what arguments can you make for the 3/5th clause and the fudgetive slave laws in the constitution?

Question

i was jw

Answer 1

The 3/5 clause was put into the Constitution so as to even out the representation of the two portions of the country (slave and free) in Congress. It had nothing to do with the net worth of the individual; it was simply used so that neither side would have a decided advantage in Congress. Had the slaves been counted as whole numbers for representation, the South would have had a huge advantage in the House; if they hadn't been counted at all, the North would have had a huge advantage. 3/5ths made the sides equal.

As for the fugitive slave law, it actually predates the Constitution, having its basis in the Articles of Confederation of the New England Confederation nearly 150 years earlier.

What irritates me the most is people attempting to apply 21st century morals to 18th century individuals.

Answer 2

If looking at it from a modern perspective, it is impossible to make an argument for the clauses as they are both by modern standards immoral.

At the time, however, the clauses were a necessary compromise to get a Constitution adopted. At the time of the framing 6 of the 13 States bound together by the Articles of confederation permitted slavery.

States like Virginia and North Carolina wanted slaves to count as population for representation but not for taxes. The smaller states in New England were not willing to count the slaves only for representation (and would rather not have counted them for representation). All six of the slave states wanted the assurance that fugitive slaves would be returned.

You eliminate the fugitive slave clause and the South would have walked from the Constitutional Convention. You fail to include slaves in population for representation, the South probably walks. You include slaves in population for representation but not for taxes, New England walks. The result, the most pragmatic group of politicians in the history of America reaches several very ugly but very necessary compromises (another part of this compromise protected the slave trade until 1803).

Answer 3

Sure.

Back "in the day" Africans determined they could make use slaves themselves and make additional money by enslaving weaker African villages and selling these slaves to American and European traders.

Back in America, we were a brand new country and a lot of work had to be done. We imported many immigrants to do that work and we imported slaves as well. Slavery was a widely accepted practice in America.

Well, America didn't have a stable government system set up yet, but it was getting big enough that it was time to do so. At that time in history, slavery was accepted and necessary in some respects for helping to "grow" America into a more mature country.

The government consisted at that time of the industrial northerner politicians and the agricultural southerner politicians. Slaves were important to the southerners due to farm labor that was needed.

Some northerners didn't like the slavery system in the south, but when they drafted the new government (Constititon, etc...), they decided to compromise and allowed slavery to continue and came up with the 3/5ths Compromise. Lincoln himself was not personally opposed to slavery, but he did it to win the hearts of his voters.

So, today the 3/5ths compromise might seem "sick" to us today - it is understandable why it was accepted and "okay" back then. We have to put ourselves in the shoes of the people 250 years ago to understand.

The fugitive slave laws again were a part of America back in the day. Again, it was not only the "norm" for the South, but it also was necessary for economic growth.

Some people do not understand that many slaves in the South were treated well because they needed to be healthy when they were working. Not that that makes it okay - but it wasn't all blood and guts.

Also, when slavery was outlawed, many ex-slaves didn't leave the South because they had built in "jobs" where they were slaves.

Answer 4

Pure politics.

Nobody was happy with the "Articles of Confederation". Everybody wanted it changed.
Convention to ammend was formed.

They decided it was "FUBAR", and the only fix was "The Constitution."

The slavery clauses were simple political expediency.

Like a few republicand in the Senate today, the "slave states" held the constitutional convention hostage their political/economic demands were met.

A lot was economic. The Free States were predominantly high population states with manufacturing bases. The Slave States were predominantly lower population agriculture based economies.

As proposed, the Constitution would dramatically shift the balance of power to the manufacturing states that favored high tarrifs on manufactured goods and agricultural machinery, while favoring low or no tarrifs on agricultural goods (food and cotton). This protected their industries and profits at the expense of the Slave States who wanted lower costs for machinery and higher prices for cotton and food.

It was a compromise, if a bad one. Of course, these were the economic reasons that led to the Civil War.

Answer 5

Certainly, you cannot make a moral justification. But it does illustrate that, from the very beginning, our country exists due to compromise. The Constitution would have never been ratified at that time without concessions on the part of those that opposed slavery. The states simply would have never congealed into a cohesive federal system and there still would have been slavery. The founding fathers knew that it would it would come back and haunt us later.

Answer 6

The only way to make those arguments is to start with the idea that African-Americans are less than human and that they are property.

Once you do that, you can justify anything.

Answer 7

Why dwell on something that happened 150 years ago?