ok, so Monroe does not sign, and Missouri remains a territory! Seems to me that
if there is no representative for slaves the whole nature of politics has to
change. South has to compromise.
Constantine Gutzman wrote:
> It is an interesting question whether President Monroe would have signed
> legislation denying Missourians the right to decide this matter for
> themselves. Even signing on to the MO/ME pairing and the Thomas amendment
> put him in very bad odor in Virginia, and although the early presidents only
> used the veto over constitutional issues, Jefferson was musing at the time
> about the supposed unconstituitonality of the proposed congressional
> determination of this issue. (As Michael Holt has pointed out, the
> "Missouri Compromise" wasn't really a compromise if you consider the highly
> sectional voting in the US House.)
> Constantine Gutzman
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "paul finkelman" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 11:18 AM
> Subject: Re: 3/5ths provision
>
> > This is what happens when you write e-mails very late at night; what I
> meant to
> > say was that the compromise barely passed thus *preventing* Missouri from
> coming
> > in as a free state; had the South not had many extra representatives,
> based on
> > slaves, the proslavery compromise, bringing Mo. in as a slave state could
> never
> > have passed the house of representatives.
> >
> > thanks for the correction
> >
> > Trenton Hizer wrote:
> >
> > > Another minor correction. Missouri came in as a slave state.
> > >
> > > Trenton Hizer
> > > Library of Virginia
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: paul finkelman [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 2:17 AM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: 3/5ths provision
> > >
> > > A minor correction; the confederation Congress has proposed the 3/5ths
> rule
> > > for taxation;
> > > it was never implemented.
> > >
> > > The 3/5ths clause was extremely important in providing the South with
> the
> > > margin of
> > > victory in such issues as teh Missouri compromise, which barely passed,
> in
> > > bringing in
> > > Mo. as a free state and the fugitive slave law of 1850; most important
> of
> > > all. however,
> > > without the electoral votes created by the 3/5ths clause Thomas
> Jefferson
> > > would have lost
> > > the election of 1800 to John Adams and Jackson would perhaps have run
> 2nd to
> > > JQ Adams in
> > > 1824 in the electoral vote; it is alos possible that Clay would have
> beaten
> > > Polk in 1844.
> > >
> > > Paul Finkelman
> > >
> > > --
> > > Paul Finkelman
> > > Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
> > > University of Tulsa College of Law
> > > 3120 East 4th Place
> > > Tulsa, OK 74104-3189
> > >
> > > phone 918-631-3706
> > > Fax 918-631-2194
> > > e-mail: [log in to unmask]
> > >
> > > Jon Kukla wrote:
> > >
> > > > Two quick comments. The 3/5s formula adopted in the Phila convention
> for
> > > > representation was based on percentage already in use by the
> Confederation
> > > Congress
> > > > to assess state quotas for support of the national government.
> > > > After adoption of the Constitution, the advantage deriving to southern
> > > states was a
> > > > sore spot with many New Englanders - many examples of this are found
> in
> > > the essays of
> > > > Fisher Ames - see The Works of Fisher Ames. Edited by Seth Ames and
> > > William Allen.
> > > > (Indianapolis. Liberty Fund. 1983) e.g., pp. 232-233 and 924-931.
> > > > Jon Kukla
> > > >
> > > > Harold S. Forsythe wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Bob is exactly right! As I remember it, the Virginia delegates to
> > > > > the Constitutional Convention, being good republicans, initially
> > > > > preferred direct election of the President. They were reminded of a
> > > > > terrible disadvantage that they faced, that though Virginia was the
> > > > > most populous state in the new Union, it did not have the largest
> > > > > white population. Hence, the 3/5 compromise gave VA and the
> > > > > other slave states, more clout in Presidential elections as well as
> > > > > extra seats in the House of Representatives, that would have been
> > > > > withheld through any apportionment system that ignored the
> > > > > enslaved population.
> > > > > Thus, the particular politics of the US Census in the South:
> > > > > another topic of, I think, great importance.
> > > > >
> > > > > Harold
> > > > >
> > > > > Date sent: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 09:26:57 -0700
> > > > > From: Bob Huddleston <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > > Subject: Re: Elections
> > > > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > > > Send reply to: Discussion of research and writing about
> > > Virginia history
> > > > > <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > >
> > > > > > Well, without the additional electoral votes made possible by the
> 3/5
> > > > > > compromise, John Adams would have been reelected in 1800 and the
> > > Virginia
> > > > > > Dynasty would have been still born.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Take care,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Judy and Bob Huddleston
> > > > > > 10643 Sperry Street
> > > > > > Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
> > > > > > 303.451.6376 [log in to unmask]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
> > > > > > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Diana Bennett
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 9:17 AM
> > > > > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > > > > Subject: Elections
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dear Listers:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for all the feedback on succession. Now I would like some
> > > > > > comments on "Slaves became important around election time. The
> > > > > > legislature representing the South was elected by using three
> fifths
> > > of
> > > > > > the slave population." It sounds like mud slinging such as we've
> had
> > > in in
> > > > > > the late 1900's, but is this possible?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Diana Bennett
> > > > > >
> > > > > Harold S. Forsythe
> > > > > Assistant Professor History
> > > > > Director: Black Studies
> > > > > Fairfield University
> > > > > Fairfield, CT 06430-5195
> > > > > (203) 254-4000 x2379
> > > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jon Kukla
> > > > 1250 Red Hill Road
> > > > Brookneal, Virginia 23528
> > > > 434 376-4172
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
--
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104-2499
918-631-3706 (office)
918-631-2194 (fax)
[log in to unmask]
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
