I’ve been looking back over this thread and I must say, I really have no idea what point you’re trying to make. The basis for the 3/5 was explained early in the thread, but you seem to be rejecting that explanation based on your personal ideas of how people should have reacted in 1787. The device in which you project your views into a fictional dialog interspersed with commentary and stage directions makes it difficult to follow your argument (and is really quite annoying.) Could you please just summarize your specific points?
Each slave was a person, and Southerners wanted each slave to count as a person.
[QUOTE=JimSC]
Could you please just summarize your specific points?
[/QUOTE]
Summarize, hell; I’ll just copy-and-paste:
[QUOTE=me]
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.
[/QUOTE]
That said, my other responses are all over the place because other posters are all over the place. So I noted that tons of people couldn’t vote – but counted – when another poster created a fictional dialog including “Hmmm…let’s think this through. Slaves can’t vote, so I don’t think they count.” Likewise, when someone posted that 'slaves were not taxed, and for that reason should not have been represented" – well, I of course replied that other folks who weren’t taxed (and couldn’t vote) of course got counted, because each was of course still a person.
And so on. And so on. But minus my replies to such posts, my position summarizes easy: Southerners, 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; and 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.
And your position is a gross distortion of the actual issue and debate.
From the wiki articleon the compromise:
It was never as simple as you are attempting to portray it. The position of the North and South were reversed when the major issue was taxation and only when it was representation in Congress that the South wished to count include slaves for determining the number of representatives.
In this tread you, and only you, are attempting to argue that Southern whites would be attempting a philosophical debate on the relative positions of those were ineligible for suffrage. There is zero evidence that this was a concern, something which multiple posters have stated.
The Southerners did not argue that slaves should be considered included in the census out of any goodness of their hearts. They simply wanted more political clout. This can be seen in the earlier debates for a proposed amendment to the Article of Confederation. From the same article.
That’s incorrect for at least one reason. Maybe multiple reasons.
First, I’ve long since noted that the Southerners didn’t actually mean it, and only mouthed it as a mere pretext; it’s just odd for you to reply with a brisk “Southerners did not argue that slaves should be considered included in the census out of any goodness of their hearts. They simply wanted more political clout” – that’s the mirror image of (a) what I’d already said, which was (b) a point so obvious I almost can’t believe it needed to be spelled out in the first place.
That said: “In this tread” there’s another poster who noted that “The pro-slavery side pretty consistently argued that slaves were people, just that they were allegedly inferior people.” So why single me out as the alleged only one?
Gee, you don’t think it might be because the way you are saying it is utterly ludicrous?
Nobody doubted that slaves were “persons” but the question was should they count for representation and taxation purposes. Yes, slaves could be freed and when they were, they were undoubtedly counted as full persons for both purposes.
I’m not sure why the 3/5 number (instead of 1, 1/2, 1/4, 0, 48/128) is so puzzling. It was the result of a political compromise. The south wanted 1. The north wanted 0. They negotiated and ended up at 3/5. It is no different than when I buy a car and the dealer says $30k and I say $25k. If we end up at $28,375 plus he throws in floor mats, there is nothing unusual about the final number we came up with, just that it was the end result of the negotiations. It doesn’t have to be scientifically precise or follow some underlying personal philosophy.
I’m honestly not sure why you are so confused. As has been explained, the distinction had nothing to do with voting rights, property ownership qualifications, or whether the powers that be considered them equal or inferior. The classification was solely because slaves were owned by others, considered property, and not part of the body politic. Indians/Native Americans were excluded entirely from the count because they were not part of the body politic. The 3/5 number recognized that slaves were in some ways part of the system, but in others were not.
Thank you for providing some clarity as to your position. TokyoBayer’s response provides the details to address your issues. I’d just like to add that you never provided the cite that I requested earlier, so I’ll ask again.
