>muh three-fifths of a person
When will this meme die? Do people really think that the point of this compromise was an official seizure of 40% of humanity from slaves? It was about representation in the House, and nothing else.
>>484500
Slaves still counted "as property" under this type of representation, so it can still be used as a way do showcase how racist US was.
>>484512
If slaves weren't counted as all, no one would be arguing "can you believe how backwards the US used to be? They didn't even count slaves in determining representation in the US House"
>>484529
Depends. I mean it's obviously way more complex than most people try to present it.
Ironically those most in favour for representation of the slaves were from the south, because it would give them an edge in the congress.
One of my favourite speeches at the convention on this topic was given by Gouverner Morris. Pic related.
>>484529
Well there wouldn't have been a US because the Southern States wouldn't join without a gerrymander.
>>484529
It's pretty stupid to count them at all considering they can't vote. It's not like the slave owners are voting in the interest of their slaves. Only reason it got in is because at the time the slave-heavy southern states were the big and powerful ones (Virginia and Georgia especially) who of course want more influence for themselves.
>>484500
Witnessed.
In answer to your question, what people don't realize is that the Southern States would never have joined the Union if they had to give up slavery (or their slaves were not legally represented), and they never would have joined if they didn't believe the association between States was voluntary.
The Southern States were also more powerfully economically and by population at the time, so the US would never have survived without the Southern states joining it.
Basically the Northern States had to choose between a 3/5ths compromise and a North-Only Union that would be subject to invasion by Britain or France at any time.
>>484500
>>484835
>>484564
Yet another example of why "muh states rights" is the dumbest argument for the Civil War supposedly not being about slavery. Slavery was central to practically EVERY major crisis or debate in the Antebellum era, ultimately resulting the Civil War. They all knew it would have to be resolved one day, somehow, but the can just kept getting kicked down the road.
>>484529
Giving greater representation to slaveowners because of all the slaves they owned is pretty astounding in a democracy, really.
>>485308
>This is about State's Rights!
>Really, what right?
>SLAVERY
There are actually some decent State's Rights arguments, and it's a legitimate issue. Damn shame it's marred by slavery, which really was the one "right" the South gave a flying fuck about.
Calhoun's "Nullification" argument is fascinating though, and incredibly ballsy.
>>485622
The irony is that the southerners didn't believe in a state's right on the matter of slavery.
They consistently opposed, both in practice as part of the United States, and in their own constitution, the idea that states could voluntarily create their own legal reactions to the issues of slavery.
And if you want to talk about federal overreach, it's hard to imagine more powers granted to the federal government then the Fugitive Slave act.
>>484835
>Witnessed.
Why would this thread be deleted?
>>484500
so manlets are only 3/5th of a real person?
>>485671
Yup, in many cases "State's Rights" is just a veneer.
While they were a legitimate issue brought forth in Congress, they weren't really the drive behind secession.
It was the back and forth dance between two increasingly incompatible cultures defined by the issue of slavery. I agree on the ridiculous Federal overreach on the Fugitive Slave Act, but again it was yet another of those compromises like the 3/5.
>>484512
Slavery is based on economics not race.
>>485720
*American slavery is based on race not economics
Fixed that for you
On the topic of slavery, were there any protections against some random just going into a non-slave blacks home and grabbing them up with the excuse that the black was a runaway slave?
>>485749
American slavery specifically is based upon economic situations, faggot.
There were Irish, Slavs, and European slaves as well. On top of that indentured servants were regularly more abused or even killed than slaves.
Negro slaves were in the majority, and that's why they were "targeted". You're looking for a perfect all ends solution otherwise everything is racist and should be put to dammed.
I would actually say that northern wage slavery put upon the uneducated negros was much worse than the southern chattle slavery, as it encouraged paternalistim rather than neglect.
Slavery is an economic function, the industrial revolution proved that.
>>485749
>were there any protections against some random just going into a non-slave blacks home and grabbing them up with the excuse that the black was a runaway slave
That actually happened quite often
>>485779
You're missing the point. Slavery as an institution in the Americas was legitimized as an institution by narrowing its applicability to blacks.
>>485779
I agree with you
>On top of that indentured servants were regularly more abused or even killed than slaves.
I'd say this was because someone who you own temporarily isn't as valuable as property you own indefinitely so have a reason to make sure they stay in decent shape.
Why spend money and effort fixing up a rental, it's not like it's yours.
>>484500
Slaves couldn't vote, so all it's doing is taking from the voting power of the slave holder. Honestly, I think a slave should equal 0 votes. Buying a slave is literally like buying a vote.
>>485793
No, it was narrowed de facto, then some amount of de jure much later on after the majority of Americans slavery had passed.
>>484500
Good question OP. It was actually a brilliant move by the founders to limit slave state representation in Congress.
>>485804
>Slaves couldn't vote, so all it's doing is taking from the voting power of the slave holder. Honestly, I think a slave should equal 0 votes. Buying a slave is literally like buying a vote.
