The 3/5 Compromise

[edhopper]

We are a racist country that set up a system to give more electoral power to racist States. And 160 years after Slavery ended, we are still a racist country that gives too much power to racist States.

[multigraincracker]

1. Time to make DC and Puerto Rica states.

[Jmb 4 Harris-Walz]

3. Definitely! Senate dems need to do away with the filibuster. There is absolutely no reason to continue that stupid

policy!

[maxsolomon]

2. The 3/5th Compromise is gone.

Other than the Senate, how do "Racist States" still have disproportionate power?

The 2-Senators-per-State setup gives the same power to tiny Vermont as it does to a "Racist State", or CA/NY/TX. Vermont's not a "Racist State", is it?

[Jmb 4 Harris-Walz]

4. The House of Representatives is based on population so there is an imbalance.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

7. And that has what to do with 3/5 compromise?

I wasn't aware that California and New York had so many slaves to boost their representation.

[Jmb 4 Harris-Walz]

13. 3/5 Compromise according to Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise

The Three-fifths Compromise was an agreement reached during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention over the inclusion of slaves in a state's total population. This count would determine: the number of seats in the House of Representatives; the number of electoral votes each state would be allocated; and how much money the states would pay in taxes. Slave holding states wanted their entire population to be counted to determine the number of Representatives those states could elect and send to Congress. Free states wanted to exclude the counting of slave populations in slave states, since those slaves had no voting rights. A compromise was struck to resolve this impasse. The compromise counted three-fifths of each state's slave population toward that state's total population for the purpose of apportioning the House of Representatives, effectively giving the Southern states more power in the House relative to the Northern states. It also gave slaveholders similarly enlarged powers in Southern legislatures; this was an issue in the secession of West Virginia from Virginia in 1863.[citation needed] Free blacks and indentured servants were not subject to the compromise, and each was counted as one full person for representation.[1]

In the United States Constitution, the Three-fifths Compromise is part of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) later superseded this clause and explicitly repealed the compromise.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

18. Did you read the last paragraph?

It has nothing to do with how representatives are determined now because it was repealed.

[Jmb 4 Harris-Walz]

20. Yeah, I read it.

So what then is the 3/5 Compromise as it relates to the Senate? Call me ignorant on this issue.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

21. It has nothing to do with the Senate

But you weren’t talking about the Semate, you said the House is imbalanced because of the 3/5 compromise.

[Jmb 4 Harris-Walz]

24. Ok then....that clears up everything! 😂

[maxsolomon]

8. I'm aware of that.

When the 3/5 Compromise was active, it gave more House Reps to slave states that disenfranchised Slaves.

Now, the Senate is the anachronism that unequally advantages small states over large ones - states with 1 House Rep (WY, AK), get 2 Senators.

[Jmb 4 Harris-Walz]

16. Our founders, in their infinite wisdom, thought they were leveling the field.

After slavery was abolished, changes/amendments should have been proposed. Sadly, the government then couldn’t foresee the problems it would create some 160 years in the future

[unblock]

6. There are more racist states than non-racist states.

Small liberal states like Vermont are less common than small to medium sized states like Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, West Virginia, etc.

Republicans routinely control 26 or more state delegations in the house, even when democrats have a house majority; which is why one concern is they might steal the election. By disputing electors, which is resolved with one vote per state delegation, rather than one vote per representative.

[maxsolomon]

9. A "Racist State" is any state with a GQP Legislature?

Not former Confederate States? Guess I should have asked for a definition of a "Racist State".

[unblock]

11. At this point, pretty much yeah, the Republican Party is the happy home of bigots....

Before Donnie, there were plenty of "fiscal conservatives" and "pro-(big)-business" types who could be republicans while claiming to not like the thinly-veiled racism the republicans embraced starting with Nixon.

Not anymore. Now that they are openly racist (not to mention other forms of bigotry), republicanism is pretty much synonymous with racism. Yeah there are exceptions in both directions on the individual level; but at a high level, I'd say the red states are the racist states.

