Current Events > Dumbass in Tenn Legislature defends the 3/5 compromise.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1389736615556390918?s=21

can we just let the south secede now?

---

The Republican Party is a force of evil
---

Civil War 2 needs to be forcing the south out.

---

I mean it is Tennessee what are you expect?

I'd say that "Civil War 2" needs to be occupying the South with an iron fist the way people should have done 156 years ago, wiping out their aristocratic culture and giving reparations to the people harmed by their policies.

---

Feel insulted all you want, but he's right.

The 3/5s compromise was about the best case scenario abolishionists could realistically hope for, considering the reality of the situation at the time.

The alternative was giving the slave holding states even more power and greater influence, because they'd have counted the slave population fully for determining the number of representatives.

Esrac posted...

Feel insulted all you want, but he's right.

The 3/5s compromise was about the best case scenario abolishionists could realistically hope for, considering the reality of the situation at the time.

The alternative was giving the slave holding states even more power and greater influence, because they'd have counted the slave population fully for determining the number of representatives.

Or smashing slavery and ending its legacy, which the Civil War only did half of. Should have gotten it out of the way early on.

---

Not subscribed to NYTimes, but FYI it was the slave states that wanted to count slaves as a full person so that they would have more *white* representatives (and more power) in congress. The anti-slavery states didnt want slaves to be counted at all.

---

Absolutely SHOCKED to see Esrac defend the words of a conservative shitheel.

---

These are people with power within our government

---

radical rhino posted...

Not subscribed to NYTimes, but FYI it was the slave states that wanted to count slaves as a full person so that they would have more *white* representatives (and more power) in congress. The anti-slavery states didnt want slaves to be counted at all.

Yes, this is historically accurate. Its odd to see leftists siding with slave states on this issue.

---

brestugo posted...

Or smashing slavery and ending its legacy, which the Civil War only did half of. Should have gotten it out of the way early on.

That would've been nice, sure, but it also wasn't a realistic possibility in the 1780s United States.

They were politicians with various, and sometimes conflicting, interests trying to put together and maintain a brand new country, which required compromise. The more abolitionist-minded representatives didn't have the power to just "smash slavery".

radical rhino posted...

Not subscribed to NYTimes, but FYI it was the slave states that wanted to count slaves as a full person so that they would have more *white* representatives (and more power) in congress. The anti-slavery states didnt want slaves to be counted at all.

Wont somebody think of the slave owners! The post

Esrac posted...

That would've been nice, sure, but it also wasn't a realistic possibility in the 1780s United States.

They were politicians with various, and sometimes conflicting, interests trying to put together and maintain a brand new country, which required compromise. The more abolitionist-minded representatives didn't have the power to just "smash slavery".

but now tell us how it paved the way to ending slavery.

from what you just said it did the opposite by giving slave states 3/5th more power than it did, thus likely hurting the abolishment of slavery.


---

Slaves should not have been counted , because it gave the South more voting powers and slaves clearly had no rights .It was win for the South.

---

radical rhino posted...

Not subscribed to NYTimes, but FYI it was the slave states that wanted to count slaves as a full person so that they would have more *white* representatives (and more power) in congress. The anti-slavery states didnt want slaves to be counted at all.

"but teh abolitionists were the REAL racists!!1!1"

although I suppose it's fair to say everyone was racist back then
kinda like today, really

---

Zeeak4444 posted...

but now tell us how it paved the way to ending slavery.

from what you just said it did the opposite by giving slave states 3/5th more power than it did, thus likely hurting the abolishment of slavery.

He's full of shit.

---

Esrac posted...

Feel insulted all you want, but he's right.

The 3/5s compromise was about the best case scenario abolishionists could realistically hope for, considering the reality of the situation at the time.

The alternative was giving the slave holding states even more power and greater influence, because they'd have counted the slave population fully for determining the number of representatives.

Big oof. Youre defending a compromise on slavery my guy. It shouldnt be praised for anything today.

---

cjsdowg posted...

Slaves should not have been counted , because it gave the South more voting powers and slaves clearly had no rights .It was win for the South.

