The Constitution’s Immoral Compromise

[Richard]

An interesting debate amid the numerous other on-going Constitutional debates...and the beat goes on.

And so it goes...

Richard

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...ise-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...-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...f-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...eal-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...ery-inevitable

[charlietwo]

I would argue that had the 3/5th's clause not been the conclusion, 5/5ths of slavery worldwide would have existed for many more years.

[Streck-Fu]

Most of the comments following some of those give me a headache and a little nausea. It is amazing how many people can discuss the end of slavery and the freeing of a whole group of people numbering in the millions as a great thing while at the same time endorse that government should be more powerful, passing laws and constitutional amendments should be easier, and express support for ideas that would limit everyone's personal liberty.

[nousdefions]

And that my friend why "equality" is not Liberty. Liberty is freedom and the easiest way to "equality" is to make everyone slaves (to big government). Our founding documents guarantee our liberty and freedom. Life isn't fair and everyone is not equal, although we all have the same opportunities, we make our own paths and forge our own destiny. The moment you demand that your neighbors support you, is the moment you give up liberty.

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by nousdefions

And that my friend why "equality" is not Liberty. Liberty is freedom and the easiest way to "equality" is to make everyone slaves (to big government). Our founding documents guarantee our liberty and freedom. Life isn't fair and everyone is not equal, although we all have the same opportunities, we make our own paths and forge our own destiny. The moment you demand that your neighbors support you, is the moment you give up liberty.

Well stated, Bro For the most part the terms "Equal" and "Equality" should be replaced with "Equity" and "Equitable" IMO. Two very different meanings with totally different implications for a philosophy of governance. But then we get into an Ayn Rand philosophy and oh, we certainly don't want to go there.

[craigepo]

People need to tread carefully when judging historical events with present-day morals and ethics.