Can you provide a citation to support your assertion that, in the debate over the 3/5 compromise, Southerners or Northerners argued that each indentured servant/female/child should or shouldn’t count as a full person? Note that I’m not disputing that they were counted. I’m disputing that they were part of the argument, and you are clearly claiming that they were.
Well, no. I mean, as a matter of opinion, what I’ve said seems not at all ludicrous; and, as a matter of fact, the other poster’s claim was incorrect.
[QUOTE=JimSC]
Thank you for providing some clarity as to your position.
[/QUOTE]
By copy-and-pasting my earlier remark, because I couldn’t improve on its simplicity? You’re welcome, but, truly, it was no work at all; I mean, it was already right there.
[QUOTE=JimSC]
I’d just like to add that you never provided the cite that I requested earlier, so I’ll ask again.
Can you provide a citation to support your assertion that, in the debate over the 3/5 compromise, Southerners or Northerners argued that each indentured servant/female/child should or shouldn’t count as a full person? Note that I’m not disputing that they were counted. I’m disputing that they were part of the argument, and you are clearly claiming that they were.
[/QUOTE]
You say I’m “clearly claiming that they were.” I find that odd, since I clearly claimed the Southerners and Northerners blandly included women and children as full persons in the count without even needing to discuss it; I even italicized the “without even needing to discuss it” part, slapping an exclamation point on the end for emphasis.
I did that in copy-and-paste reply to your request for a cite for that position.
Since I don’t hold that position, my reply helpfully started with “I don’t.”
Possibly you missed that the first time? Maybe you’ll get it this time.
If not – well, ask again and I’ll give it again; I’m patient.
But note this: what you’re “clearly claiming” ain’t so.
And what you say I’m “clearly claiming” – I ain’t.
The fact that the words you selected to present as a summary of your position could be copied out of the complete body of your inconsistent/incoherent posts should not be surprising. Do you not understand what summarize means? Perhaps you should find a dictionary and have someone read it to you.
[/QUOTE=]
You say I’m “clearly claiming that they were.” I find that odd, since I clearly claimed the Southerners and Northerners blandly included women and children as full persons in the count without even needing to discuss it; I even italicized the “without even needing to discuss it” part, slapping an exclamation point on the end for emphasis.
[/QUOTE]
In the summary of your position, you state explicitly that Southerners and Northerners argued that indentured servants, females, and children should be counted. Now you’re falling back on a different post that is inconsistent with this summary. See above regarding an understanding of the word summarize.
[/QUOTE=]
I did that in copy-and-paste reply to your request for a cite for that position.
Since I don’t hold that position, my reply helpfully started with “I don’t.”
Possibly you missed that the first time? Maybe you’ll get it this time.
If not – well, ask again and I’ll give it again; I’m patient.
But note this: what you’re “clearly claiming” ain’t so.
And what you say I’m “clearly claiming” – I ain’t.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t see where you used the words “I don’t” in response to my request for a cite, but that is irrelevant. I’ll try one more time.
Please provide a cite to support the assertion that indentured servants, females, or children were in any way a part of the 3/5 compromise debate. Even if you are just claiming that they were thought of in a way that was relevant to the discussion, you need to identify someone other than yourself who believed that.
No, see, it’s too late for you to post that now. You asked me to summarize; I did so, by explicitly building a quick reply from a healthy amount of copy-and-paste; you thanked me for clarifying my position; I repeated that it was mere copy-and-paste. Why didn’t you try a snide comeback before, instead of offering thanks?
Why attack the poster now, when you could’ve attacked the post then?
Huh. Do you not understand how to quote? Perhaps someone should explain it to you.
Wait, seriously?
What I figure is relevant to the discussion is them blandly counting various non-slaves as persons without even needing to discuss it, because each is of course a person; that’s what Southerners and Northerners thought, and it’s relevant because…
…wait for it…
…when it came to slaves, the Southerners could of course keep blandly noting that each person counts as a person; but the Northerners suddenly did need to discuss whether each such person counts as a person.