Fair point, but would it have been better for the slaves if America was split in two instead?


---

The only purpose the 3/5ths served was getting the goddamn south to ratify the constitution.

"Hey, how come our slaves aren't counted when assigning representatives?"
"Are you finally admitting that slaves are people, too?"
"Okay, hold on there..."

Zeeak4444 posted...

but now tell us how it paved the way to ending slavery.

from what you just said it did the opposite by giving slave states 3/5th more power than it did, thus likely hurting the abolishment of slavery.

The anti-slavery representatives didn't have the power to completely refuse the pro-slavery representatives and expect to preserve the union.

Do you understand how compromise works? If they drew a hard line on either ending slavery immediately or insist the slaves count for nothing, then the likely result is the union is basically stillborn.

So, they compromise with 3/5s, to try to limit the influence of slave states, and the spread of slavery into more territories, while also keeping them at the table. It was an early step to lessen the spread of slavery.

As for totally refusing to compromise, if they let slaves count as full citizens for representation, but without the accompanying rights, the slave states would've had disproportionate power and influence in the legislature.

If they insist that slaves don't count at all, then those states have less reason to negotiate at all and more reason to secede even earlier than they did.

TheVipaGTS posted...

Big oof. Youre defending a compromise on slavery my guy. It shouldnt be praised for anything today.

Thats an odd stance on history my guy.

---

Clutch posted...

Thats an odd stance on history my guy.

Why? With the knowledge we have now what point are you trying to make for legislation today by saying well it wasnt all bad...we did a lot Of bad things in this countrys history. You dont need to find silver linings. You can call it what it is.

---

TheVipaGTS posted...

Big oof. Youre defending a compromise on slavery my guy. It shouldnt be praised for anything today.

It's a "technically correct, but goddamn" oof on par with stating that Hitler ended the great depression.

Best part about being Republican is, nothing at all.

Easiest party for uneducated people to be a part of.

---

Esrac posted...

and more reason to secede even earlier than they did.

Which would have kicked off the Civil War which resulted in the end of slavery. ...you were saying about how the compromise actually paved the way for the end of slavery?

---

justaguy3492 posted...

Which would have kicked off the Civil War which resulted in the end of slavery. ...you were saying about how the compromise actually paved the way for the end of slavery?

Well... if the south started as its own thing, or the CSA was just allowed to split off somehow, the eventual inevitability would have been a mass slave revolt on par with Haiti, but on a much larger scale.

justaguy3492 posted...

Which would have kicked off the Civil War which resulted in the end of slavery. ...you were saying about how the compromise actually paved the way for the end of slavery?

I think that is an optimistic assumption. You're assuming that the anti-slave states would have, or could have, gone to war to maintain a still-born union almost immediately after a difficult revolutionary war.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Well... if the south started as its own thing, or the CSA was just allowed to split off somehow, the eventual inevitability would have been a mass slave revolt on par with Haiti, but on a much larger scale.

That is certainly a good possibility. But we are getting into a lot of hypotheticals at this point.

Lots of users ITT need to read up on their history

---

Esrac posted...

That is certainly a good possibility. But we are getting into a lot of hypotheticals at this point.

but thats all it really is, hypotheticals.

The issue were taking isnt with the nuances of that time, its with the assumption that it was not only the sole choice, but the best choice too.

we dont really know. I can see as many arguments for why it prolonged slavery as I do for why it curbed it.

---

Zeeak4444 posted...

but thats all it really is, hypotheticals.

The issue were taking isnt with the nuances of that time, its with the assumption that it was not only the sole choice, but the best choice too.

we dont really know. I can see as many arguments for why it prolonged slavery as I do for why it curbed it.

I haven't said it was the best choice, in the sense that it was ideal. My position is that it was, likely, the best realistic scenario that could be expected in 1780s United States. Compared to the supposed alternatives of another war, total collapse of the union, etc.

Rereading it I can concede that saying it "paved the way to ending slavery" may be a stretch. While an attempt to maintain the union and tabling the issue of abolition for later, it ultimately just post-poned what eventually devolved into the Civil War anyway.