The Republican nominee for lieutenant governor in Virginia is a real piece of work. He’s the first person I’ve seen argue that the three-fifth’s compromise in the Constitution was an anti-slavery provision.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
“All other Persons” means slaves. Negroes. Black folks. The South wanted them counted for Census purposes so that they could have more members in the House and thereby could better protect the institution of slavery. The North didn’t want them counted at all, since they couldn’t vote. Thus, the compromise.
Ironically, under the Articles of Confederation, when the issue was solely about taxation, the North and South took the opposite sides in the debate. The North wanted slaves counted and the South did not. But when it came to representation in Congress, the South was willing to take the extra tax burden in order to have more power. And it worked.
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 relative to voters. 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, it dominated the Presidency, the Speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War.
So, E.W. Jackson, who happens to be black, has a very interesting interpretation of the Three-Fifths Compromise. He appears to be insane.
I sort of follow Jackson’s logic. It’s at least consistent with other aspects of conservative dogma.
Discounting the population of slaves in the allocation of members to the House might be considered a roundabout way of burdening–or taxing–slavery. And in the conservative worldview, a tax on income is “anti-work,” and a tax on carbon emissions is “anti-energy.”
Thus, is could follow that the three-fifths clause is “anti-slavery.”
It’s still nuts.
Yeah, I think that’s his point. Because the 3/5ths Compromise taxes slaves as 60% of a citizen, it’s therefore “teh worstest tyranny EVAH!”
The fact that it actually led to disproportionate power to the slave holding South (John Adams would have beaten Tom Jefferson in 1800 without the Clause) doesn’t matter, because empirical evidence doesn’t matter when it comes in conflict with the theory.
There wasn’t much in the way of direct taxation in the early days anyway. It was mostly tariffs and excises. There were some property taxes in the 1790s, but these were repealed when the Jeffersonians took over in 1801.
Which goes to show that the advantage of the extra representation outweighed the disadvantage of the extra tax burden.
Although Jackson is quoted as saying that the purpose of the 3/5 clause was “to limit the voting power of slave holding states.” That’s the opposite of reality.
I wonder if he just simply doesn’t understand the clause and thinks it LOWERED Southern congressional representation. He surely doesn’t know the history of the (slaver) interests that advocated for it.
These conservatives ain’t too bright. And the more conservative they are, the dimmer….
Raise. Lower. I guess that’s a matter of perspective. It was a cynical compromise.
E.W. Are you sure his name isn’t “Tom”?
He appears to be insane.
Appears to be? He’s so insane he makes someone like Cooch seem sane by comparison. And we know how insane Cooch is.
Insane? No way. This is a man on a mission to get paid. How long before he sets up his PAC? Will he have that book ready for Xmas release? When he speaks all hear is “Show me the money”.
Won’t matter, the cooch will still win. And I say this as a NOVA Democrat. The “blue” part of VA here is standard for the new Democratic party. High earners who really fucking hate our tax money going to the hicks in SOVA. We got an education, we don’t like NASCAR, we don’t love guns, they were born white so they had their chance. We’re just liberal because we don’t want the fun we can have with our money ruined by rednecks and bible thumpers. We love our Democrats so long as they are neoliberal as all fuck. And we’re unabashed about our love of screwing over poor whites. Now poor blacks in DC, that makes us look bad so we avoid that, plus we don’t want to get mugged while going out for $400 buck a person meals. Was the GOP less racist and offering a flat tax, the blue part of VA would turn blood red in an instant.
The problem is that “The Macker” is pretty much a walking talking about how rotten all of us are. People are ashamed of it. It’s one thing to admit that all liberals here are the worst sort of Fox News horror story… and it’s another to have that exact guy as our nominee. So while the Cooch may be crazy, at least we won’t have to show our true colors by having Terry in office. If a few women get denied abortions, well fuck it. It won’t be use, we can pay for it out of pocket or fly them out to Europe even if the entire US goes insane. And as for the poorer rednecks in SOVA that can’t afford it, again… why should we care about white people without a degree. They were born white and thus had their chance, plus they are bible thumpers. We get a kick out of picking on them.
And no, this is not a joke post. It’s pretty much VA politics 101… and it’s how the Democrats got our horrible nominee.
Is this the royal we or something? You speak only for yourself.
For real. I live on the Arlington/Alexandria border, and that doesn’t speak for me at all. Virginia more or less has a flat tax anyway. Anything over ~17k is around 5%.
I don’t know if he’s crazy..
but he’s certainly a slave catching sambo of the highest order.
Good lord, all you have to do is look at Federalist number 54, where Madison is so embarrassed about having to defend the 3/5 clause that he puts his argument in the mouth of “one of our Southern brethren.”
Well, that and the whole history of the United States up to the Civil War. But then I would guess Jackson also insists that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, and the Confederate flag is a symbol of resistance to tyranny.
E.W. reminds me of the “new brain” sketch. He seems like he needs one.
Boo, negro is not the preferred nomenclature. Blah-American, please.