Slaves Counted as 3/5

[Phatscotty]

Abraham Lincoln got elected with a policy that said there would be no further extension to slavery. He never stated that it would be abolished completely.....

So, you would rather Lincoln did not get elected?

No further extension is still a step in the right direction. I guess we only have to look a couple years down the road to see how it worked out, eh?

Lol wat?

He was the best candidate at the time.

and....Uber abolitionist John Q. Adams understudy....totally irrelevant right?

[nagerous]

He was clearly unelectable...

[Phatscotty]

He was clearly unelectable...

how so?

[nagerous]

He was clearly unelectable...

how so?

He was dead.

[Phatscotty]

He was clearly unelectable...

how so?

He was dead.

okay, we are still talking about Lincoln right? (who actually was elected)

[nagerous]

I said Lincoln was the best candidate of the time in the 1860 elections so obviously I would've voted him for his progessive politics. I am trying to make the point regarding progressive politics that you can only take one step at a time. You implied that John Q. Adams abolitionist would've made a better president at that time when Lincoln got elected, which confused me as he was dead..

[Phatscotty]

I said Lincoln was the best candidate of the time in the 1860 elections so obviously I would've voted him for his progessive politics. I am trying to make the point regarding progressive politics that you can only take one step at a time. You implied that John Q. Adams abolitionist would've made a better president at that time when Lincoln got elected, which confused me as he was dead..

no, I did not imply that. I stated that Lincoln was mentored by JQA, who was a leading abolitionist. I never implied anything else. BTW, JQA was elected president when he was alive. I don't see how you could possibly think I was saying JQA should have been elected again, 30 years after his last term of president. Only the influence he had on Lincoln, of abolition specifically.

[nagerous]

fail troll is fail

[Phatscotty]

fail troll is fail

pff, wow...k

What effect do you think JQA had on Lincoln? none?

[Juan_Bottom]

I don't see the 3/5ths compromise as being a compromise of a person's moral position. It was a political compromise settled between people who morally supported or abhorred slavery.

But isn't that exactly why it was a compromise of the Abolitionist's morals? They compromised their own morality by making a political deal.
It's like a:
"I really don't think God is on our side if we own slaves but it'll be ok if it preserves my version of America."
kinda thought
They were making a stand, but it was a hollow one.

And I'm not looking at this as a 21st Century American, I'm jut looking at this as someone who would have been against slavery. Sometimes you have to make a political compromise with Conservatives, or Liberals, but this just isn't one of those times. We're not building a canal here. Well, maybe the slaves were but that's not what the conversation is.

Does this make him, the founder of the US constitution a racist too? Does that make the majority of US presidents racists for bowing to public pressure and not pushing forth integration policies fast enough until the 1960s?

Absolutely, and it makes him a profiteer. I never have understood why the rich finally split apart their fortunes after they die, when they won't even get to see the joy it will cause. All that money in the bank isn't doing you any good.

[PLAYER57832]

This had nothing to do with any change in views of race. It was purely about power. The south wanted to count black slaves so they could have more votes. Notherners objected because it would give the south more power. Even most ardent abolitionists only wanted eradication of slavery, not equality of blacks and whites. The idea of "equality" cam much later. Remember, at the time, women were not allowed to hold property, either, in many cases. This rule meant that Black males slaves were placed politically above white women.

[jimboston]

It was racist.

I guess you all must have missed this.

I think this ended the debate.

Anyone who claims that counting a slave as some percentage of a person was NOT racist is a fool

Now we can debate of it was a good or bad decision at the time... if it was the "best compromise" or not, etc.

... but we can't debate whether or not it was racist.

[Woodruff]

It was racist.

I guess you all must have missed this.

I think this ended the debate.

Hell, I said it was "both" a long time ago...nobody seemed to notice that either.

[Phatscotty]

It was racist.

I guess you all must have missed this.

I think this ended the debate.

Anyone who claims that counting a slave as some percentage of a person was NOT racist is a fool

Sorry, but in the 16th century and after that, slaves were not "people" they were "property"

Every civilization had slaves at some point.

[jimboston]

It was racist.

I guess you all must have missed this.

I think this ended the debate.

