If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Root)   "The three-fifths clause of the Constitution is a good example of the value of political compromise"   (theroot.com) divider line 62
    More: Dumbass, U.S. Constitution, fifths clause, compromises, slave states, u.s. politics, Articles of Confederation, fifths, establishments  
•       •       •

1620 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Feb 2013 at 9:20 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



62 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-26 11:08:00 AM

hinten: colon_pow: the 3/5th clause reduced the south's political representation by 40%.
it's really that simple.

Wrong, it increased by it by 60% since it added slaves into the census count whereas before it was only free African-Americans and whites.


tell us more about how it was before.
 
2013-02-26 11:22:43 AM

Arkanaut: devildog123: Arkanaut: WTF Indeed: In historical terms, yes, it is a great example of political compromise.  Just because morally it was a horrible decision does not mean that in the context of the times it wasn't a great example of compromise.  Are there less contentious examples? Of course, but none encompass the scope of the 3/5ths compromise. It was also the trigger for further compromises over slavery which "kicked the can" for other generations to deal with.  It's a great metaphor for the current Congress' unwillingness to deal with matters of a corrupt tax code, over-spending, crumbling infrastructure, and poor healthcare system.

TFA seems to think it's not much of a compromise at all -- the South got almost everything it wanted (greater political representation of its voting public) and the North got nothing it wanted (abolition or even legal standing for slaves).   The only reason they agreed on it was to prevent the breakup of the country.

And that wasn't something the North wanted?  How much different would the House of Representatives have looked if the South had been able to count the millions of slaves towards their allotment of Representatives?  Slavery was a moral stain on this nation, but the compromise maintained the nation for a critical 80 years.  Most likely, the nation would have balkanized, and instead of one civil war, we would have had half a dozen.

In hindsight though, the Civil War would have been very different if it had been fought with 1790's technology instead of repeating rifles, telegrams, soldiers being mobilized on steamships and trains -- could have been a lot less deadly.  Although who knows who would have won in that scenario.


Fewer causalities, but a lot less loyalty to a nation that had been around for a measly 10 years, rather than 80+.  You might have had a 3 or 4 sided civil war, or worse, 3 or 4 countries along the eastern seaboard, spending the next 100+ years fighting with each other on and off like Europeans did until about 1945.
 
2013-02-26 11:25:09 AM

CPT Ethanolic: cman: hundreds of perfect examples that you could have used and you picked the one that is a stain upon our memory and hold it up as a positive event.

  You're aware that it was the slave states that wanted blacks counted as full people, right?  Counting them as "less than 1" person was a northern/free state idea actually worked to help end slavery.


They were only "people" in ways that helped their white masters, and no way that benefitted themselves. In fact, their white masters constantly and consistently voted against the best interests of the slaves.

Also, according to The Negro President, Jefferson never would have been elected without the 3/5 compromise. It handed him just enough extra votes for him to beat Adams.
 
2013-02-26 11:49:03 AM

hinten: cman: Jesus christ, dude. There are hundreds of perfect examples that you could have used and you picked the one that is a stain upon our memory and hold it up as a positive event.


Out of interest, who is the dude you are referring to?


Silly question dude.

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-02-26 12:04:28 PM
Students at these institutions need to stop acting like spoiled brats every time someone says something that affronts their delicate sensibilities.  A "compromise" is a resolution of a dispute - no more, no less.  I have settled plenty of cases where they plaintiff thought he was getting low-balled and the defendant thought he was getting taken to the cleaners.  A federal magistrate once told me after a settlement conference, "If everyone leaves here pissed off, it was probably a fair settlement."  The concessions regarding slavery pretty much had to be done or else there would have been no Constitution.  Without that, you have two smaller nations - one with slaves, the other without - who now have to fend for themselves as a new nation.  One would imagine at some point some of those states may have opted to rejoin the British Empire.  Alternatively, you have two nations now competing for the rest of the continent.  Would the North as one country have started a war with a sovereign South over slavery had the Constitution not been ratified?  Think about it.  Would a war have been started to free slaves in someone else's country?  It's one thing when it is in your country, but quite something else when it is a neighboring country.  As insidious an institution as slavery was, it was still a fact, an important element, a fiercely dividing issue, and something that had to be addressed somehow to hold the nation together.  So, they did what they could.  80 years later, war breaks out and the slaves are finally freed.  I don't know if that happens without the Constitution creating one nation.
 