Right, and that's how the Northern States felt too. So initially slaves didn't count for any representation, but the Southern States did the math and said the North could fuck right off unless slaves counted as a vote. Hence the 3/5 Compromise.
>>485804
>Buying a slave is literally like buying a vote.
That gives de facto representation to the slave, though.
Consider that, as a slave holder, what's good for me is good for my slaves, because if my economic security fails, then bad things happen to my slaves as a result.
I.e. if some law were to make me unable to function in business, I'd lose money. If I lose money, I can't feed, house and clothe my slaves. If I can't do that, they suffer, and thus, their interests are my interests, given that they are entirely dependent persons.
>>485671
I'm honest to God puzzled why do libertarians and small government guys flock to the Confederate cause nowadays, anyone who ever studied the CSA knows Jefferson Davis centralized the ever loving fuck out of that country.
>>485308
I like Shelby Foote on this issue,
"People who claim the war was about States Rights are just as bad as those who claim the war was about freeing the Slaves."
>>487518
It wasn't about freeing the slaves, it was about holding the slaves.
>>485779
Indentured servants could appeal to a court if they were abused, whereas the African chattel slaves could not.
>>485779
And calling indentured servants "slaves" is a bit of a stretch in relation to chattel slavery.
>>487359
>American right wing
>well educated
>>487754
In his defense, I hope people realize that the Europeans did not literally go to Africa and enslave people. We went to Africa and bought people WHO WERE ALREADY SLAVES under their warlords and traded them for European luxuries like booze and fancy clothes (interesting, modern day rappers and shit immediately blow all their wealth on these things).
So the blacks in America were the descendants of mostly the scum of Africa, the murderers and whatnot who were enslaved. We didn't go over there with nets and just catch us some darkies for fuck's sake.
So the stigma of using black chattel slavery probably comes from the fact that they viewed that these people were literally "born to be slaves," as that was all they ever were.
>>487757
>American liberals
>well educated
Indoctrination isn't education, goy
>>484500
I swear half the threads on this board are just people angry at basic historical facts
>Africans aren't people, they're our slaves
>E-except we want our slaves counted as full people when the House of Representatives is considered
It's absolutely ludicrous what the South wanted, they can't humanize slaves by counting them in the population while at the same say dehumanize them by enslaving them in the first place.
If they hadn't compromised the south would've been much stronger in the House, making the planned peaceful attempts at banning slavery much more difficult.
>>487838
Why should I offer any kind of sensible reply to him when his comment is simply "hurr conservatives are doomb"
I'm not going to have a debate with someone who just calls people names, I'm just going to call you names right back. There are equally stupid people on both sides of the political spectrum. Going to college doesn't necessarily make you smart and not going to college doesn't necessarily make you stupid.
>>486848
>laws ensuring a certain quality of freedom and level of liberty for my laborers is good for me as their employer
>said every slave owner ever
>>487359
To be perfectly honest, I don't think most conservatives actually want less government involvement, they want conservative government involvement. Since that is unlikely on the federal level, they want a weak federal government so they can have a stronger conservative state government.
The comprised was based on the idea that northerners who didn't own a lot of slaves didn't want the southerners who did to use their slaves as tools to control more of the House. Why is that evil again?
>>487786
Actually they weren't criminals.
Few were at all.
>>487889
This, but they were still being enslaved by the local African kings and chieftains and then sold to white people. There's no point in Europeans wasting resources to go manhunting random negroes in some deep bumfuck jungle if they can just buy slaves comfortably at the nearest port.
And it's the apex of irony when descendants of black slaves nowadays go all WE WUZ KINGS over the people who sold them as cattle.
>>487889
And you base this off of... what? Interviews with them?
>"Boy, were you a murderer when they enslaved you?"
>"No massah! I's innocent! Please lawdy take dese chains offa me!"
Even if they weren't, it's not the point. The point is the Europeans did not enslave the Africans. We simply bought slaves from them. Does that make us innocent in the matter? No, but the guy dealing drugs is usually more at fault than the guys addicted to his product.
>>487895
It would probably be more like
>Basta lembrar-se é , você não fiz nada
>we want blacks to be property; they aren't people
>b..but we want them to count as people to increase our power in the House
Fuck Southerners, wish reconstruction was harsher on those traitor hicks.
>>487968
>>487786you obviously don't understand economics. Had the Europeans not bought so many slaves, the Africans wouldn't have captured so many slaves
>>488021
They already enslaved Africans by the millions and were selling them to the Muslims through Egypt into the Middle East. Fuck off with your white guilt bullshit.
>>488021
There always was a market for slaves. Arabs were buying them by the truckload at a time when Europe was a squabbling backwater.
In fact it was the Europeans (the Brits and the French in particular) who first outlawed international slave trade and some African rulers became hostile to them due to that.
