Skip to main content

We hear often repeated that the 3/5ths of a man designation of slaves by the congress in the 19th century represented this and represented that, and it is often repeated to support various claims of racism, etc.

Does anyone know the facts behind the 3/5ths of a man legistlation, such as why it was enacted at all? I'm asking this to see the level of knowledge and sophistication we share amongst ourselves when it comes to historical reality and our history.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
I'm asking this to see the level of knowledge and sophistication we share amongst ourselves when it comes to historical reality and our history.

Save the bull...

And Who In the HELL made you the KNOWLEDGE and SOPHISTICATION Magistrate?

If you want some answer research it. It was an political/economic compromise between the North and South, IMO, that the South definitely pushed for to boost their representation in Congress, etc.

So answer me... how that negates whatever un-named charges of racism you're talking about?

______________________________________________________________________
"The problem many African-Americans have with these [BLACK] "CONservatives" is that they appear to air the problems of the black community to the entire nation without offering any Real Solutions."
quote:
..crowding into this complicated and divisive discussion [at the Constitutional Convention] over representation was the North-South division over the method by which slaves were to be counted for purposes of taxation and representation. On July 12 Oliver Ellsworth proposed that representation for the lower house be based on the number of free persons and three-fifths of "all other persons," a euphemism for slaves. In the following week the members finally compromised, agreeing that direct taxation be according to representation and that the representation of the lower house be based on the white inhabitants and three-fifths of the "other people." With this compromise and with the growing realization that such compromise was necessary to avoid a complete breakdown of the convention, the members then approved Senate equality. Roger Sherman had remarked that it was the wish of the delegates "that some general government should be established." With the crisis over representation now settled, it began to look again as if this wish might be fulfilled.

uh uh, no re-guessing now! One 'guess' per person mag. You can wait, obviously.

Those are alot of text-bookish words mag. I give you one more guess, if you can you explain how that text bookish paragraph answers my question in english? I'm looking for reasons, motivations, players and politics involved, you know, REAL answers that people can relate to.

Need some clues? NO clues! You claimed you so smart and knowledgeable about black history, yet that does not appear at all to be the case, now does it, while you run away looking up what you should already be educated about

Now mag, step aside, you've offered 'your' answer, so stick with it. Let other folks contribute for a change. Your done. This is black folks discussing black issues.

[This message was edited by sergeant on October 21, 2003 at 11:48 AM.]
The Constitution



3/5 PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION

Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several
States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective
Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons,
including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not
taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (See Note 2) The actual Enumeration shall be
made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States,
and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law
direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty
Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such
enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse
three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one,
Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one,
Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia
three.
Some famous 'last words' from our all-knowing guest, the maginate:

"You that hardly anything you have said in debate with me that I have not deconstructed."

"I demonstrate that I have the FACTS on my side"

"you are not prepared or intelligent enough to answer questions from others"


Guess ole mag suddenly went on vacation in this topic! What makes someone so arrogant that they'd actually be as fake as he is? Damn near every criticism and insult he calls others is more closely descriptive of HIMSELF! Honestly, I've never seen anything like this, or at least to this degree. This is truly comical in a way.

So, when you gonna get round to 'desconstructing' this one mag? Wheres all those 'facts' you keep telling us all you have somewhere? Are you intelligent enough to know when its time to constrain yourself or admit you don't know something?? (I hope not, this too much fun)

So, you been calling me out since I first came here to the site. Well, this is what I look like. Got plenty more, if you need it.
Come on brother sunnubian, wake up. Noone asked anyone to 'recite' or 'paste' the actual legistlation. That doesn't even hint at the "story behind" it, which is what the topic's question is posing. I'm looking for comprehension here, not pasting ability, dig?? Yall be hanging with magazine too much, all this copying and pasting is for children. I want you to speak from positions of knowledge and your own hearts. If you don't know, then you don't know! No crime in that.

OK? So dont' copy anything, especially the bill itself, that doesn't tell us anything. I want to know the "story behind" the legistlation, again, the players, the reasons, the motivations, and so on.
quote:
So, when you gonna get round to 'desconstructing' this one mag? Wheres all those 'facts' you keep telling us all you have somewhere?

Stupid...

YOU have not made an argument here for me to deconstruct...

And I never claimed to have "ALL" the facts... I said I can support any argument I put forth. And that's why you've been searching not only for a topic but a way - aka weasel method - were only you (meaning no one else sees it that way) can claim victory.

And you would call it a Debate Victory when you haven't debate anything...