2013-02-26 12:09:28 PM

Nabb1: Students at these institutions need to stop acting like spoiled brats every time someone says something that affronts their delicate sensibilities.  A "compromise" is a resolution of a dispute - no more, no less.  I have settled plenty of cases where they plaintiff thought he was getting low-balled and the defendant thought he was getting taken to the cleaners.  A federal magistrate once told me after a settlement conference, "If everyone leaves here pissed off, it was probably a fair settlement."  The concessions regarding slavery pretty much had to be done or else there would have been no Constitution.  Without that, you have two smaller nations - one with slaves, the other without - who now have to fend for themselves as a new nation.  One would imagine at some point some of those states may have opted to rejoin the British Empire.  Alternatively, you have two nations now competing for the rest of the continent.  Would the North as one country have started a war with a sovereign South over slavery had the Constitution not been ratified?  Think about it.  Would a war have been started to free slaves in someone else's country?  It's one thing when it is in your country, but quite something else when it is a neighboring country.  As insidious an institution as slavery was, it was still a fact, an important element, a fiercely dividing issue, and something that had to be addressed somehow to hold the nation together.  So, they did what they could.  80 years later, war breaks out and the slaves are finally freed.  I don't know if that happens without the Constitution creating one nation.


If they had rejoined the British Empire slavery would have been abolished in 1833.
 
2013-02-26 12:32:20 PM
Ends vs means, etc. I really don't know how to feel about this.
 
2013-02-26 12:33:27 PM

colon_pow: the 3/5th clause reduced the south's political representation by 40%.
it's really that simple.


The South was 100% slaves at the time of the 3/5 Compromise. You heard it here first, folks.
 
2013-02-26 12:39:55 PM

devildog123: Arkanaut: WTF Indeed: In historical terms, yes, it is a great example of political compromise.  Just because morally it was a horrible decision does not mean that in the context of the times it wasn't a great example of compromise.  Are there less contentious examples? Of course, but none encompass the scope of the 3/5ths compromise. It was also the trigger for further compromises over slavery which "kicked the can" for other generations to deal with.  It's a great metaphor for the current Congress' unwillingness to deal with matters of a corrupt tax code, over-spending, crumbling infrastructure, and poor healthcare system.

TFA seems to think it's not much of a compromise at all -- the South got almost everything it wanted (greater political representation of its voting public) and the North got nothing it wanted (abolition or even legal standing for slaves).   The only reason they agreed on it was to prevent the breakup of the country.

And that wasn't something the North wanted?  How much different would the House of Representatives have looked if the South had been able to count the millions of slaves towards their allotment of Representatives?  Slavery was a moral stain on this nation, but the compromise maintained the nation for a critical 80 years.  Most likely, the nation would have balkanized, and instead of one civil war, we would have had half a dozen.


Would have been awesome for the natives...
 
2013-02-26 12:48:12 PM
Well sure OK, that IS an example of compromise.  Compromising with assholes but yeah, compromise.

Heyyyyyy wait a second...
 
2013-02-26 03:33:21 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Nabb1: Students at these institutions need to stop acting like spoiled brats every time someone says something that affronts their delicate sensibilities.  A "compromise" is a resolution of a dispute - no more, no less.  I have settled plenty of cases where they plaintiff thought he was getting low-balled and the defendant thought he was getting taken to the cleaners.  A federal magistrate once told me after a settlement conference, "If everyone leaves here pissed off, it was probably a fair settlement."  The concessions regarding slavery pretty much had to be done or else there would have been no Constitution.  Without that, you have two smaller nations - one with slaves, the other without - who now have to fend for themselves as a new nation.  One would imagine at some point some of those states may have opted to rejoin the British Empire.  Alternatively, you have two nations now competing for the rest of the continent.  Would the North as one country have started a war with a sovereign South over slavery had the Constitution not been ratified?  Think about it.  Would a war have been started to free slaves in someone else's country?  It's one thing when it is in your country, but quite something else when it is a neighboring country.  As insidious an institution as slavery was, it was still a fact, an important element, a fiercely dividing issue, and something that had to be addressed somehow to hold the nation together.  So, they did what they could.  80 years later, war breaks out and the slaves are finally freed.  I don't know if that happens without the Constitution creating one nation.

If they had rejoined the British Empire slavery would have been abolished in 1833.


1843 for places run by the Honorable East India Company - still, earlier than the United States, though.
 
2013-02-26 10:20:48 PM
One, I hope the writer of the headline is not calling the author of the article a dumbass, because that is basically the opposite of the article author's point.

Two, and this is directed at someone above who thinks that the 3/5ths compromise decreased the south's representation: Before the 3/5ths "compromise," there was the Articles of Confederation, because the 3/5ths compromise was a part of the Constitution, as it was originally written. The south disliked the articles of confederation for two reasons. One was that any slaves, as property, were not counted for representation. Another was that there were the same number of people representing each state, for lack of a better term. The 3/5ths compromise was a way for the southern states to increase their representation while continuing to keep voting rights in the hands of a few people. At no point was their representation lessened, and in fact, it was because of the 3/5ths compromise that they had as much representation in the House as they did. Without the compromise, the United States would probably have gotten rid of slavery much sooner, because the south would have not have had as big of an influence. Sort of the same as without Texas, textbooks would be grade level rigor and factually accurate.
 
Displayed 12 of 62 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report