So if you know my whole point is the without even needing to discuss it part, then how the heck can I mention folks discussing whether women or children or indentured servants should or shouldn’t each count as a full person? If I provided that, then you’d actually have the inconsistency you’re accusing me of!
It’d be the opposite of Without Needing To Discuss It, if you will.
[long sigh]
I meant what I said about patience; I have oodles. But I don’t see that continuing on like this will be of any help; it looks more and more like claims in this thread get addressed differently if they come from me – and, in the interest of refocusing the discussion, I might be of the most use by dropping out of it.
If so, consider: the first reply in this thread noted that “one side wanted slaves counted as part of the population, the other side didn’t”, and the next poster added that “pro slavery types, wanted them to count as full people for census purposes.” “The pro-slavery side pretty consistently argued that slaves were people, just that they were allegedly inferior people”, added another poster. “Nobody doubted that slaves were ‘persons’”, added yet another poster.
Since I agree with all of that, my presence here may well (a) be unnecessary, and (b) merely be a distraction; others are making the very points I’d like to see made, and there’s a chance they can be discussed instead of everything getting bogged down in But-You-Said-This-No-I-Didn’t-Well-It-Was-Implied-No-The-Reverse-Was-Explicit.
If I’m wrong, and there is more for me to contribute – if, say, there’s more stuff like that weird post about how an ability to vote was the deciding factor, and once again nobody else points out the glaringly obvious problem with that – or if personal quibbles continue to be de rigueur, or whatever, then I guess I’ll swing back by.
But I genuinely hope things will instead proceed smoothly without me. Best of luck.
I asked you to summarize because your posts were so inconsistent and confusing that I honestly couldn’t understand your position. When you presented a summary, I took it to be a brief presentation of the substance of your position. A summary is not just a sample of the larger body, and it does not contradict relevant points in the main body.
I thanked you because I assumed that you understood what a summary is, and I thought you had provided an accurate depiction of your position that we could discuss. Obviously I gave you too much credit. Could you not find a dictionary, or was there no one around to read it to you?
Your contentions that you know what the Southerners and Northerners thought, and that you know what was relevant, and that it’s so obvious that no citations are needed, illustrate your lack of understanding of the difference between a fact and an opinion. But that brings us back to the dictionary thing.
I’m sorry this has turned into a school yard pissing contest. I should have realized much sooner that this is a case where ignorance can’t be fought, it should just be ignored.
It wasn’t the abolitionists, it was The North. In 1787, when the compromise was reached, the North and South were pretty much of one mind when it came to slavery—it was not much of a moral issue. True there was a budding abolitionist movement in the North, but they were a small minority. They wanted to keep control and if slaves were counted the South would be entitled to more seats in the House of Representatives.
I noticed that you failed to address the key point of my post, namely; you had claimed that the Southerners were arguing in favor of including slaves in the population while Northerners were arguing that they should not be included.
I provided a quote which showed your argument was overly simplistic, and at times the reverse.
This entire thing came about when you speculated how a Southern white male would react to news of the slaves being counted as 3/5 of a person yet other “inferiors” do count as a full person.
From your first posts
My emphasis.
First, it was the Southerners who wanted to not count the slaves when the issue was simply determining the amount of taxation. The greater the number of people, the higher the taxation. Southerners did not want to count slaves since it would make their tax liability higher. It was only when counting them became an advantage that they wished to do so.
The concept of not counting slaves as a person at all obviously wasn’t a problem for slaveholders because they had proposed not including them when it wasn’t to their advantage. Likewise, it wasn’t a problem for Northerners to propose not including them for representation.
No one had a problem with not counting Indians, so the idea itself of counting some humans and not others wasn’t an issue.
My emphasis.
The problem was not the question of what rights the various groups had or didn’t have but that slaves were legally property, making them a separate category. In the debates and possibly the wording, they included phrasing to clarify that indentured servants would be included in the free category.