I know... I know... Sgt. "You Hate WATER!!"fro
The 3/5 man rule was a compromise between the north and the south. Because a state's population determined their congressional representation, the south wanted to count slaves toward their population. Anti-slavery advocates took issue, because these men and women were considered property and had no rights. They correctly argued that a slave should count as zero. They compromised and for some reason settled on the 3/5 number. So the south could count 60% of the slave population and add it to the free total, which enabled them to get extra seats in the House that they didn't deserve. Sergeant is trying to criticize those of us who decry the 3/5 number as being ignorant. If so, what Sarge fails to realize is that the real story, as detailed above, is even worse: they actually got to count us toward added representation for themselves, knowing full well that we would be denied any of the benefits of that representation. Sarge, you just learned about this last week, didn't you?
Well, you just did it back to me, now didn't you Jim. While most politics is about 'power', thats nowhere near an answer.

Little bit surprised at you Jim. Of course, I'm a little surprised at everyone right now. I'll offer my answer in time, but there are so many self-proclaimed 'experts' on black culture, issues, and history around here, I think we should allow a little more time for more to weigh in.
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
Sergeant!!! There you are. Asking questions AGAIN???? Asking, but not answering. That's what you did with me, anyway.

No answer is good enough. But you have nothing to offer. Stand and judge. Don't participate.

Mr. Chester,

That's what he's done since he's been here. He and Mountain are from the same School of DeVOID-of-THOUGHT!
quote:
    Never learned to SSWwwimmmmm...emmm...em...emmmm,

    Can't catch the rhythm of the stroke...oakkk!

    Why should I hold my breath..ethh,

    Feelin' that I might CHOKE!!


    Psychoalphadiscobeta bioaquadoloop!

[Sgt.} I Hate Water!!
Yes, vox knows it. Thanks, and none too soon I might add.

And no vox, there is nothing you've offered that is new to me. You in fact have misinterpreted the 'meaning' of this event somewhat, which I'll be glad to clear up for ya as well.

what Sarge fails to realize is that the real story, as detailed above, is even worse: they actually got to count us toward added representation for themselves, knowing full well that we would be denied any of the benefits of that representation.

Well no, I didn't miss the fact that we did get counted. Thats obvious to me.
BUT, you have framed this fact in a negative way, using the term 'worse', which is ass- backwards in my view. Thats miscomprehension.

Bearing in mind the way congress actually functions is necessary in understanding this event. Law applies here, its not up to people's wishes or whims.

"they actually got to count us toward added representation for themselves"

But that certainly was not the "WORSE" thing that would have happened. You are wrong on that, unless:

They got to only count 3/5ths of the added representation they otherwise would have counted, is that not correct Vox?? Are you saying it would have been better to have %100 representation for each slave for the south??? You would WANT the South to have prevailed and gained MORE power???
Wouldn't THAT have been the WORSE scenario as you phrase it vox?

Isn't LESS representation, and therefore, LESS influence by the south what YOU would prefer??

Why would you use the term 'worse' in reference to having the %100 cut to only %60?? I'm not following that, unless of course you favor slavery.

I don't think so vox. Rethink that please.

The 3/5th compromise was a victory for those opposing slavery, ironically yes, but nonetheless a positive event in our history. As often, the event itself does not tell the whole story.

(disclaimer: I will not be responding to the inevitable comments of lowest common denominator amongst us here, like mag, who inevitable will now insult, disparage, tell us how smart they are for the umpteenth time, get it wrong again, etc etc, you know the usual suspects.)
quote:
Originallt posted by NMaginate:
It was an political/economic compromise between the North and South, IMO, that the South definitely pushed for to boost their representation in Congress, etc.



quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
The 3/5 man rule was a compromise between the north and the south. Because a state's population determined their congressional representation, the south wanted to count slaves toward their population. Anti-slavery advocates took issue, because these men and women were considered property and had no rights. They correctly argued that a slave should count as zero. They compromised and for some reason settled on the 3/5 number. So the south could count 60% of the slave population and add it to the free total, which enabled them to get extra seats in the House that they didn't deserve. Sergeant is trying to criticize those of us who decry the 3/5 number as being ignorant. If so, what Sarge fails to realize is that the real story, as detailed above, is even worse: they actually got to count us toward added representation for themselves, knowing full well that we would be denied any of the benefits of that representation. Sarge, you just learned about this last week, didn't you?


Sarge,

Aren't they both saying the same thing?


Illegal, noun:

A term used by the descendents of European Immigrants to refer to descendants of Native Americans


Plowshares Actions
The Nuclear Resister
School of the Americas Watch


Cauca, Colombia


Your late Kevin. Its already been answered. To make it easy for ya, think of what would have occurred had the north not won the 3/5ths compromise, and the South had won the right to count slaves as fully representative populations.

You see it?

