Why? Were children who weren’t taxed represented?
At that time, it would not have occurred to any congressman, north or south, to think of white women and children as being in any way comparable to slaves or Indians. Only white men voted and owned land, but their wives and children were still part of their families; they just had different roles and responsibilities in that society. Slaves and Indians were not considered to be a part of that society. Not to condone that mindset, but if you want to understand the motivations of people, you have to remember that they weren’t aspiring to live up to today’s standards.
I’m not saying we should give them points for their hypocrisy; I’m just saying that, factually speaking, that wasn’t actually their argument. “Oh, this group of people here, that we buy and sell and force to work incredibly long hours picking cotton and occasionally whip to death? Oh, gosh, those aren’t really people at all–a common mistake, really, thinking that they are real human beings–so you see the whole thing is actually totally cool!” That would have been internally consistent–evil, but internally consistent–but it wasn’t the argument that slave-owners in the American South historically actually made.
I don’t follow you. Like the man said, this or that slaveowner occasionally decided to free a slave, and it seems like people said, well, yeah; one second later, that guy is capable of carrying on as a free black man. But guys back then didn’t likewise think, hey, I can just declare this here woman to be lifted up from second-class citizenship, or how about we let the six-year-old vote, because that was obviously just crazy talk.
That is exactly my point. People were debating all aspects of slavery, but the rights and treatment of women and children were nowhere on anybody’s list of things to think about. Why would you expect an 18th century argument about slavery to include discussion of the trials and tribulations of women and children?
No need to speculate. You can read James Madison’s notes on this:
[ul]
[li]The Federalist Papers : No. 54[/li][/ul]
I don’t. I expect the Southerners routinely nodded along with the Northerners when, with no real discussion, they blandly included women and children as full persons in the count; and I expect the Southerners, when told that slaves wouldn’t count, said, hold up; we all just agreed – without even needing to discuss it! – that we’d count inferiors who lack rights as full persons; why are you suddenly doing something different instead of just blandly doing more of the same without discussion?
(Followed by: you’re asking me to put up an argument? WTF? I hold the position that’s the obvious default; you’re the one who needs to put up an argument!)
Don’t look at it as “pro-slavery” vs “anti-slavery”. Remember, at the time the Constitution was written, the only colony that didn’t have slavery anymore was Massachussets, and while different delegates had different attitudes about slavery, very few of them were actual abolitionists. It’s more of a case that delegates of states that had a lot of slaves wanted slaves counted for purposes of congressional representation and not counted when it came to determining population for taxation purposes, and delegates of states that didn’t have many slaves didn’t want slaves counted for purposes of congressional representation, but did for purposes of taxation.
Since you’re holding a position that no one actually did, calling it the obvious default is specious to an extreme.
The Southerners – who wanted women and kids to count as full persons – wanted the slaves to count as full persons. The Northerners – who wanted women and kids to count as full persons – wanted each slave to count as less than a full person.
Given that, I hold the position that (a) I wouldn’t need to hear a reason from such Southerners, but (b) I would need to hear a reason from such Northerners.
Slaves were taxed, though. That was part of the compromise.
From Madison’s notes:
You seem to believe that white men thought of women, children, and slaves all as inferior beings, differing only in their degree of inferiority. They simply did not think in those terms, Northerners or Southerners. If someone offered a slave owner six horses for a strong slave, he might take the deal. Does that mean he’d be willing to trade away his wife or daughter for the right price?
No. But (a) I figure he’d consider trading away an indentured servant – who of course counted as a full person – for the right price; and (b) again, if you explained to a slaveowner that you were going to free one of your slaves, he’d look at the guy and say, sure, because a slave is someone who can gain all sorts of rights in a moment, and if you explained that you intended to let your six-year-old daughter vote in the next election before she pursued her dream of serving as a military officer before owning her own farm, he’d look at her, and look at you, and look back at her, and look back at you, and say, yeah, that’s not what those words mean.
Which is exactly why I said “should have.”
OK… I think I finally see your point… We’ve all been focusing on the slavery thing, but actually that wasn’t such a big deal. The real atrocity was the subjugation of women. The brutal torture endured by that sweet southern belle sipping mint juleps on her front porch swing was orders of magnitude greater than the minor discomforts experienced by the slave out in her daddy’s cotton field.
As for women and children… the ratio of male-female was pretty much the same everywhere. I’m also not aware of any “that state is out-breeding us!” argument between different regions in the pre-contraception days, families were about the same size. If you count all white males of voting age (did many states have property requirements for voting like Jolly Olde England?) or if you count all white people, the ratio of representatives in congress probably did not vary appreciably.
The problem with slaves was the opposite. Some states had a far larger ratio of white to slave than others, so in this case the distinction mattered.
Property qualifications for voting were widespread. They were mostly gone by the end of the 1820s.
What? No, that’s not my point at all; possibly you have me confused with another poster? I’m making no argument about who had it worse, merely that (a) both were seen as inferiors, and (b) Northerners argued some inferiors should count as full persons and some shouldn’t (a position I’d need to hear an argument for), while Southerners said they’re both inferiors, but they’re both persons (well, yeah).
How the heck do you figure that means women had it worse?
The reason for the north to say that was not because of the superiority or whatever value of the person being countied…
It was because the north wanted to end slavery and one way to sanction the southern states and to get them to end slavery was to reduce the southern states representation in Congress by not allowing them to count slaves when calculating population for the purpose of representation… The irony is that at face value it appears to value them, but of course slaves were fully controlled and could not vote, so their representatives would be stolen… whats the use of giving them representatives that are being stolen ?
(of course, the all or nothing representation , winner gets all the reps… system is a form of representation theft too. )