This. A thousand times this. The Other Waldo Pepper this is the answer to what you seem to be so hung up on. Yes, other posters confused the issue by referring to voting rights and whatnot, but those are red herrings. Women, children, and indentured servants were part of the body politic of both the north and the south. Indians were not because they weren’t under the jurisdiction of the states and the states did not represent their interests in Congress.
Slaves were property, so they weren’t part of the body politic. So the north says don’t count them at all. The South says count them as full people. Both sides were not arguing from a position of moral consistency, but from one that would best suit their own interests. Negotiation ends up at 3/5 of a person. The negotiations could have ended up at 0, 1, 1/2, 1/4, 3/4, 9/10, or 290/1025 due to the political clout of each side and what they could have held out for or given up on other issues.
Any of these other numbers would cause the same objection you raise: that it doesn’t make sense to come up with that particular number. As I’ve said, in my hypothetical dealings with a car salesman, the ultimate number we come up with for me to buy the car probably doesn’t make scientific sense. It depends on how desperate the dealership is to make a sale, how much I am committed to the particular car, whether other dealerships would be willing to go lower, etc.
You can’t then take the final number, look at it in a vacuum, and pick it apart for internal inconsistency. We, like the representatives in 1787, get the best number we can keeping in mind that the alternative is no deal at all. That is not such a bad thing for a car sale (again depending on the circumstances of the parties) but would have been disastrous for people trying to form a brand new country. If we get to a number like 3/5 which satisfies everyone, then write it down and move on. It is more important to form a country than to have some internal moral consistency with how we arrived at the number.
This. Freddy the Pig and Exapno Mapcase presented good explanations of the issues in earlier posts, but this thread got on the wrong track by framing the 3/5 compromise as a debate between abolitionists and slave owners. We tend to think of the entire slave era (everything pre-Civil War) as if it were played out against the same backdrop that existed in 1861. Do we have the same attitudes and expectations that people had in the 1940’s, or will have in the 2090’s? In 1787 the main determining factor for slave ownership was not whether one was a Northerner or a Southerner; it was whether one was a rich, white land owner, which described nearly all of the delegates. The South had many more slaves than the North, but the decision makers were almost all pro-slavery. So the 3/5 compromise was not about the abolition of slavery; not about the rights of slaves; not about the price of slaves; not about the relative value of slaves as human beings. It was about the tax obligations of each state and the representation of each state in the new federal government.
I feel you, The Other Waldo Pepper. It sucks, but this board prefers to follow the principle of least charity. Instead of giving you the benefit of the doubt, and trying to actually fight ignorance when someone doesn’t understand, they’d rather mock you and make you out to be stupid. They get to feel superior because you don’t learn, when the fact that you don’t understand, despite sincerely trying, is a failure on their part.
Yes, you aren’t being as clear as possible, but why should we expect the ignorant person to be the most clear? The principle of charity is absolutely needed to make sense of ignorance-based arguments. If you want to fight the ignorance, you have to find something that seems convincing and disprove it.
I mean, we have someone repeatedly asking your for a cite that people believed X when your question is clearly WHY DO THEY NOT BELIEVE X. That’s just ridiculous.
My emphasis. I’m not sure is this post is a whoosh or not. Are you sympathizing with him/her or calling him/her out?
Certainly there are very uncharitable people here, and I often don’t get involved in debates because of that tendency. I’ve had one or two really great discussions where we carefully looked at what we agreed and disagreed on, but that’s rare.
It is unfortunate that people do attack the poster instead of the post, but I don’t think you can blame the entire board for one or two posters’ attacks in this tread. I think that the people who did attack probably did so out of frustration, which is not an excuse, but it wasn’t done immediately in the thread.
IMHO, The Other Waldo Pepper’s position was confusing and seems to represent a modern viewpoint rather than what I’d imagine what a slave owner would think. That is my opinion, though and not objective truth.
