It is so weird that the modern take is that counting them as full citizens (thus giving the slaves states more power in Congress) is preferable to not counting them at all (which is what the non-slave-states wanted). Understandable, but irrational.
-
-
-
I’ve seen plenty of people say that it means the Framers actually thought slaves were only 3/5 of a white person.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
It was NOT a concession to antislavery opinion in the South. Indeed, it almost wrecked ratification in the South. It was a southern white political concession to northern whites in order to gain ratification.
-
Yes, a concession to anti-slavery delegates from the North.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Please. They get free representation for non-voters. Its about giving the South a leg up.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Man, you just will not stop until you die on every racist republican hill they out out for you. The 3/5s compromise was terrible not just for counting humans as 3/5s of a person, but because politically, the South could've been a powerhouse if they let slaves be counted.
-
In other words, you're defending Southerners for being racist idiots as some sort of god-tier compromise that should be gold standard for learning about Realpolitik
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
You mean the money that white southerners made siphoned off of enslaved black people?
End of conversation
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.