Richard
02-27-2013, 10:20
An interesting debate amid the numerous other on-going Constitutional debates...and the beat goes on.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
The Constitution’s Immoral Compromise
NYT, 27 Feb 2013
Emory University students marched in anger last week over a decision that was reached more than 200 years ago. They were outraged, among other things, that the school’s president called the Constitution’s “three-fifths compromise” one of the “pragmatic half-victories” that assured the union.
Americans today are repulsed by the fact that the Constitution let each state’s House delegation be determined by adding all free citizens, except most Indians, and “three fifths of all other Persons.” Southerners wanted all slaves counted. Northerners thought none should be. The compromise let the South keep humans as property, increasing the region’s political power.
But did the framers have a choice? Could the compromise have been avoided? Would any other path have prevented a united United States or did the bargain only delay that division?
The Union Wasn’t Worth This Bargain
Paul Finkelman is the President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law and Public Policy at Albany Law School. He is the author of "Slavery and the Founders: Race and Liberty in the Age of Jefferson.''
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/02/26/the-constitutions-immoral-compromise/the-union-wasnt-worth-the-three-fifths-compromise-on-slavery
Morality Wasn’t the Issue in 1787
Henry L. Chambers Jr. is a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/02/26/the-constitutions-immoral-compromise/morality-wasnt-the-issue-in-1787
A Moral Stand Was Not Out of the Question
Leslie M. Harris is the Winship Distinguished Research Professor in the Humanities at Emory University. She is the author of "In the Shadow of Slavery: African Americans in New York City, 1626-1863."
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/02/26/the-constitutions-immoral-compromise/a-moral-stand-was-not-out-of-the-question
An Understandable Deal; No Good Alternative
Sanford Levinson is a professor at the University of Texas Law School and the author, most recently, of "Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance."
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/02/26/the-constitutions-immoral-compromise/three-fifths-compromise-was-an-understandable-deal-on-slavery
Founders’ Fear of Division Made the Deal Inevitable
Raymond T. Diamond is the Jules F. & Frances L. Landry Distinguished Professor of Law and a vice chancellor at the Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/02/26/the-constitutions-immoral-compromise/founders-fear-of-division-made-deal-on-slavery-inevitable
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
The Constitution’s Immoral Compromise
NYT, 27 Feb 2013
Emory University students marched in anger last week over a decision that was reached more than 200 years ago. They were outraged, among other things, that the school’s president called the Constitution’s “three-fifths compromise” one of the “pragmatic half-victories” that assured the union.
Americans today are repulsed by the fact that the Constitution let each state’s House delegation be determined by adding all free citizens, except most Indians, and “three fifths of all other Persons.” Southerners wanted all slaves counted. Northerners thought none should be. The compromise let the South keep humans as property, increasing the region’s political power.
But did the framers have a choice? Could the compromise have been avoided? Would any other path have prevented a united United States or did the bargain only delay that division?
The Union Wasn’t Worth This Bargain
Paul Finkelman is the President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law and Public Policy at Albany Law School. He is the author of "Slavery and the Founders: Race and Liberty in the Age of Jefferson.''
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/02/26/the-constitutions-immoral-compromise/the-union-wasnt-worth-the-three-fifths-compromise-on-slavery
Morality Wasn’t the Issue in 1787
Henry L. Chambers Jr. is a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/02/26/the-constitutions-immoral-compromise/morality-wasnt-the-issue-in-1787
A Moral Stand Was Not Out of the Question
Leslie M. Harris is the Winship Distinguished Research Professor in the Humanities at Emory University. She is the author of "In the Shadow of Slavery: African Americans in New York City, 1626-1863."
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/02/26/the-constitutions-immoral-compromise/a-moral-stand-was-not-out-of-the-question
An Understandable Deal; No Good Alternative
Sanford Levinson is a professor at the University of Texas Law School and the author, most recently, of "Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance."
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/02/26/the-constitutions-immoral-compromise/three-fifths-compromise-was-an-understandable-deal-on-slavery
Founders’ Fear of Division Made the Deal Inevitable
Raymond T. Diamond is the Jules F. & Frances L. Landry Distinguished Professor of Law and a vice chancellor at the Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/02/26/the-constitutions-immoral-compromise/founders-fear-of-division-made-deal-on-slavery-inevitable