Slaves Counted as 3/5

[PLAYER57832]

I'm getting extremely frustrated here.

Which is more likely to result in the freeing of slaves:

(1) Southerners having less voting power.
(2) Southerners having more voting power.

Which is more likely to result in southerners having less voting power:

(1) Slaves count as one person.
(2) Slaves count as 3/5ths of a person.

The answers are (1) and (2).

Except #1 was not seriously considered. It was put forward by the south. If it had been seriously considered, it might have actually led to true civil rights earlier. I am sure it would not have taken long for enterprising lawyers to decide that being counted in a census meant you had real worth, for example.

So, the real analysis is:

Blacks get no count for census --- north outstrips south in the House of Representatives Plantation owners are on more or less "equal" footing within southern states with poorer whites.

Blacks get 3/5 count for census -- southern plantation owners (specifically) get more representation in the House and, to some extent, even in the Senate. (the power in the Senate increases within the state, not between states).

Blacks get counted as a full person -- mute,because it was not seriously considered. Would have given souther plantation owners even more power, but the impact of that might have been diverse. Poor southerners would have had even less power. Might have increased the divide between the south and north more quickly, might have lead to earlier abolitionist type movements as northerners attempted to get the black power moved north (similar to how Lincoln thought black slaves would revolt and join the union army). Or ???

[thegreekdog]

Edited for jimboston's lawyer-like post:

Which is more likely to result in the freeing of slaves:

(1) White Southerners having less voting power.
(2) White Southerners having more voting power.

Which is more likely to result in white southerners having less voting power:

(1) Slaves count as one person.
(2) Slaves count as 3/5ths of a person.

The answers are (1) and (2).

I'm still arguing jb...

[jimboston]

YOU KNOW...

all three of us still arguing this agree it was racist.

Player is arguing with herself about the power thingy... which Greek and I agree on.

The only Greek and I are really still arguing about is how to define the word "step".

[TheSaxlad]

I never said it wasn't a racist concept. I just don't think the intent of those putting the amendment forward was racism, it was greed. The racism was integral to society as a whole.

How was racism integral to a society? It was integral to the southern man keeping his power. But society, surely thats going a bit far?

[jimboston]

I never said it wasn't a racist concept. I just don't think the intent of those putting the amendment forward was racism, it was greed. The racism was integral to society as a whole.

How was racism integral to a society? It was integral to the southern man keeping his power. But society, surely thats going a bit far?

Listen God... we are just about done arguing here.

No need to complicate matters questioning Player here... you know she doesn't read what she types, and neither do most other people.

So move along please.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm saying that if we had one slave = one person (for purposes of the southern white voting bloc), we'd have had slavery for a longer time (possibly). That's all I'm saying..

Except I thought you were saying that 3/5 was a move toward abolition?

I don't follow your thinking here. Giving blacks a partial census count in no way moves them closer to being considered humanity or closer to freedom. As for the voting block bit, yes, I suppose anything that gave the south more power would have increased the potential for longer slavery. However, it also might just haveincreased the southern-northern divide more quickly and resulted in an earlier civil war.

Remember, the war was faught over the divide. Slavery was sort of "incidental", though integral in the sense that southern power depended upon cheap slave labor.

No... i was NOT saying it was a step towards abolition.

Greek said that.

Uh... I was responding to greekdog, which might be why I quoted him and not you

[TheSaxlad]

I never said it wasn't a racist concept. I just don't think the intent of those putting the amendment forward was racism, it was greed. The racism was integral to society as a whole.

How was racism integral to a society? It was integral to the southern man keeping his power. But society, surely thats going a bit far?

Listen God... we are just about done arguing here.

No need to complicate matters questioning Player here... you know she doesn't read what she types, and neither do most other people.

So move along please.

I mean like, who do you think you are stewie to be like questioning god? eh stewie? eh?

Although reading through this thread I dont think that there is anything that is worth me questioning so with repsect I take your point.

[PLAYER57832]

I never said it wasn't a racist concept. I just don't think the intent of those putting the amendment forward was racism, it was greed. The racism was integral to society as a whole.

How was racism integral to a society? It was integral to the southern man keeping his power. But society, surely thats going a bit far?

Racism was integral to society of the day because people just inherently saw those of other races as "inferior", not quite "human". Some felt there was potential for "education" or religious conversion and partial elevation, but equality.. not even close. Considering such to vocally could literally wind one up in an insane asylum.

[thegreekdog]

YOU KNOW...

all three of us still arguing this agree it was racist.

Player is arguing with herself about the power thingy... which Greek and I agree on.

The only Greek and I are really still arguing about is how to define the word "step".

All I'll say is the same thing I say to every aspiring lawyer - "Do NOT go to law school unless you actually want to be a lawyer (or unless you want to waste your time and money."

[Phatscotty]

This thread is supposed to be more about a failed education system than racism, which I have a hard time comparing racism from 200 years ago to today. I don't think hardly a one of us could even be close in knowing what it was like to be born into a world where someone you know or live by has a plantation or owns slaves. You don't know anything else. The same goes for people born into slavery. They don't know anything else either. It was the system, not the people.

