Confederate flag at capitol under fire after shootings [NAACP bereft of ideas]

The State ^ | 6/20/15

[ought-six]

You are so wrong.

At the Constitutional Convention, Northern states insisted that only free persons be counted for the purpose of apportionment of members in the House of Representatives. Southern states insisted that all persons residing within a state be counted for the purpose of apportionment, whether they be free or slave.

The 3/5 Compromise was just that: A Compromise between the Northern insistence that only free persons be counted and the Southern insistence that all persons be counted.

[rockrr]

I’m sorry that you cannot see the hypocrisy of the south’s insistence on including slaves “for representation” when they were denied representation. In doing so they only postponed the inevitable confrontation between Freeman and slaveholder.

[rockrr]

I think I am clear.

I'd say so. I didn't want to put words in your mouth (so to speak).

[ought-six]

It is fact, not convenience.

If you are so hell-bent on condemning SLAVERS (your term, with caps), then you need to include the New England shipping interests that engaged in human trafficking in the first quarter century of the United States (they were TRUE slavers). You also need to include the neutral states (Kentucky and Maryland), where slavery was not only legal, but commonly practiced. Oh, don’t forget Delaware, a Union state that still practiced slavery.

The Southern states seceded because they believed that the individual states still enjoyed sovereignty, which is how a republic operates. The Southern states believed — rightly — that the states were NOT subordinate to the federal government; Lincoln, to his everlasting discredit, was the premier champion of the idea that the states were subordinate to the federal government in all matters, and that the states were only allowed to do what the federal government allowed them to do.

In the U.S. Constitution the individual states, and the people, consented to be governed; they did not consent to be ruled.

[ought-six]

Don’t change the argument; we’re not talking about hypocrisy and you know it. We’re talking about the 3/5 Compromise and how it came to be.

You’re the guy (or gal) who said that the Southern states didn’t want to count the slaves at all! Then, in your very next breath you said the Southern states waxed indignant when it was proposed by the non-slave states that they couldn’t! You can’t have it both ways.

[rockrr]

When it came to apportionment for the purpose of taxation the south didn’t want blacks included in the count. At all. When it came to apportionment for the purpose of representation the south wanted them counted at full value even though they would be denied the representation afforded to their masters. If that isn’t hypocrisy I don’t know what is.

It’s the south that wanted it both ways.

[Godebert]

"I have to admit that I have some mixed feelings about the Confederate battle flag. As a son of the South, I remember both the good and bad of our heritage."

As a son of the South, I say put it back above the statehouse.

[ought-six]

The Northern states very much wanted to dominate the House of Representatives.

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787 virtually all the states had slavery, some more than others, though far fewer in the Northern states than in the Southern states. The following states participated at the Constitutional Convention: NH; MA; CT; NY; NJ; PA; DE; MD; VA; NC; SC; GA. RI was a state but did not send any delegates.

Using the 1790 census (which is the first census after the Constitutional Convention) as a guide for the approximate populations in 1787, we find that the Northern states had the following populations: 1,725,058 (White and Free Others); 48,293 (Slave). If we include RI, those numbers increase to: 1,728,465 (White and Free Other); 49,241 (Slave). The populations of the Southern states were as follows: 1,157,797 (White and Free Other); 632,593 (Slave).

Since the Northern states insisted that only free persons should be counted for purposes of representation in Congress, we see that the Northern states outnumbered the Southern states by a 3 to 2 margin. The Southern states cried Foul! The Southern states insisted that all persons within a state be counted for purposes of congressional apportionment, which would have resulted in more of a parity, but with the slimmest of margins favoring the Southern states: 1,790,390 (Southern) to 1,773,351 (Northern).

Hence, the 3/5 Compromise, which still favored the Northern states: 1,725,058 + 28,976 (which is 3/5 of 48,293) = 1,754,034 for the Northern states; 1,157,797 + 379,556 (which is 3/5 of 632,593) = 1,537,535 for the Southern states.

[ought-six]

The discussion was not about taxation and you know it. You trotted out taxation because your position re: the 3/5 Compromise was untenable, and you tried to change the topic. Are you a Democrat?