Founding fathers ended slavery

[bluefrog]

Last week Michele Bachmann said

But we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States... men like John Quincy Adams... would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country.

And Glenn Beck defended the comments and argued

The three-fifths clause was offensive, and so they didn't do it. This shows such a -- either lack of understanding of our history, who the Founders were, what the Constitution says, or it is just cowardice in Washington. Three-fifths clause. African-Americans: three-fifths in the South, three-fifths of a human being. That's an outrage, unless you know why they put that in there. They put that in there because if slaves in the South were counted as full human beings, they could never abolish slavery. They would never be able to do it. It was a time bomb.

It seems like the 3/5 clause was still a victory for the south. ANY representation of slaves in the population count gave them a better chance of having more representatives in Congress.

Do I have this completely wrong?

I'm not a constitutional expert so I'd like to hear from some of the lawyers in here.

 

[maxiep]

The South wanted slaves to count as one full person for representation. Of course, they wouldn't have the right to vote.

In this case, Beck (and whoever gave him the information) was correct. You don't have to be a lawyer; any cursury reading of history will tell you the same thing.

 

[Denny Crane]

Whoa.

The 3/5th clause absolutely was a blow against slavery, as maxiep points out. The constitution also outlawed the importation of new slaves starting in 1800.

John Quincy Adams? LOL. John Adams was certainly an abolitionist, but I think his son was a teenager (at most) when the constitution was written, and later spent much of his time abroad as an ambassador. He didn't have much to do with anything at the time Bachman talks about.

The 3/5ths clause was a compromise. The south wanted 5/5ths, the north wanted 0/5ths. The southern states benefited from seats in the House of Representatives based upon the census which counted blacks and indians as population.

 

[bluefrog]

Whoa.

The 3/5th clause absolutely was a blow against slavery, as maxiep points out. The constitution also outlawed the importation of new slaves starting in 1800.

I'm not arguing that. It was definitely detrimental to slave owners. It got the sticky issue off the table and the southern states on board with the constitution.

I'm talking about the ramifications of the compromise. The Founding Fathers never intended to use the 3/5 compromise to end slavery.

The 3/5ths clause was a compromise. The south wanted 5/5ths, the north wanted 0/5ths. The southern states benefited from seats in the House of Representatives based upon the census which counted blacks and indians as population.

On a scale of %0 to %100 of representation %60 is a pretty big concession. Your still counting the majority of slaves. It seems like the 3/5 agreement actually helped to keep slavery alive, because the slave holding states benefited from their slaves being counted at all.

The practical effect of that, far from making easier to abolish slavery, made it more difficult. It gave added weight to southern political power in Congress, it inflated Southern power in the apportioning of electoral votes, which led to a streak of Southern presidents.

 

[MARIS61]

I'm not arguing that. It was definitely detrimental to slave owners. It got the sticky issue off the table and the southern states on board with the constitution.

I'm talking about the ramifications of the compromise. The Founding Fathers never intended to use the 3/5 compromise to end slavery.


On a scale of %0 to %100 of representation %60 is a pretty big concession. Your still counting the majority of slaves. It seems like the 3/5 agreement actually helped to keep slavery alive, because the slave holding states benefited from their slaves being counted at all.

The practical effect of that, far from making easier to abolish slavery, made it more difficult. It gave added weight to southern political power in Congress, it inflated Southern power in the apportioning of electoral votes, which led to a streak of Southern presidents.

Agreed. It was a cowardly concession and an avoidance of duty that resulted later in the worst war this country has ever fought.

It also changed the political makeup of this country forever by giving "dissidents" their way (slavery) and allowing them to firmly establish their barbaric way of life as a cornerstone in the foundation of our country's morals (or lack of).

 

[Ed O]

I don't know how anyone can blame the founding fathers for the 3/5 clause. Without that compromise, the United States of America would almost certainly have collapsed. The Articles of Confederation was on its last legs and I doubt either side (North or South) would have approved the Constitution without the compromise.

