Amplify Presents The Civil War

[FCBLComish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Slaves count as 3/5. Read your constitution.


[/ QUOTE ]

3/5 is equivalent to .6, read your math books.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not referring to you, the poster previous to you.

[FCBLComish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
how about some Monitor vs. Merrimac action? =P

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, this opens up a can of worms.

North and south should each have supply lines which can be disrupted by rand(). The north can run out of cotton, and be unable to get dressed, and therefore cannot meet to decide who to night kill. The south can run out of, what, steel? and be unable to build a telegraph to send in their kill, even though they can meet.

Walt Whitman wins with the Union, but can only post in blank verse, sounding his barbaric yawp across the rooftops.

The entire game could begin with a huge auction, during which different states would be wooed into secession or conciliated into solidarity. This could result in a confederacy consisting of Ohio, Arkansas and Vermont, but that's the chance you take.

[/ QUOTE ]


Walt Whitman, in the conservatory, without vowels for the win!

[Neil S]

[ QUOTE ]
umm, it was pro-slavery because it made a 'nonperson' count towards Congress and tax distribution.
That is why it is called the three fifths compromise.
Slave owners had a higher tax burden, but also a greater say in Congress.

[/ QUOTE ]They weren't non-persons. They just couldn't be citizens according to the woefully activist Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling.

It was perfectly plausible to count the full count of the enslaved populations of each state for the purposes of representation and taxation. In fact you can tell how adamant some people were in Philadelpha that they should count, that the anti-slavery delegates had to bend all the way to 3/5.

I hope Amp doesn't mind this, heh.

[amplify]

I don't mind it, but the Dred Scott decision, as activist and ridiculous as it was, wasn't bothering people during the 1787 constitutional convention, Neil, as Dred Scott hadn't been born yet.

Edit: and I think the framers saw that without the 3/5 provision, the south would have become little more than a province of the north, a position that they eventually pretty much reached anyway, due to their antiquated agrarian economy and lack of resources, including support from the world community, such as it was at the time.

[Neil S]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't mind it, but the Dred Scott decision, as activist and ridiculous as it was, wasn't bothering people during the 1787 constitutional convention, Neil, as Dred Scott hadn't been born yet.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, but I'm guessing there were a lot of people who thought just as CJ Taney thought: that blacks were not citizens, were not cut out to be citizens, and that they never could be citizens of the US. Especially just by crossing state lines.

That's not what the document says, but that was probably the original intent of most of the southern delegates in Philadelphia.

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: and I think the framers saw that without the 3/5 provision, the south would have become little more than a province of the north, a position that they eventually pretty much reached anyway, due to their antiquated agrarian economy and lack of resources, including support from the world community, such as it was at the time.

[/ QUOTE ]True, especially with the Treaty of Paris line as it stood.

[Spook]

[ QUOTE ]

It was perfectly plausible to count the full count of the enslaved populations of each state for the purposes of representation and taxation. In fact you can tell how adamant some people were in Philadelpha that they should count, that the anti-slavery delegates had to bend all the way to 3/5.

[/ QUOTE ]

And which way were they (we will just say the north) bending from?

[Neil S]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It was perfectly plausible to count the full count of the enslaved populations of each state for the purposes of representation and taxation. In fact you can tell how adamant some people were in Philadelpha that they should count, that the anti-slavery delegates had to bend all the way to 3/5.

[/ QUOTE ]

And which way were they (we will just say the north) bending from?

[/ QUOTE ]I'm guessing some Northerners were saying that people who weren't considered eligible for citizenship shouldn't count at all. But a desire for unity for survival outweighed that.

I don't have access to any notes from the Convention, though, so I can't say for sure.

At least we got it fixed.

[Spook]

When the Articles of Confederacy where drafted (before the Constitution), the North wishes to count all the slaves as full bodies, while the South did not.

This was because of taxation. No compromise was very successful.

However, when the Constitution was drafted, representation was added. And the North and South suddenly Flipflopped.

It had very little to do with being pro-slavery, or anti-slavery, it was completely biased to how each state could get itself into a better position in the new union.