Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley claimed Tuesday that the United States has never been a “racist” country, rejecting a suggestion that she might have trouble becoming the GOP president…
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.
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.
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.
Look, I don’t think we disagree about racism in this country or how bad slavery is or that Thomas Jefferson was a slaver jackass. But I am tired of people refusing to learn more about the context of that clause and arguing in favor of the slavers, even inadvertantly.
Counting slaves when they couldn’t vote was bad for slaves while being good for slavers. The South took your stance, that they should count in full. The North took the opposite, largely for political benefit but they happened to also be backing the morally correct position, that slaves shouldn’t count for representation in the House if they can’t vote because it only inflates the power of slavers.
The North first tried to take the stance that if the South wanted slaves to contribute to their House representation, they also counted towards counts for taxation. This clause was the compromise of the South taking on the tax burden of 3/5 of slaves in exchange for 3/5 of the political representation of slaves.
You really shouldn’t be arguing semantics when your first comment is just deadass wrong. The clause doesn’t mention race, period. Frederick Douglass points out very clearly why that is ultimately a benefit for the oppressed black population, giving greater power to states that had free black people. Maybe you shouldn’t be taking a stance against a man who himself escaped slavery. I think he knows what he’s talking about.
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.
You are, because Douglass is literally calling it racist.
I think you should read it again. He’s saying even taking the worst possible interpretation, the clause promotes freedom for slaves.
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”
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.
Yeah, Thomas Jefferson was really anti-slavery. He was well-known for it.
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.
Oh, so he accepted the compromise to preserve the institution of slavery. How pro-freedom.
Look, I don’t think we disagree about racism in this country or how bad slavery is or that Thomas Jefferson was a slaver jackass. But I am tired of people refusing to learn more about the context of that clause and arguing in favor of the slavers, even inadvertantly.
Counting slaves when they couldn’t vote was bad for slaves while being good for slavers. The South took your stance, that they should count in full. The North took the opposite, largely for political benefit but they happened to also be backing the morally correct position, that slaves shouldn’t count for representation in the House if they can’t vote because it only inflates the power of slavers.
The North first tried to take the stance that if the South wanted slaves to contribute to their House representation, they also counted towards counts for taxation. This clause was the compromise of the South taking on the tax burden of 3/5 of slaves in exchange for 3/5 of the political representation of slaves.
You really shouldn’t be arguing semantics when your first comment is just deadass wrong. The clause doesn’t mention race, period. Frederick Douglass points out very clearly why that is ultimately a benefit for the oppressed black population, giving greater power to states that had free black people. Maybe you shouldn’t be taking a stance against a man who himself escaped slavery. I think he knows what he’s talking about.