I find it unfortunate that The Other Waldo Pepper chose to step away rather than finish the discussion. Not that I particularly blame him/her, I would probably do so, too after being mocked. But, I think we finally did get to the bottom of their argument which he/she appeared to sidestep rather than answer.
That’s unfortunate.
Nonsense. What The Other Waldo Pepper did is a type of thinking that is frequently seen here in many different types of threads.
It’s clearest in the “does 0.999999~ = 1?” threads. A false assumption is built in to any argument denying that. People respond with 50 different ways of showing why the proposition is true; the disputatious one merely repeats the same lines over and over again. This is bad thinking, not ignorance.
As a general principle, any time you see that pattern - one person repeating an argument without variation against multiple people countering in a variety of different ways - you can confidently be assured that the argument is wrong even if you know nothing whatsoever about the subject. How far are the others supposed to go when faced with this attitude? The math threads shows the lengths some of the more patient will - pages and pages of answers over weeks or months. Yet nothing ever changes. It can’t, because it is a failure of thinking not a lack of facts or proper explanations.
The Other Waldo Pepper followed this slavishly. He even quoted himself when asked for a summary of his position. That is so classic “crank” in the math crank sense that from now on we could call cranking “pulling a Pepper.”
I’m not sure what this whole thing is about - the answer was made very early in the posts.
The issue - count voters (white male citizens) or count population (their women and children included) was irrelevant, because whether about taxation or representation, both those numbers yielded roughly the same proportion.
Similarly the debate never took in Indians, because typically they neither produced taxable items (crops, industry, etc.) nor were they voting in representative elections, nor were their numbers appreciable proportion of the state population, nor easy to census.
the delegates no doubt looked at the issue this way - for taxation, a small farmer and his family produced the crop on the farm, they all worked, they all counted as “productive”. For a rich plantation owner, he wanted only his small family counted when it came time to tax, despite the fact he might have a hundred or more properties working to produce a cash crop. But when it came to clout/representation in Washington, he wanted all his farm hands counted even if he was the only one who could vote.
And the dispute was because the proportion of slave population varied wildly between states. As mentioned, the proportion of women or children was pretty close to the same. Ditto, foreign nationals and indentured servants were probably pretty irrelevant number-wise. The problem was that some states had well into double-digit proportion of their population as slaves.
There is no record that I recall reading about, where they debated the meaning or relevance of “person”. They just wanted a number. The fact that the congress was accepting total population (outside of the slave argument) not “voting population” already shows they didn’t care about legal status or “personhood”. they already accepted some people counted but could not vote (or in the case of male children, “Couldn’t vote - yet”).
In this thread, I have resorted to using childish insults, and for that I apologize. There is no excuse for my rude behavior.
But I take issue with the assertion that I failed to put forth sufficient effort in trying to explain my position. The difficulties arose when I tried to address specific posts, and The Other Waldo Pepper responded by saying that I misunderstood his/her position and pointed to earlier posts where he/she had espoused a different viewpoint, as if I should understand that that was what he/she really meant.
The Other Waldo Pepper began this discussion with a flawed conception of the issues involved with the 3/5 compromise. When anyone attempted to correct that misunderstanding, he/she responded with some tangential discussion or ignored key points all together. And he/she repeatedly insisted that any lack of response on his/her part was due to his/her position being so obviously correct that no response was required. How is that “sincerely trying” to understand on his/her part?
As for my requesting a cite that people believed X, the Other Waldo Pepper was not asking “WHY DO THEY NOT BELIEVE X”. He/she was insisting that they not only believed X, but that their thoughts on X were a major factor in the debate. What he/she was asking was, “GIVEN X, why do they not believe Y?” Thus my finale request for cite was, “Please provide a cite to support the assertion that indentured servants, females, or children were in any way a part of the 3/5 compromise debate. Even if you are just claiming that they were thought of in a way that was relevant to the discussion, you need to identify someone other than yourself who believed that.” This was my attempt to focus the discussion on what I believe to be a fundamental error in the Other Waldo Pepper’s thesis.