Census and the Illegal Immigration Issue

[Jessica]

How about slaves? Should they still be counted as 3/5 of a person?
If this was not done,then there would have been more representatives from the slave states and slavery probably would not have been abolished.

Not at all true. In actuality, counting slaves as 3/5 of a person, instead of not counting them (since they were not allowed to vote and could not elect the representatives who won seats based on the compromise) actually increased the number of delegates that the South was able to send to Congress, and also may have swayed the electoral vote.

From the same Wikipedia article you quoted:

Effects
The three-fifths ratio, or "Federal ratio" had a major effect on pre-Civil War political affairs due to the disproportionate representation of slaveholding states. For example, in 1793 slave states would have been apportioned 33 seats in the House of Representatives had the seats been assigned based on the free population; instead they were apportioned 47. In 1812, slaveholding states had 76 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 instead of 73. As a result, southerners dominated the Presidency, the Speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War.[5]

It goes on to talk about Garry Wills and his theories on how this may have skewed the results of several presidential elections, which may have led to slavery being abolished in Missouri, the Mexican territories, etc. I've read Wills' work on Jefferson, and while it's interesting, it's also purely speculative. No one knows for sure that slavery would have been abolished or any of these outcomes would have happened if Jefferson had lost the election.

What is clear is that the 3/5 Compromise was equal parts political and pure racism. The fact that it's being viewed as favorable in a discussion that we're having in 2009 makes me feel ill.

[BillW]

You don't have to strip me of my voting rights -- I've stopped voting.

Then you are part of the problem, not the solution.

[daisy dog]

Sorry you feel ill Jessica. But the historical facts are the facts. I always knew these facts but I quoted the wikopedia article to give my facts legitimacy.

The good abolitionists did not want to count the slaves.
The bad slave owners wanted to count the slaves.
3/5 was a compromise.

Sorry to make you feel ill,but the facts are the facts.
So instead of wishing for PC history, study real history.

[Jessica]

Sorry you feel ill Jessica. But the historical facts are the facts. I always knew these facts but I quoted the wikopedia article to give my facts legitimacy.

The good abolitionists did not want to count the slaves.
The bad slave owners wanted to count the slaves.
3/5 was a compromise.

Sorry to make you feel ill,but the facts are the facts.
So instead of wishing for PC history, study real history.

You were wrong. You stated that "If this was not done,then there would have been more representatives from the slave states and slavery probably would not have been abolished."

That is incorrect, which is a fact.

Instead of admitting that you were wrong and some bleeding heart liberal was right, you're trying to change your story.

There were more representatives from slave states as a result of the 3/5 Compromise.

Yes, most Northern members did not want the slaves counted because they could not vote to elect the peope supposedly representing them.

I already said that.

Welcome to my ignore list. It took well over 2.5 years for someone to make it on, and you're it.

[daisy dog]

I can't hear you. You are already on my list.