• Flying Squid
    link
    510 months ago

    He also points out it’s about black people. Why are you ignoring that part when you quoted it?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -2
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I’m not. I’m objecting to your saying the clause was racist when its very purpose was anti-slavery. Slavery is the thing that is racist.

      I think a Civil War era leader on abolitionism and civil rights would know what he’s talking about when he describes the clause as supporting his cause.

      • Flying Squid
        link
        410 months ago

        You are, because Douglass is literally calling it racist.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          010 months ago

          I think you should read it again. He’s saying even taking the worst possible interpretation, the clause promotes freedom for slaves.

          • Flying Squid
            link
            410 months ago

            Okay, I’ll read it again.

            Yep, it still says “A black man in a free State is worth just two-fifths more than a black man in a slave State”

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              010 months ago

              Yeah, because the clause doesn’t distinguish based on race like you said it did. It was on freedom. And it served to limit the political power of slavers.

              Everyone always brings it up as if the clause was some evil thing when it was in fact a fight against the evil of slavery.

              • Flying Squid
                link
                110 months ago

                Yeah, Thomas Jefferson was really anti-slavery. He was well-known for it.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  110 months ago

                  You realize you’re taking his side on this argument, right? He argued against this clause since it hurt the South, he wanted slaves to count in full so it would bolster the political power of slave owners. Accepting it was his compromise in order to also lower the tax burden of slave states.

                  • Flying Squid
                    link
                    110 months ago

                    Oh, so he accepted the compromise to preserve the institution of slavery. How pro-freedom.