The three-fifths compromise was a good thing?

[dpareja]

http://chronicle.com/article/Emory-Faculty-Seek-More/137407/

Outrage continued to roil Emory University on Tuesday as faculty members and others sought a more-contrite response from their president, who is under fire for an alumni-magazine column in which he held up the "Three-Fifths Compromise" of the U.S. Constitution as a pragmatic model for how to reach an agreement.

The column by James W. Wagner, the president, was published in the winter issue of Emory Magazine; it focused on the importance of political compromise to ensure progress. He cited the racially charged Three-Fifths Compromise—a 1787 agreement for states to count only three-fifths of their slaves in their total population for purposes of taxation and representation in Congress—as an example of divided political leaders' efforts to find neutral ground on an issue in order to reach a greater goal.

"As the price for achieving the ultimate aim of the Constitution—'to form a more perfect union'—the two sides compromised on this immediate issue of how to count slaves in the new nation," the president wrote. "Pragmatic half-victories kept in view the higher aspiration of drawing the country more closely together."

I mean, his point that pragmatism is needed is good, but couldn't he have found a better example than the three-fifths compromise?

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

From what I understand, if slaves were counted as whole persons it would have given the South even greater representation and, as a result, even more political clout. So basically politically powerful plantation owners wanted to treat African slaves as property for nearly all purposes but also have them cynically classified as persons in this one specific instance as a way to maintain power.

[dpareja]

From what I understand, if slaves were counted as whole persons it would have given the South even greater representation and, as a result, even more political clout. So basically politically powerful plantation owners wanted to treat African slaves as property for nearly all purposes but also have them cynically classified as persons in this one specific instance as a way to maintain power.

Sure. But as I said, couldn't this guy have found a better example of pragmatism?

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

From what I understand, if slaves were counted as whole persons it would have given the South even greater representation and, as a result, even more political clout. So basically politically powerful plantation owners wanted to treat African slaves as property for nearly all purposes but also have them cynically classified as persons in this one specific instance as a way to maintain power.

Sure. But as I said, couldn't this guy have found a better example of pragmatism?

Oh hell yes.

[Distind]

It is a rather remarkable example of "Things that piss you off may still have been better than the alternative". While a lot of people take this now to mean that slaves were 3/5ths a person, what it meant then was that the people who owned those slaves gained far less political power than they otherwise would have, at the expense of their slaves who they claimed to represent.

It's not something to be happy about, but would people rather have had slave owners with even more clout in american history? Or would they not want slaves to be counted at all?

It was a truely shitty situation, but two things were managed by the opposition that nocked it down to 3/5ths. They succeed in causing the slave states to acknowledge slaves as being human at all and did so without giving the slave owners all the seats in the house that they were after.

I can see where the guy's coming from, but I doubt many others would bother.

[Cataclysm]

The 3/5 compromise would have given the south more electoral votes even though blacks couldn't vote right?

[Sylvana]

To be honest it is actually a really good example.
The most dramatic examples of pragmatic collaboration and decision making is done when both options available are horrible. It is only then that one sees someones true colours.
Unfortunately in today's modern era where slavery is abhorred (at last outside of closed republican meetings) we are too quick to focus on the most obvious aspect that is wrong. Instead of taking a look at the whole picture. Especially given that the politics of the time were quite complex. What was a seasonable compromise needs to be understood in a time when slavery was acceptable. That slaves received even 3/5ths of a person status could be seen as somewhat progressive.

As with everything context is important. As good an example as that was though, the principle should perhaps have tried to find something that the students would understand more easily and less likely to provoke a knee-jerk reaction. Unfortunately such examples are not exactly common in politics these days, after all when is that sequester kicking in again?

[Distind]

The 3/5 compromise would have given the south more electoral votes even though blacks couldn't vote right?

I believe it was for counting as citizens in any capacity, so electoral votes, house seats, that kind of thing.

[dpareja]

The 3/5 compromise would have given the south more electoral votes even though blacks couldn't vote right?

I believe it was for counting as citizens in any capacity, so electoral votes, house seats, that kind of thing.

Only for the purposes of determining House representation (and by extension electoral votes). They weren't citizens for any other purpose.

[Distind]

Well yeah, counting them as in a statistic, not rights.

[Material Defender]

I understand what he's saying, but he could of used any number of other compromises of the slavery debate era other than the extremely divisive 3/5ths decision. Hell, there were other compromises in American history can show similar amounts of division and such. So basically, right idea, bad example.

Sorta like using Stalin as an example of how to develop heavy industry in a country. It's technically true, but he's still a crappy person.

[chitoryu12]

I don't have an issue with it. Really, the slavery issue was one where virtually any decision would have looked bad on paper. Almost any decision in favor of slavery would have increased the spread of a frankly rotten concept and the exploitation of human beings, while almost any decision that tried to restrict slavery would have led to the slave states getting more and more pissy about the supposed interference of their rights. Which, incidentally, is exactly what DID happen.

The three-fifths compromise is one of many times where an apparently bad decision had to be made because it was more pragmatic than others. Refusing to recognize the slaves at all for the purpose of votes would have angered the southern states even more, while recognizing them fully would have given the slavers even more power in the government. The compromise kept the argument settled for at least a little while longer.

Choosing something else purely on the basis of "less bad to swallow" would have defeated the purpose of his choice, which is that the pragmatic answer isn't always a nice one. Indeed, I think that the anger at his decision to use the three-fifths compromise as his example proved a very good point about it: it wasn't a good decision, but could his critics have made a better one under the same circumstances as politicians in 1787?

[Old Viking]

If neither side was enthusiastic about it, it was a good compromise.  Compromise is a tool of realists who want to get things done, not of purists who live in a binary universe.