Anyone who claims that counting a slave as some percentage of a person was NOT racist is a fool

Sorry, but in the 16th century and after that, slaves were not "people" they were "property"

Every civilization had slaves at some point.

Does that make it not racist?
How?

[thegreekdog]

This had nothing to do with any change in views of race. It was purely about power. The south wanted to count black slaves so they could have more votes. Notherners objected because it would give the south more power. Even most ardent abolitionists only wanted eradication of slavery, not equality of blacks and whites. The idea of "equality" cam much later. Remember, at the time, women were not allowed to hold property, either, in many cases. This rule meant that Black males slaves were placed politically above white women.

This is the answer. Vote for option 1.

[jimboston]

This had nothing to do with any change in views of race. It was purely about power. The south wanted to count black slaves so they could have more votes. Notherners objected because it would give the south more power. Even most ardent abolitionists only wanted eradication of slavery, not equality of blacks and whites. The idea of "equality" cam much later. Remember, at the time, women were not allowed to hold property, either, in many cases. This rule meant that Black males slaves were placed politically above white women.

This is the answer. Vote for option 1.

So it was sexist and racist... but the poll is only asking if it was racist or progressive.

[thegreekdog]

This had nothing to do with any change in views of race. It was purely about power. The south wanted to count black slaves so they could have more votes. Notherners objected because it would give the south more power. Even most ardent abolitionists only wanted eradication of slavery, not equality of blacks and whites. The idea of "equality" cam much later. Remember, at the time, women were not allowed to hold property, either, in many cases. This rule meant that Black males slaves were placed politically above white women.

This is the answer. Vote for option 1.

So it was sexist and racist... but the poll is only asking if it was racist or progressive.

It is only correct in the sense of the question at hand. Although Player is right about the second part as well.

[PLAYER57832]

This had nothing to do with any change in views of race. It was purely about power. The south wanted to count black slaves so they could have more votes. Notherners objected because it would give the south more power. Even most ardent abolitionists only wanted eradication of slavery, not equality of blacks and whites. The idea of "equality" cam much later. Remember, at the time, women were not allowed to hold property, either, in many cases. This rule meant that Black males slaves were placed politically above white women.

This is the answer. Vote for option 1.

So it was sexist and racist... but the poll is only asking if it was racist or progressive.

I am not sure it was either one. That is my point.

That said, I did go ahead and vote "racist", because it certainly had nothing to do with moving toward abolition.

That is, the society was of course racist and sexist and.... However, this amendment made no pronouncement or change. It was purely about whether the south or the north should have more power.

[Night Strike]

That is, the society was of course racist and sexist and.... However, this amendment made no pronouncement or change. It was purely about whether the south or the north should have more power.

Except that the balance of power would determine whether or not slavery would be able to be stopped or not. If the south had gained the balance, slavery would have been around for much longer than it was. The compromise was put in place to make sure the south couldn't become powerful enough to continue slavery indefinitely.

[thegreekdog]

That is, the society was of course racist and sexist and.... However, this amendment made no pronouncement or change. It was purely about whether the south or the north should have more power.

Except that the balance of power would determine whether or not slavery would be able to be stopped or not. If the south had gained the balance, slavery would have been around for much longer than it was. The compromise was put in place to make sure the south couldn't become powerful enough to continue slavery indefinitely.

Also true. So from a purely abstract sense - the 3/5ths rule indirectly brought about an end to slavery because it gave the south less power... I think that makes sense to me right now.

[TheSaxlad]

Just before I run off my big trap on this can someone explain to me. Would the slaves have voted or would their owners vote for them?

[thegreekdog]

Just before I run off my big trap on this can someone explain to me. Would the slaves have voted or would their owners vote for them?

Neither. Slaves were not permitted to vote. Slave owners did not "vote for their slaves." Per person, a southerner's vote counted more than a white male northerner's vote (I think I'm getting that right).

[PLAYER57832]

Every civilization had slaves at some point.

Not true, though most did.

[jimboston]

Here's the f*cking definition:

racism –noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
===

The policy of slavery is racist by definition.

The policy of counting slaves as less-than equal to non-slaves is a subset of slavery.

Therefore the policy is racist.

There may have many reasons why the policy came to be... but the policy itself it by definition racist. There is no f*cking debate here.