Tennessee

You've provided addt'l food for thought above ...

"Jefferson always maintained that the decision to emancipate slaves would have to be part of a democratic process

To Jefferson, it was anti-democratic and contrary to the principles of the American Revolution for the federal government to enact abolition or for only a few planters to free their slaves."

So, to one of the most influential minds of the time and 4th POTUS, it was preferable to end slavery, but it need to happen through democratic processes, correct?

My question to you is (if you care to answer, all good either way)

What was the proper outcome re: this compromise? As you've said essentially the small states had zero 'moral authority' for what they were asking (slaves don't count as people), it was purely a power play on their part. They were trying to nothing 'good' regarding slavery, right?

SO is your position that the problem with this compromise (keeping in mind this demographics issue was extant, and had to be dealt with in some fashion) was the small states should've refused to allow for slaves to count >0 people, no matter what, regardless of consequence in terms of successfully forming the Union (TJ's democratic processes being contingent on a Union)?

If so, then it seems like it would follow that the larger states argument 'slaves are still human beings, so they should count for apportionment' is the inherently deplorable position to take?