Of course slaves weren’t allowed to vote, and 3/5ths meant that the South would get more representation as recognition of the economic strength they were bringing to the union.
It’s not like the Northern vs Southern states were arguing about whether a slave’s vote was worth 0, 3/5, or 1. This was about ascribing more (or less) power to slave owners.
No... the 3/5 compromise reduced the power of the south, because it kept them from getting representation for those they refused to allow to vote.
The south wanted 1, the north wanted 0.
The 3/5 compromise was one of the forces that eventually brought about the end of slavery. It didn’t increase the south’s representation, it decreased it.
That’s right, the south wanted 1 and the north wanted 0.
What I’m saying is that it “increased” the representation versus 0. Which is equivalent to your formulation that it “decreased” the representation from 1. In other words, 3/5 is more than zero and less than 1. No disagreement here.
My point is that it wasn’t about giving rights to black people, it was an argument about how much representation slave owners would have.
Oh wait... we don’t actually want to learn about history here unless it reinforces our identity politics mindset. Please remember this before posting logical, factual information.
We live in a totally post fact world. Nobody wants to hear truth, they just make up whatever story they want to believe and pretend that makes it fact.
I wonder if you could tell us, GP, which states wanted that number to be one and which wanted it to be zero?