Post #10229 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: 0

Not necessarily. I object to it as well, from my 21st century perspective. And I more or less know the history. And the ramifications if that compromise wasn't made. It delayed hostilities about 80 years, but we still ended up shedding a lot of blood over it, and then the 3/5 rule was rescinded, and slavery was ended. If the compromise hadn't happened, likely the hostilities would have been almost immediate (~1790). The South would have formed their own system (as they ended up doing in the 1860s).

If avoiding bloodshed is your main concern, then logically the option to support would have been 5/5 instead of 3/5. It's entirely possible that the southern states could have phased out slavery without a Civil War, albeit after some more years (or perhaps even decades).

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.