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
|
