Post #10216 by Dope1 on the US Policy board

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy ❤

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (23)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 2

It would have given the Southern states a lot more representatives, and more power. Obviously. Which is exactly what they wanted, and what they proposed. The Northern states didn't want to count them at all because they had no voting rights. It also would have affected their taxes at the time (more people, more tax owed to the feds). Madison ended up proposing the 3/5 compromise that both sides could live with, and detailed his reasoning in Federalists 54 and 55.

Exactly right.
And if the southern states had had more electoral votes due to their population of slaves - who didn't get to vote - then Congress and the Presidency look much different going forward. Stephen Douglass becomes President instead of Abe Lincoln, for one.

There would also be no Missouri compromise, and that would mean potentially more slave states at northern latitudes.

The folks who pan the 3/5ths compromise should check their knowledge of history...and of the Founding Fathers. Because it's lacking.

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (23)

Prev | Next

Announcements

US Policy FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

A community forum supporting civilized, and highly helpful, self-educating investors that come together for Shrewdness and merry spirits. These message boards closely follow the look and feel of the old message boards at boards.fool.com prior to the boards redirected to discussion.fool.com. Shrewd'm is not affiliated with the comprehensive and excellent investment website, The Motley Fool (TMF), in any way. The Shrewd commmunity here has owed, and continues to owe, gratitude to The Motley Fool for nurturing a culture of jovial irreverence towards Wall St, and that tradition will continue here.