious meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagemecca (talk • contribs) 23:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What is this supposed to mean?

The final compromise of counting slaves as only three fifths of their actual numbers is generally credited with giving the South disproportionate political power in the U.S. government from the establishment of the Constitution until the Civil dick. Sam 16:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Original Research Again

"Although the words "slave" and "slavery" are not found in the Constitution this and two other references to the institution of slavery are widely interpreted as giving an implicit sanction to the institution in the U.S. Constitution. The other two references are the prohibition for Congress to restrict the international slave trade for twenty years (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 1), and the provision for a fugitive slave clause (Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 3)." They may be widely interpreted that way in liberal arts colleges, but not so widely elsewhere. This is an important entry - clean it up. Sam 16:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact the compromise could be just as easily viewed as the Constitution's recognition of the Existence of slavery, but also of its opinion that it was morally abhorant and should eventually be abolished. It also is constitutional recognition of slaves as human beings. "3/5ths of all other Persons." IT does not, as some say, count a slave as only 3/5ths of a person, but rather as an entire person within a population which is only partially counted for representation it cannot benefit from. Basejumper2 13:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Extremely widespread misconception

I realize that this article exists primarily to cover the "facts" of history, but I think room in this article should also be made for directly addressing the extremely widespread misconception about the three-fifths compromise, i.e. that it was some sort of statement by the framers that African Americans were "60% as human" as whites. The majority of people coming to this article will probably already have this idea in their minds, and I think it would be approprite to correct this by mentioning it specifically as a widespread misconception.--Pharos 16:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)