|
View the H-OIEAHC Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-OIEAHC's December 2013 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in H-OIEAHC's December 2013 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
> 3) 60--40 is not far from 66--33. > > > > 4) "In South Carolina in 1720, about 65% of the population consisted of slaves", according to Wikipedia, "Slavery in the United States". I'm confident it increased up to the Revolution. Of course, SC is not VA. > > > > 5) Three-fifths (as in the Constitution) of a free (mainly white) population that was 60% of the total would be 36% of the total population, not far from either 33% or 40%. (I trust I'm not misunderstanding the Constitution!) > > > > Joel Berson I would take issue with these points: 3) 60 white -- 40 black is indeed quite far from 66 black -- 33 white. 4) while I often use Wikipedia myself, and while I can not agree or disagree with the 65% figure, Wikipedia footnotes this statement to the South Carolina Information Highway, which seems largely sponsored by tourist businesses, and it may not be authoritative. 5) I don't know what to make of this; it strikes me as a shell game with nothing under any of the shells. The three-fifths clause was a compromise providing a method for increasing Southern representation in Congress by counting 3/5 of the slaves as part of the population to be represented. John Renjilian --
 Humanities & Social Sciences Online 
|