In my understanding, the 14th Amendment's provision was not an echo of, but
was entirely opposite, the 3/5 clause. The latter allowed citizens in
slaveholding regions augmented representation because they held bondsmen,
while the 14th Amendment was intended to reduce the representation of the
southern states in proportion to the number of freedmen they disfranchised;
in other words, former masters no longer would benefit in federal
apportionment by the presence of people they had subjugated.
Constantine Gutzman
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Hershman" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: 3/5 Compromise
> Sorry if I created confusion. The 3/5 Compromise was adopted at the 1789
> Constitutional Convention. The reference to the 14th Amendment, adopted in
> 1868, was that the provision requiring a full reduction in representation
for
> the portion of the population denied the ballot was a reaction against, or
at
> least an echo, of the antebellum argument over the 3/5 representation of
> slaves.
>
> Jim Hershman
>
> Diana Bennett wrote:
>
> > One final question on the 3/5 Compromise... From the previous listings I
> > gather that the 3/5 Compromise was adopted as the 14th Amendment to the
> > U. S. Constitution when it was written in 1779-ish. Is this correct?
> >
> > Diana Bennett
> >
> > To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
instructions
> > at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|