I know it is hard to do, but we really can't compare them to todays standards.

[PLAYER57832]

This thread is supposed to be more about a failed education system than racism, which I have a hard time comparing racism from 200 years ago to today. I don't think hardly a one of us could even be close in knowing what it was like to be born into a world where someone you know or live by has a plantation or owns slaves. You don't know anything else. The same goes for people born into slavery. They don't know anything else either. It was the system, not the people.

This is not a failure. Rather, the fact that we finally did rise above it is an example of the power of good education.

[Woodruff]

This thread is supposed to be more about a failed education system than racism

I agree. Some people seem to have not learned how to recognize basic definitions for words, nor how to look them up in a dictionary. That is absolutely a failed educational system.

I know it is hard to do, but we really can't compare them to todays standards.

Irrelevant, since you are asking people who are living by today's standards for their opinion in a poll.

[PLAYER57832]

Interesting... did not know you could change wording in a poll and still keep the tallies.

[Woodruff]

Interesting... did not know you could change wording in a poll and still keep the tallies.

As well as dishonest, since the wording changes things immensely.

[thegreekdog]

Do you know that you can also allow people to change their votes?

[Woodruff]

Do you know that you can also allow people to change their votes?

But in this poll, it is not allowed...thus my reference to dishonesty.

[thegreekdog]

Do you know that you can also allow people to change their votes?

But in this poll, it is not allowed...thus my reference to dishonesty.

I know... I was saying that PhatScotty could've... nevermind... I was just trying to play along. I'm taking my ball and going home.

[safariguy5]

The problem with pushing the abolition agenda along earlier was that the South probably would have won. The North was able to win based on it's industrialization, immigration, and transport network. A earlier timeline would have erased those advantages.

[stahrgazer]

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.

Not necessarily; not all slaves in human pasts were based on race. Some were based on gender (ottomans and their harems); some were based on finances (bonded servants).

Even African slaves began by being conquered by neighboring villages or warriors traveling from other clans; then selling their captives. If a black man enslaves a black man (such as this) or a white man enslaves a white man (such as the bonded servants) - is that racist?

Not really.

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.

No. The policy of counting slaves as less-than-equal to non-slaves could be seen as a policy of counting non-voters as less-than-equal to voters; not necessarily racist.

Nor was it an "inhumane policy" to count them as something... it was more humane to count them as something than to count them as cattle, which is what "pure slavery" does. Changing the poll midstream is ridiculous, you're trying to force ppl into voting the way you think they should have, rather than seeing what their ideas are.

Besides, in the case of many bonded servants, it improved their lives. Not all, of course; so, treating a bonded servant or bought slave poorly is inhumane; but that doesn't mean the practice of it or how you count servants/slaves is itself inhumane.

[Phatscotty]

This thread is supposed to be more about a failed education system than racism

I agree. Some people seem to have not learned how to recognize basic definitions for words, nor how to look them up in a dictionary. That is absolutely a failed educational system.

I know it is hard to do, but we really can't compare them to todays standards.

Irrelevant, since you are asking people who are living by today's standards for their opinion in a poll.

comparing standards between centuries (of which no one can truly know) and asking for opinions about factual events (which everyone seems to know) are 2 different things. Now you know this

[Phatscotty]

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.

Not necessarily; not all slaves in human pasts were based on race. Some were based on gender (ottomans and their harems); some were based on finances (bonded servants).

Even African slaves began by being conquered by neighboring villages or warriors traveling from other clans; then selling their captives. If a black man enslaves a black man (such as this) or a white man enslaves a white man (such as the bonded servants) - is that racist?

Not really.

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.

No. The policy of counting slaves as less-than-equal to non-slaves could be seen as a policy of counting non-voters as less-than-equal to voters; not necessarily racist.

Nor was it an "inhumane policy" to count them as something... it was more humane to count them as something than to count them as cattle, which is what "pure slavery" does. Changing the poll midstream is ridiculous, you're trying to force ppl into voting the way you think they should have, rather than seeing what their ideas are.

Besides, in the case of many bonded servants, it improved their lives. Not all, of course; so, treating a bonded servant or bought slave poorly is inhumane; but that doesn't mean the practice of it or how you count servants/slaves is itself inhumane.

yeah well, I was wrong to figure the conversation would not end up on views of the 1700's superimposed by the views on racism of 2011. I have the power to edit it and I did it because it's detracting from the main issue. Guess who decides what the main issue is?

[Woodruff]

This thread is supposed to be more about a failed education system than racism

I agree. Some people seem to have not learned how to recognize basic definitions for words, nor how to look them up in a dictionary. That is absolutely a failed educational system.

I know it is hard to do, but we really can't compare them to todays standards.

Irrelevant, since you are asking people who are living by today's standards for their opinion in a poll.

comparing standards between centuries (of which no one can truly know) and asking for opinions about factual events (which everyone seems to know) are 2 different things. Now you know this

You're not honestly interested in opinions. You never are. You're only interested in hearing people agree with you.

