3/5 Compromise: What arguments were used?

Factual Questions
41

Had it not been for the nexus between taxation and representation, I’m sure that the theories of representation would have received a more thorough airing. I would expect Northerners to advance the argument that, while women and children could not vote, they were part of the polity on whose behalf Congress was legislating. It would be very, very difficult to advance an argument that Congress was legislating on behalf of slaves.

Furthermore, as a practical matter, the inclusion of women and children in the basis of representation made very little difference, since the proportion of each was roughly the same throughout the country. The proportion of slaves by contrast varied a great deal.

But, these arguments must remain hypothetical. The fact is that there WAS a nexus between taxation and representation, and that shut down the argument. The ratio of 0.6 really did make sense for taxation, so it had to be carried over for representation.

As James Madison put it in the essay linked above,

It could not be reasonably expected, and that was pretty much the QED.

42

I think that your assunption that anyone saw women and especially children as inferior is flawed. They saw them as different and weaker (remember this was a far more unsafe world than today). Also, attitudes about voting were colored by property requirements so many white men couldnt vote. You are trying to understand 18th century history using 21st century pov.

43

Well, not really, no.

I mean, I figure the Northerners actually just wanted to not count slaves as full persons because the South had a lot of slaves, and I figure the Southerners actually just wanted to count 'em as full persons because the South had a lot of slaves – and I figure the Northerners would’ve mouthed any passable pretext to that end without actually believing it, and I figure the Southerners would’ve mouthed any passable pretext to that end without actually believing it.

I’ll admit that, in that context, I then think, I don’t see why the Southerners would’ve needed to mouth a pretext instead of just defaulting to counting them the way both sides counted other folks who couldn’t vote or own property or et cetera, but I of course realize it was all pretext all the way down.

44

If you need some theoretical argument for the northern position, it’s the Gerry argument that I posted above. Slaves are chattel; women and children aren’t (except for slave women and slave children. obviously). The theoretical side of the argument here isn’t “slaves are inferior people.” It’s “Slaves are superior horses.” We don’t count horses or cows to figure out how many representatives a state should have, because they’re property. So are slaves.

45

I think the issue here is that slavery hinges, ultimately, on a legal arrangement. People may have thought slaves were inferior or even subhuman, but what made slavery actually real was a legal definition of a “slave” and legal procedures surrounding them.

Think of it like prisoners. Prisoners may be this, and they may be that. But the reason why prisoners don’t have full rights is that they are in a specific legal status, not something intrinsic to who they are as human beings.

So people could have debates about the parameters of that specific legal status without necessarily going to deep into analyzing it. Just like we can have a discussion about if felons should be able to vote without also having a conversation about, say, if minor drug offenders should become prisoners.

46

I admit some of the wording in that post had me questioning my own reading comprehension skills, but I took it to mean that the hardships of being a slave were mitigated by the possibility of instantaneous relief while the plight of a girl was unalterable.

But even if you didn’t intend to suggest that being female was worse than being a slave, you’re still insisting that the two roles were equivalent. As in this post:

Since you don’t seem to understand that women and slaves were not "both . . . seen as inferiors . . . ", I’ll ask you for a cite for that assertion.

47

Why? Consider the other status I mentioned for which the possibility of relief looms: being a little boy. Is being a little boy in the 1700s “equivalent” to being a female? No. I mean, neither can vote or own property or sign a contract or serve as a military officer, and so on – but (assuming they don’t drop dead), a white boy will inevitably reach a point where that all goes away, and a white female won’t.

But each counts as a full person. So am I “insisting” that they’re equivalent?

(At that: the idea is that – like a little boy – a male indentured servant (a) counts as a full person despite lacking various rights, and (b) will inevitably stop lacking those rights; a male slave might get “instantaneous relief” tomorrow, just like some did yesterday, and just like white females – don’t. Does that mean I’m “insisting” that a slave and an indentured servant are equivalent?)

Do you need a cite for slaves being seen as inferiors or women being seen as inferiors?

48

I need a cite that says that the two meanings of inferior you’re using are the same thing. We are saying that inferior was used in totally different ways in this sentence and therefore one cannot be used for the other.

49

But I’m not saying they’re “the same thing”.

I’m saying if you’d asked a rich white male – Northern or Southern – back then whether a female who can’t vote or own property or sign contracts is his inferior, he’d have said yes; and if you’d asked whether a kid who can’t vote or own property or sign contracts is his inferior, he’d have said yes; and if you’d asked whether they were inferior in the same way, he’d have said no; and if you’d asked whether either was inferior in the same way as an indentured servant, he’d have said no; and if you asked whether those inferiors, none of whom were inferior in the same way, should each count as a full person, he’d have said yes, of course, no discussion is necessary.

50

And of course you didn’t mention slavery in this. Indentured servitude was not chattel slavery and also not as intrinsically race related. Slavery was not like other forms of inferiority, and all your wordplay can’t make it so.

You’ll notice no one is taking your argument seriously. That’s because you don’t have one. You continue to define words in ways nobody else ever has. Doing so is literally meaningless because obviously any proposition at all can be proven if that is allowed.

No matter how thin you slice it, it’s still baloney.

51

Of course I didn’t. Your claim was that, while slaves were viewed as inferiors, and women were viewed as inferiors, they were viewed as different types of inferiors, which you think explains why one should count as a full person and one shouldn’t.