Did it put off conflict and resolution of the slavery issue? Absolutely. Did this resolution mean another several generations of slaves were kept in the South? Yes.

Without the Constitution, though, the South might not have been forced to give up slavery in the 1860's... the peculiar institution might have gone strong in the CSA for even longer than it did. We simply don't know.

Giving credit or blame regarding three-fifths for anything other than helping allow the ratification of the Constitution requires too much speculation IMO.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

It also changed the political makeup of this country forever by giving "dissidents" their way (slavery) and allowing them to firmly establish their barbaric way of life as a cornerstone in the foundation of our country's morals (or lack of).

In the late 18th century, the southern states were not dissidents any more than the northern states were.

I'm not sure why you would think that they were.

Ed O.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Agreed. It was a cowardly concession and an avoidance of duty that resulted later in the worst war this country has ever fought.

It also changed the political makeup of this country forever by giving "dissidents" their way (slavery) and allowing them to firmly establish their barbaric way of life as a cornerstone in the foundation of our country's morals (or lack of).

it's a good thing that the religious right in England at the time abolished slavery and got the ball rolling worldwide.

 

[PapaG]

Well, this thread pretty much backfired.

 

[bluefrog]

Well, this thread pretty much backfired.

Yeah, I was really hoping to get you guys on this one but you foiled me once again. Good job Papa!

 

[PapaG]

Yeah, I was really hoping to get you guys on this one but you foiled me once again. Good job Papa!

Foiled you? I just found the criticisms of Bachman and Beck for knowing their history to be off. There have been far worse blunders on this board, some of which I've authored myself. I repped you, just because you took the effort to admit that you didn't know everything about the subject matter.

 

[Ed O]

Well, this thread pretty much backfired.

Why do you think it backfired? It seemed like the OP had a question and it's being discussed.

Maybe I'm missing the "gotcha!" implied in the thread?

Ed O.

 

[bluefrog]

Giving credit or blame regarding three-fifths for anything other than helping allow the ratification of the Constitution requires too much speculation IMO.

Agreed, that's one of the tough things about making assertions about history. It's hard to put things in context since we are so far removed from the actual events.

 

[PapaG]

Why do you think it backfired? It seemed like the OP had a question and it's being discussed.

Maybe I'm missing the "gotcha!" implied in the thread?

Ed O.

Agreed. I reread it and added the appropriate rep to bluefrog. Legitimate discourse is such a rare thing here, I automatically put on my flame suit prior to jumping into any OT thread.

 

[Ed O]

Agreed. I reread it and added the appropriate rep to bluefrog.

Coolio. I just wondered if I was totally missing something

Ed O.

 

[Denny Crane]

Agreed, that's one of the tough things about making assertions about history. It's hard to put things in context since we are so far removed from the actual events.

http://www.amazon.com/John-Adams-David-McCullough/dp/0684813637

This book is rated 4.5 stars out of 5 by 893 readers. It makes it easier to put things into context when a guy like McCullough sifts through a mountain of Adams' correspondence and quotes much of it.

FWIW, I read it.

 

[Ed O]

FWIW, I read it.

Me, too. I thought that it was required reading to join S2? And to have read a bio of each PotUS at least up until Pierce?

Ed O.

 

[Denny Crane]

Me, too. I thought that it was required reading to join S2? And to have read a bio of each PotUS at least up until Pierce?

Ed O.

Can you name the last three sitting senators to be elected president? Obama is one, that's a gimme.

 

[Ed O]

Can you name the last three sitting senators to be elected president? Obama is one, that's a gimme.

Not without looking it up. Sorry

Ed O.

 

[Denny Crane]

JFK, Harding.

 

[bluefrog]

http://www.amazon.com/John-Adams-David-McCullough/dp/0684813637

This book is rated 4.5 stars out of 5 by 893 readers. It makes it easier to put things into context when a guy like McCullough sifts through a mountain of Adams' correspondence and quotes much of it.