:there is actually a little more to the drama, involving the 'tipping' of numbers of seats and gaining a majority to be able to 'veto' etc, but thats a little tedious for here.
quote:
Originally posted by sergeant:
No. mag thought 3/5ths was a legistlative effort "pushed by the South". It was not. Exactly the opposite in fact.


Both NMaginate and Vox said that it was a way for the South to increase their population figures to gain seats in Congress, etc.

I'm not sure how their success in inflating their population figures would be viewed as a victory for those opposing slavery.


Illegal, noun:

A term used by the descendents of European Immigrants to refer to descendants of Native Americans


Plowshares Actions
The Nuclear Resister
School of the Americas Watch


Cauca, Colombia


Listen whiteboy, you supposed to be a math teacher????

Is 3/5ths as much as 1???

3/5ths was NOT a "a way for the South to increase their population figures to gain seats in Congress"

3/5ths WAS a way for the NORTH to lessen and counteract the influence of the south in the congress by cutting the south's representation in congress. The south was going to vote FULL representation, the north's proposal of 3/5ths at least lowered that somewhat. The numbers in the house at the time could very well have given the south ALL that they wanted. In fact, its a miracle that 3/5ths got passed at all, it was 'compromise' in its truest sense.

What you used to, silver spoons whiteboy??? Didn't you have any history classes in that school you went to?
This sounds a lot like PW-theoretics!
Don't ya think, Ricardo!

Yeah, and tell the slave-masters their reimbursement for Room & Board is in the mail and double-stamped!

VOX,
Didn't you recently say something about it:
"It's not what you think about a particular topic, but rather how you think about it."

Well, DUMB-StuuuPid-Lonely-SARGE... (silly RaBBiT!)
60% vs. 100% count on slaves and the South representation... Ahhh!! IF WE WERE NOT REPRESENTING OURSELVES then there was no reason for anyone else (read Slave-masters) to profit in any way from whatever percent we "accounted" in representation.

So, in effect, NO!! We will not celebrate someone sticking half-a-knife (or 60%) in our gut when psycho-reflecting that they could have stabbed us with the whole 100% of it!

Regardless the South was, in essence, rewarded for having slaves by giving THE MASTERS extra say at our expense ("paid" by us). The results are nothing to celebrate or promote with "it could have been worse" type logic.

SILLY RABBIT!
To Kweli:

How so Kweli? To what 'logic' are you referring to Kweli? I do not recall needing to use any logic in this topic. Can you point out what you are referring to?

Did you see me write that the middle passage was 'quirky'? Did you see me write that slavery was good?

What motivates someone as you to make such an off the wall comment like that? Is that your 'hit and run' passes for intellect technique? You don't WANT to know your history perhaps? Or you like believing what you believed before we layed it out for you?

Got to be something, so what is it you take issue with?

Or you going to just fade away now, having nothing but negativity in your heart and mind.
quote:
Originally posted by sergeant:
Listen whiteboy,...


The name is ricardomath, ricardo for short, sarge.

quote:
you supposed to be a math teacher????


As a matter of fact, I am. My research specialty is logic, something that your posts sorely lack.

quote:
Is 3/5ths as much as 1???


Is 3/5ths more than 0? That's how much influence that those slaves had on those additional congressional representatives. Note that Native Americans counted for 0. That is the default value for non-citizens.

quote:
3/5ths was NOT a "a way for the South to increase their population figures to gain seats in Congress"


Sure it was. Otherwise, slaves would have counted as 0, just like Native Americans who likewise had no influence on those representatives.

quote:
3/5ths WAS a way for the NORTH to lessen and counteract the influence of the south in the congress by cutting the south's representation in congress.


Counting slaves as 3/5ths, rather than 0, the default value for non-citizens, gave the South more representation than it deserved, since those additional representatives were in no way accountable to those they were supposedly representing.

quote:
What you used to, silver spoons whiteboy???


That would be ricardomath, ricardo for short, sarge.


Illegal, noun:

A term used by the descendents of European Immigrants to refer to descendants of Native Americans


Plowshares Actions
The Nuclear Resister
School of the Americas Watch


Cauca, Colombia


There was NEVER a chance of zero. That was the whole point and problem the north faced you moron. It was either 1 or 3/5th of 1.

What words or fractions are giving you so much trouble today whiteboy?

Ok, the topic is officially over, theres nothing more I can add, or spoonfeed to whiteboys.

Everyone understands, and ricky can get back to bashing his students or whatever.....
quote:
Originally posted by sergeant:


BUT, you have framed this fact in a negative way, using the term 'worse', which is ass- backwards in my view. Thats miscomprehension.



But that certainly was not the "WORSE" thing that would have happened. You are wrong on that, unless:

They got to only count 3/5ths of the added representation they otherwise would have counted, is that not correct Vox?? Are you saying it would have been better to have %100 representation for each slave for the south??? You would WANT the South to have prevailed and gained MORE power???


