<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Dish]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/author/sullydish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Why Three-Fifths Was Better Than One,&nbsp;Ctd]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p><span style="font-size: 8pt;"><em>by Chris Bodenner</em></span></p> <p>A reader writes:</p> <blockquote> <p>The implication of Millman&#39;s <a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/01/why-three-fifths-wasnt-better-than-nothing.html" target="_self">quoted comments</a> is abhorrent - that the &quot;purely practical&quot; violence and brutality of slavery is secondary to the &quot;hugely negative&quot; ideological impact of the 3/5 compromise.&#0160; I wonder if he imagines slaves sitting in their lounge chairs reading the Constitution by firelight, their excited and expectant faces dropping with their self-esteem once they realize the document codifies them as but 60% of a person.&#0160; They&#39;d probably be too depressed to work in the fields the next day!</p> </blockquote> <p>Another elaborates:</p> <blockquote> <p>Your <a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/01/why-35-was-better-than-55.html" target="_self">reader</a> is right, and Noah Millman is wrong.&#0160;</p> </blockquote>]]></html></oembed>