Since I agreed with you that they were viewed as different types of inferiors, I saw no reason to dwell on that or repeat it. I just took issue with your other point – about whether being a different type of inferior means one should count as a full person and another shouldn’t – and so limited myself to that.

But, hey, if it helps you, (a) I figure a Southerner would say “a woman is inferior in a different way than a little kid is inferior, but they both count as full persons; and neither is inferior the way an indentured servant is inferior, but he also counts as a full person; and none is inferior the way a slave is inferior, but a slave also counts as a full person. Because while they’re inferior in different ways, each is a person.”

And (b) I figure a Northener would say “a woman is inferior in a different way than a little kid is inferior, but they both count as full persons; and neither is inferior the way an indentured servant is inferior, but he counts as a full person too; and none is inferior the way a slave is inferior, and, uh, a slave doesn’t count as a full person.”

(Seriously, was that not already implied? Did it need to be explicit? Because, wow.)

And it wasn’t “being a female,” which was intrinsically sex-related. But so what? Even though it wasn’t “being a female,” and wasn’t intrinsically sex-related, those different types of inferiors both counted as full persons, because of course they did.

(That’s where I’d have left off, figuring you could extrapolate the obvious implication. I see now that was a mistake, and so will spell out the rest: indentured servitude, which wasn’t “being a female” or “being a slave,” wasn’t as intrinsically sex-related as “being a female” or as race-related as “being a slave”. This was, of course, irrelevant; they were still persons.)

You realize the Southerners actually wanted to count the slaves as full persons, right?

52

As others have said the distinction was not that women or children or slaves were “inferior” or what definition of “inferior” was in use. The distinction was that slaves were property while women and children were not.

53

And indentured servants?

54

Indentured servitude is a different legal category.

It’s like today, we have a number of legal categories that have different sets of rights, such as:

Permanent Residents
Minors
Prisoners
Citizens of the District of Columbia
People in US territories

Back in the day, there were different legal categories, which carried different restrictions. Like today, there wasn’t an enormous amount of internal consistency.

55

Well, sure.

But it’s as if the Southerners, when asked how many persons lived in each county, replied what, regardless of their legal status? before giving accurate answers; and it’s as if the Northerners said no; count those of THIS legal status, and THAT legal status, and THE OTHER legal status, but not the OTHER other legal status; and it’s as if the Southerners said look, do you want me to count each person or not; and it’s as if a conciliator stepped in to say well, you both have a point, so how about you count each slave as half a person, to which the reply was nothing doing; regardless of their legal status, two of them should count as more than one of your indentured servants – or more than one of your daughters; or, indeed, more than you.

And it’s as if the reply was well, yeah, we can’t really argue with that.

56

But that’s not what happened. It’s more like:

“How many people live in your county? We are figuring out some politics!”
“How are you defining residency? Are we counting college students? People on a work visa? Undocumented immigrants? Slaves?”
“Hmmm…let’s think this through. Slaves can’t vote, so I don’t think they count.”
“Can’t you just count them? They really bump our numbers up.”
“Ok, whatever. Let’s agree to partial credit.”

The debate wasn’t about the moral or philosophical underpinnings of slavery. It was about defining what a legal status means.

57

They did not argue that. You are arguing that. They are not the issue. You are the issue.

58

What? That makes absolutely no sense; tons of people had a “can’t vote” legal status, and yet of course counted. You can arbitrarily offer up some other pretext as a criterion, but you can’t seriously offer that pretext as a criterion.

[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
They did not argue that. You are arguing that. They are not the issue. You are the issue.
[/QUOTE]

The Southeners, who argued that each indentured servant should count as a full person and that each female should count as a full person and that each child should count as a full person, argued that each slave should count as a full person.

The Northerners, who argued that each indentured servant should count as a full person and that each female should count as a full person and that each child should count as a full person, argued that each slave shouldn’t count as a full person.

I’ve seen, in this thread, a criterion put forth by a Northerner back when for making that distinction. I’m not aware of any criterion a Southerner could put forth, other than (a) noting that “but he’s a person”, and (b) shooting down stuff like even sven’s bizarre assertion that being able to vote would’ve been a relevant criterion.

59

I stand to be corrected, but I don’t believe that indentured servants were considered property of the person to whom they were indebted. It was sort of like an unbreakable contract on the part of a servant.

If you hire me to represent you in court or mow your lawn, then I am your servant in a sense, but I am not considered your property. So, just add “for seven years” and “I may not resign” to the terms of that contract, and its a much shittier contract for me, but I am still not really property.

Chattel slavery made those persons and their offspring absolute personal property of the masters/owners, never to be free.

60

Well, (a) no offense, but it’s kind of hilarious how you use the word “persons” there, because of course you would; and (b) “never” is a long time, since slaves sometimes got freed: one day they had a can’t-own-property-or-sign-contracts status, and the next a can-own-property-and-sign-contracts status – and a Southerner working on the Constitution would say “and he was a person before and after that change in status,” and a Northerner working on the Constitution would say “not only was it a change in status, it’s when he became a person”; and (c) again, as persuasive as some folks in this thread might find the Northern argument, remember that they didn’t wind up just splitting the difference 50/50, but said, eh, 60/40.