Talk:The Slave Power

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 3/5 rule?

Sorry I can't cite, but didn't the three-fifths compromise also come into the rhetoric around the "Slave power"? Northerners essentially argued that because Southern states' apportionment of Representatives and Electors were boosted by adding 3/5 of the slave population into the mix, the white Southern electorates were overrepresented and thus disproportionately powerful in the House and in Presidential elections. --Jfruh (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The 3/5ths rule was made in 1789, to prevent disproportionate representation of slave-holding states in the House of Representatives, but at that time there was no strong antagonism between North and South on the basis of slaveholding (slavery was still legal in many northern states), and many southerners still agreed that slavery was morally reprehensible, and should be abolished eventually.

It was only in the 1840s and 1850s (especially with the war of 1848, as it says in the article), when most Southern politicians and public spokesmen came around to the position that slavery was a "positive good", and southerners or southern-sympathetic northerners, seemed to have disproportionate influence in all three branches of the U.S. federal government, that the "Slave Power" became an important political slogan. AnonMoos 03:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the 3/5ths compromise was still part of the constitution 1848, and certainly could have formed part of the discourse during that period as well.

I think you might be somewhat overstating the harmony in the early republic as well. Gary Wills has a book called "Negro President: Jefferson and the Slave Power". I haven't read it but much of what I put above comes from reading reviews of it. Basically, Jefferson was called a "Negro president" by his contemporary opponents because he was elected on the strength of southern votes, which were exaggerated by the 3/5ths compromise. Not sure if the phrase "slave power" was used then though. Guess I gotta read the book. :) --Jfruh (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

---

There were some implicit tensions in 1789, but in 1789 slavery still existed in a number of northern states, many prominent southerners were among the loudest in theoretically deploring the existence of slavery, and at that time (before slavery gained in economic function after the invention of the cotton gin) it was possible to view slavery as an antiquated relic which was bound to wither away eventually. As late as 1807-1808, Congress voted by a large majority to abolish the slave trade (importation of new slaves from abroad) at the earliest date this was possible under the constitution. The first "sectional" political crisis over slavery didn't occur until 1819-1820 (see Missouri compromise). AnonMoos 09:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The 3/5ths rule was made in 1789, to prevent disportionate representation of slave-holding states in the House of Representatives Unless I am mis-reading your meaning I would have thought the truth was exactly the opposite; the 3/5th rule enabled disproportionate representation of slaveholding states in the period it was in effect. South Carolina, to take the most extreme example, had many extra representatives and additional power in the electoral college because the representation was based on 60% of the slave population who obviously could not vote. Thus the system rewarded the slaveowning regions with political power. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DMorpheus (talk • contribs) 19:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Each state's number of representatives in the House is/was based on the overall TOTAL population of that state (as revealed by decennial censuses), regardless of citizenship, voting ability, or whatever. It included slaves in the 19th century, and includes illegal immigrants and homeless people today. (The only exemption was "Indians not taxed", which effectively meant enclaves free from most direct state government control.) In that context, 3/5 was a selective discount on the criterion of the indiscriminate TOTAL population of each state (which was otherwise used). AnonMoos 20:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The 3/5 rule was a compromise, but obviously it didn't totally prevent disproportionate representation, because the South received apportionment based on slaves who couldn't vote.--Parkwells 18:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Wikipedia has an article on Three-fifths compromise... AnonMoos 20:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name of article

A minor point, perhaps, but it really seems to me that this article should be titled Slave Power, not Slave power. I have never seen the term in print without both words being capitalized. And yet, for some reason, when it was changed from its original (correct) name last May 14, nobody objected. The edit summary says, "Wikipedia capitalization conventions". That strikes me as a spurious and flatly wrongheaded interpretation, since the guideline is only to dissuade people from using caps for everything under the sun without a proper rationale. So unless somebody has a persuasive argument to the contrary, I am going to change the name back to Slave Power (or perhaps even The Slave Power) in a few days. Cgingold 12:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

One last call for comment, and if there are no objections, I will make the change. Cgingold 01:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Adams' views

I don't know what the policy is, and much more importantly, am unqualified to challenge Mr. Adam's views. His quote piqued my interest in the legal procedures surrounding the US engaging in war. In particular, "the war with Mexico, declared by the mere announcement of President Polk," which seems to be incorrect according to Mexican-American_War#Declaration_of_war. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the quote, or maybe he was speaking figuratively, just figured I would mention it. 24.98.230.48 (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Polk moved U.S. troops into an area (between the Nueces and Rio Grande rivers) which had only very dubiously been a part of the Republic of Texas, and then when the somewhat inevitable clash came, he succeeded in getting a declaration of war through congress on the grounds that Mexican troops had attacked U.S. troops on U.S. soil. A number of U.S. politicians at the time were loud in denouncing Polk for committing a provocation in order to contrive a pretext for war -- and Abraham Lincoln was among the loudest. AnonMoos (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)