I have the power to edit it and I did it because it's detracting from the main issue. Guess who decides what the main issue is?

The dishonest one? It wasn't distracting from the main issue at all. You just didn't like the way the conversation was turning out.

[stahrgazer]

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.

Not necessarily; not all slaves in human pasts were based on race. Some were based on gender (ottomans and their harems); some were based on finances (bonded servants).

Even African slaves began by being conquered by neighboring villages or warriors traveling from other clans; then selling their captives. If a black man enslaves a black man (such as this) or a white man enslaves a white man (such as the bonded servants) - is that racist?

Not really.

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.

No. The policy of counting slaves as less-than-equal to non-slaves could be seen as a policy of counting non-voters as less-than-equal to voters; not necessarily racist.

Nor was it an "inhumane policy" to count them as something... it was more humane to count them as something than to count them as cattle, which is what "pure slavery" does. Changing the poll midstream is ridiculous, you're trying to force ppl into voting the way you think they should have, rather than seeing what their ideas are.

Besides, in the case of many bonded servants, it improved their lives. Not all, of course; so, treating a bonded servant or bought slave poorly is inhumane; but that doesn't mean the practice of it or how you count servants/slaves is itself inhumane.

yeah well, I was wrong to figure the conversation would not end up on views of the 1700's superimposed by the views on racism of 2011. I have the power to edit it and I did it because it's detracting from the main issue. Guess who decides what the main issue is?

I have no issue with you trying to refocus.

Your edit just makes your whole thread bogus, though, since your poll no longer reflects my vote.

Changing the poll midstream is ridiculous, you're trying to force ppl into voting the way you think they should have, rather than seeing what their ideas are.

Nothing in this thread - including your own comments - tells me you were seeking discussion of "education" and counting non-voters as "population portion" is neither inhumane nor racist.

Remember, at the time this was occurring, no woman of ANY race could vote. Woman's place was in the kitchen and (they didn't discuss the bedroom back then) and slave's place was similarly in the kitchen, or in the fields. In the case of "forced African immigrants" (i.e., slaves) the first generations spoke insufficient English to show they could be taught, and back then, voting polls weren't in English and Spanish (not that many forced African immigrants knew much Spanish, either.)

That's not racist. It may be bigotry - later generations decided it was bigotry. The policies definitely indicated folks back then were ignorant to believe only white male landowners were smart enough to vote; but (bringing up your education factor, finally) it reflected which of the population was encouraged to learn, encouraged to schooling. While not all white males received much education, that was the segment of the population who was allowed and encouraged to receive the education.

[PLAYER57832]

The policy of slavery is racist by definition.

Not necessarily; not all slaves in human pasts were based on race. Some were based on gender (ottomans and their harems); some were based on finances (bonded servants).

Even African slaves began by being conquered by neighboring villages or warriors traveling from other clans; then selling their captives. If a black man enslaves a black man (such as this) or a white man enslaves a white man (such as the bonded servants) - is that racist?

[/quote]
Yes and no. Many times, people who enslaved others would try to justify it by distinguishing those other groups as inferior in some way, even if we might consider them to be of the "same race".

That said, the whole black slave trade distorted our perceptions of many, many things.

In modern times, we now recognize that race is mostly an artificial factor. It has no real and true bearing any more than any other group of characteristics. This is not just do to "mixing of races", but due to gradations that have always existed.

Similarly, we recognize the extreme power of education and environment and are more likely to see it as independent of "genetics". We still have huge biases. Wealthy kids start out far ahead of non-wealthy kids in many ways. Yet, so much political argument today still tries to refer to "going up by bootstraps" type thinking, "if you don't make it, you haven't worked hard enough". I am not sure how much of that really has to do with slavery, except that we have, as a broad world society, gradually moved away from broad acceptance of slavery.

One thing must be noted, though. Slavery is far from dead. Now, it is largely found in kids working harsh jobs (be it " diving in lakes or sitting at looms or even being a maid from the age of 5-7) and within the sex trade.

Remember, at the time this was occurring, no woman of ANY race could vote. Woman's place was in the kitchen and (they didn't discuss the bedroom back then)

A woman's place was to support men. Sometimes this meant a lot of cooking, cleaning and caring for kids, sure. Those jobs, at the time were fulltime occupations. However, it also might mean pulling a plow, working in a factory or other labor that would hardly fit the definition of "femininity". Yet, women were universally considered "weaker" and "less intelligent".

We can see the hypocrisy now because we have the perspective of time and of seeing alternatives.

[Juan_Bottom]

One thing must be noted, though. Slavery is far from dead. Now, it is largely found in kids working harsh jobs (be it " diving in lakes or sitting at looms or even being a maid from the age of 5-7) and within the sex trade.

And there is always a huge increase in trafficking in Superbowl City. And with the Packers going to the Superbowl this year it could be worse than ever.