FWIW, I read it.

I remember reading a raving review when that first came out. I think my dad actually has it. It's on my to-do list

 

[Sug]

Whoa.
John Quincy Adams? LOL. John Adams was certainly an abolitionist, but I think his son was a teenager (at most) when the constitution was written, and later spent much of his time abroad as an ambassador. He didn't have much to do with anything at the time Bachman talks about.

I hate to do it, but I have to turn your LOL around and LOL right back at you! That was until John QUINCY Adams became the sixth president of the United States...You are correct about the relevancy to Bachman, but he was a little more than an ambassador.

Adams was elected a U.S. Representative from Massachusetts after leaving office, the only president ever to do so, serving for the last 17 years of his life with far greater success than he had achieved in the presidency. Animated by his growing revulsion against slavery[4], Adams became a leading opponent of the Slave Power and argued that if a civil war ever broke out the president could abolish slavery by using his war powers, a correct prediction of Abraham Lincoln's use of the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. Adams predicted the dissolution of the Union on the slavery issue, though he mistakenly predicted that if the South became independent there would be a series of bloody slave insurrections.[5]

 

[BrianFromWA]

Adams predicted the dissolution of the Union on the slavery issue, though he mistakenly predicted that if the South became independent there would be a series of bloody slave insurrections.

That's kind of a fascinating quote to me. Given a time that the South would've been independent without the North fighting them, I think you would've seen that. It already had happened in isolated cases prior to the war (Nat Turner, Denmark Vesey, Harper's Ferry) and was happening around the world (Haiti, Russia, Cuba, British VI, Panama, etc).

I'm digressing, though.

 

[Denny Crane]

I hate to do it, but I have to turn your LOL around and LOL right back at you! That was until John QUINCY Adams became the sixth president of the United States...You are correct about the relevancy to Bachman, but he was a little more than an ambassador.

She included JQ Adams among the founders. She may as well have included Lincoln among them, eh?

 

[Ed O]

She included JQ Adams among the founders. She may as well have included Lincoln among them, eh?

I almost brought that up, and I'm glad someone did.

There was just about as much time between 1776 and him becoming president as there was between him becoming president and Lincoln becoming president.

Ed O.

 

[Denny Crane]

The 3/5th thing really did work. By the time the Civil War started, the North had enormous advantages in the House when it came to voting for Bills that helped establish the railroads, among other things. The South had railroads, but they were disconnected; a line from Savannah to Atlanta... Those Northeastern Liberals were quite content to have their beef from the stockyards in Chicago shipped to them via an actual railroad.

I use the term Northeastern Liberal not as some sort of insult, but to illustrate how long the term (like John Kerry) has been part of the political lexicon. Partway through the Civil War, the Northeastern Liberals would have been happy to let the South secede and become a separate country. They whined back then like they do now. And think they should run everything.

 

[bluefrog]

The 3/5th thing really did work. By the time the Civil War started, the North had enormous advantages in the House when it came to voting for Bills that helped establish the railroads, among other things. The South had railroads, but they were disconnected; a line from Savannah to Atlanta...

Do you think the founding fathers had the foresight to see that 80 something years later the 3/5 clause would have weakened the South's power in the House?

 

[Ed O]

Do you think the founding fathers had the foresight to see that 80 something years later the 3/5 clause would have weakened the South's power in the House?

I think they did, relative to giving representation for each (male, of age) slave.

Ed O.

 

[Eastoff]

So basically women and slaves, who could note vote, would give districts more power because they were giving more house seats, right? And yet these people could still not vote, thus giving a select few more power. Is it wrong that I draw a conclusion between certain groups that have a lot of children, and thus inflate their amount of house seats, but the children still don't vote?

 

[Denny Crane]

Representation and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers ... . The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."
-- Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States