No, fool, it's you who's miscomprehending. I'm saying I would prefer us to have been counted as ZERO, so that southern whites would not get the benefit of any of our numbers. The fact that we were counted as 3/5 is worse than being counted at all. I don't understand how you could have gleaned the opposite from my post. You're accusing me of preferring us to have been counted 100%. That's false. I clearly state that we should have been counted as ZERO. I'll quote my post here, for your convenience. Ask your teacher for some extra help in reading comprehension, and use the following to study off of:

quote:
Anti-slavery advocates ... correctly argued that a slave should count as zero. They compromised and for some reason settled on the 3/5 number. So the south could count 60% of the slave population and add it to the free total, which enabled them to get extra seats in the House that they didn't deserve. Sergeant is trying to criticize those of us who decry the 3/5 number as being ignorant. If so, what Sarge fails to realize is that the real story, as detailed above, is even worse: they actually got to count us toward added representation for themselves, knowing full well that we would be denied any of the benefits of that representation.




What I said the real 3/5 story was worse than was the idea that it was somehow unjust, or immoral, for us to be counted as 3/5 than as 100%. For the purpose of congressional apportionment, it was actually worse to be counted 3/5 than to be counted fully, since we had none of the rights of citizens, or of humans.
quote:
Originally posted by sergeant:
To Kweli:

How so Kweli? To what 'logic' are you referring to Kweli? I do not recall needing to use any logic in this topic. Can you point out what you are referring to?




Sarge,

I agree with you here. I have reviewed your posts in this thread, and was unable to find any logic. I believe that Kweli mispoke when he referred to your logic.

ricardomath


Illegal, noun:

A term used by the descendents of European Immigrants to refer to descendants of Native Americans


Plowshares Actions
The Nuclear Resister
School of the Americas Watch


Cauca, Colombia


quote:
Originally posted by sergeant:
There was NEVER a chance of zero. That was the whole point and problem the north faced you moron. It was either 1 or 3/5th of 1.

What words or fractions are giving you so much trouble today whiteboy?

Ok, the topic is officially over, theres nothing more I can add, or spoonfeed to whiteboys.

Everyone understands, and ricky can get back to bashing his students or whatever.....


Are you locking the thread to further posts?

BTW, where did you get this stuff about me bashing my students? You've been saying stupid shit like this for a couple of days, now.

I suppose that you just made it up in your head, just like you do with other stuff...


Illegal, noun:

A term used by the descendents of European Immigrants to refer to descendants of Native Americans


Plowshares Actions
The Nuclear Resister
School of the Americas Watch


Cauca, Colombia


Wait, I didn't read anything after the response to me.

Sarge, the anti-slavery advocates wanted the slaves to count for ZERO. 3/5 was no victory for them. It was a victory for the south. Any added population that inflated the white south's numbers is a victory for them, considering that it would have been right and just for them to get nothing extra. If you're supposed to get X amount of something, anything you get above X is spoils. And in turn, the north lost too, because their rightful proportionate share of the members of the House was reduced fraudulently. Any compromise on this matter should have been unacceptable to the North. I don't get why you think black slaves benefitted from any evil act that resulted in the slaveowners becoming more powerful than they deserved to be.
Not exactly vox. You must comprehend that this is reality, its the congress, theres the constitutional process, there are real southerners favoring real slavery. All is not in text book heaven, dig?

They were living in REALITY at the time. The south at the time held the upper hand in the house. THIS IS BY NO MEANS MAKE BELIEVE LAND, YOU DIG??? Of course everyone 'should' oppose slavery, but that was not reality!! And there is a such thing as consitutional law that the congress is regulated by!!!!!

You got it right that the North wanted zero, but as you also know compromise is often required or at least desired by those with the weaker hand.

I think the misunderstanding is a common one, I was hoping some could see beyond that.

SO:
YES, I KNOW the entire notion of counting ANY population as less than a man is HORRIBLE. YES I KNOW that the South was WRONG in every way on the issue. YES I KNOW that adding 3/5ths increases the south's representation. YES, I think it odd to be thought of as 3/5ths. YES I AM AWARE that seeing this as positive takes a mature, stable and agile mind, to see both the irony and sadness in the whole affair while recognizing the politics of the time as well.

OK, DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW???? THIS IS NOT AN ADVOCATION OF THE FUCKING 3/5TH MEASURE FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!!! WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM?????

What you expect me to say?:
" Er, eh um, Mr Vox, you have a remarkable grasp of the obvious"
"Oh, well thank you Mr Sergeant, you too"


Get over it and take it for whats it worth. Its not the gotdam end of the world for ya or anything.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×