[Wiz Imp]

19. Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri & you could add Oklahoma

Are all confederate states (except Oklahoma, Missouri & Kentucky - Oklahoma was not yet a state & Kentucky & Missouri were border states that had dual competing confederate & union governments). All are smaller than the average state (most significantly smaller) so their electoral clout is well above average. And not coincidentally they are all overwhelmingly Republican controlled.

The other confederate states were Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Texas & Tennessee. Tennessee is by far the smallest of this group & essentially has an average state population. The others are all bigger than average so their electoral clout is diluted. Of these, Virginia is already Blue, Gorgia & North Carolina are very much swing states slowly growing more Blue. Florida was blue not too long ago and anyway, is just weird because the population is there is largely people moving there from other states. And of course, Texas is slowly becoming more Democratic but still has a ways to go. The big problem with all these big southern states is they are all so ridiculously gerrymandered that the Republican control of the legislature is much larger than their share of the electorate.

Bottom line, many former confederate states in general have a disproportional electoral power due to their low population. And the larger states whose electoral power is more diminished are mostly slowly trending blue. So the strict 2 Senators per state rule gives an advantage in representation to the former confederacy compared to their population.

[unblock]

22. Many southern states are also big on felony disenfranchisement

and have a racist law enforcement and judicial system.

I think it was Georgia, actually, where something like 1/3rd of all black men have been disenfranchised, which is insane. Many were convicted on a ridiculous case and sentenced to zero prison time yet still disenfranchised for life. How much more obvious can you get.

[Wiz Imp]

25. Exactly.

I wasn't even thinking of that but is a very clear example of voter suppression.

[TwilightZone]

10. It depends on who is doing the defining.

Boston, for example, is notorious for being a racist city, an impression it's trying very hard to change.

Does that make MA a racist state?

https://www.wgbh.org/news/local/2023-01-06/basic-black-can-boston-shake-its-reputation-as-one-of-the-most-racist-cities-in-america

Racism is everywhere. Trying to define states are racist or non-racist is likely much more complicated than we might think.

South Dakota, for example, is very conservative, yet it's (allegedly) one of the least-racist states.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/most-racist-states

I grew up there, and I'd beg to differ, but that's also just my opinion.

The SPLC's "hate map" is also counter-intuitive to conventional wisdom.

https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map

[unblock]

5. It's wasn't just the 3/5th compromise

2 senators for each state, rather than a senate based on population

Allowing gerrymandering

The electoral college

The need for both houses and the president to agree on any new law (given that all 3 institutions are not fully democratic)

Requiring 3/4th of the states for any amendment to the constitution

obviously, denying the vote to slaves

Also, probably, denying the vote to women.


All these things, as well as the 3/5th compromise, happened at least in part in order to assure the slave states that slavery would be extraordinary difficult to eliminate.


After the civil war, we were able to ban slavery (outside of prison, anyway), and later, women got the vote, but we were stuck with the other things that make progress so difficult, and allow racism more power than it deserves.

[brush]

12. Yep, 160 years is way more than enough time to have fixed the problem. But it's...

apparent that some powerful forces don't want it fixed and are making sure it doesn't get fixed.

[OldBaldy1701E]

14. You've got it!

This is not an anomaly. It is by design.

[Emile]

15. The democratic party needs to start working

on doing away with the electoral college.

[maxsolomon]

27. Got any ideas?

Its nigh on impossible. Not impossible, just extremely unlikely to happen within our lifetimes.

[Godot51]

17. Three fifths of a human

Most Americans are unaware of the reasoning behind and possibly even who the 3/5s were.

In states such as South Carolina, slaves made up nearly 80 percent of the population in the 1780s. The white owners desolately wanted to balance the power with the non-slave states. And, of course since Virginia was the source of so many of our "Founding Fathers", it was allowed in the spirit of "compromise".

The electoral college and the Senate also arose from this evil decision. This has poisoned freedom ever since.

[Silent Type]

26. Totally agree. But unless there are some big changes in electorate, there is virtually no chance

of a Constitutional convention to change it in foreseeable future.

Probably faster to concentrate on promoting Democratic values in rube red states.