4 ms·

States that are not historically racist?

bryanrasmussen 5y ago
I don't know that there are states that are not historically racist, but we could assume there are states that are less historically racist than others - states without slavery and large pro-abolition movements might be better situated for historical morality, or states without sundown towns or counties.
- beerandt 5y ago
  Don't forget that most of the states against slavery, were also against those slaves being present in the country at all. It wasn't until war was pretty much inevitable that many, including Lincoln, started to realize that moving towards freedom/equality was the winning move, strategically, practically, and politically. Even after admitting equality was the answer, he still wrote plenty of extremely racist rants about he didn't mean that legal equality didn't mean that the races were ever capable of being equal, etc. The other blatant example that people misinterpret is the 3/5 compromise in the constitution. It often gets framed that the slave states valued slaves lives as less (3/5) than free persons, but remember that the northern states that were against slavery were also against counting slaves as constitutional persons at all: they wanted 0/5s.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > It often gets framed that the slave states valued slaves lives as less (3/5) than free persons, but remember that the northern states that were against slavery were also against counting slaves as constitutional persons at all: they wanted 0/5s. This actually gets the 3/5 compromise wrong worse than the view it (correctly) points to as being wrong. The 3/5 compromise isn’t about “constitutional personhood” of slaves at all. The southern states actually wanted 5/5 (which they ended up after the war, when they replaced chattel slavery with penal slavery) and the northern states wanted 0/5 — which is how 3/5 was a “compromise” — because the issue wasn’t about how much legal personhood slaves were granted (which was zero and not being negotiated), it was about how much voting power in the federal government the people allowed to vote in slave states got as a bonus for having them in bondage. The position of the northern states was “if you keep humans in a condition where they are legally something like livestock or industrial machines, you don’t get any more extra votes for having them than you would for livestock or industrial machines.”
    - beerandt 5y ago
      I'm not saying the south had the moral high-ground, just that this is proof that the north didn't hold it either. Yes- they (the south) wanted slaves to be counted 5/5 for apportionment for the purposes of representation. I'm not sure how that's getting it backwards. Women and children at the time had a similar "be counted, but don't get to vote" status. My point is that the north wasn't being altruistic with a lot of slavery/ equality issues, but ruthlessly political. And that being anti-slavery at the time definitely didn't (necessarily) mean being pro-abolition (even if they labeled themselves abolitionists), or even anti-racist (not by the standards of the time and definitely not by the standards of today), which is how it's now often framed. And what the comment I was replying to implied. Northern states being "anti-slavery" was not the evidence of moral high-ground that people give them credit for.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > I’m not saying the south had the moral high-ground, just that this is proof that the north didn’t hold it either. How is insisting that slave owners don’t also get bonus votes for holding slaves prove that? There are certainly arguments that the North was far from perfect on race issues (though I don’t think any of them come anywhere close to an argument that they didn’t have the moral high ground on racial issues compared to the South), but “didn’t give in to a demand that the South made specifically to secure the long-term future of slavery” is…not one of them.
      - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
        I'm pretty sure that anti-slavery was always taken to mean we don't want people to have slaves, not that we want you to have slaves but not get extra votes because of it.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    >the northern states that were against slavery were also against counting slaves as constitutional persons at all: they wanted 0/5s You're saying that 0/5ths was more racist than 3/5ths? That makes no sense, because the benefit of being counted was being given to the slave owners. I don't see any ambiguity or subjectivity here.
    - beerandt 5y ago
      Because at the time, basically only white land owners were voting. They were definitely the only ones putting the choices on the ballot. There wasn't any concern from the north over women, children, or (tax-paying) indians being denied voting rights, yet still being counted for apportionment. No, slaves didn't enjoy the same level of rights as those groups, but this also wasn't about voting power being synonymous with apportionment numbers. It was a politically convenient power grab, not an altruistic hill-to-die-on.
      - perl4ever 5y ago
        There's nothing anti-racist about 0/5ths vs. 3/5ths, that's true. But I never heard anyone claim that so I don't know why it's worth refuting.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  I'm no historical expert, but northern states didn't altogether welcome the great migration north.

I don't know that there are states that are not historically racist, but we could assume there are states that are less historically racist than others - states without slavery and large pro-abolition movements might be better situated for historical morality, or states without sundown towns or counties.

beerandt 5y ago
Don't forget that most of the states against slavery, were also against those slaves being present in the country at all. It wasn't until war was pretty much inevitable that many, including Lincoln, started to realize that moving towards freedom/equality was the winning move, strategically, practically, and politically. Even after admitting equality was the answer, he still wrote plenty of extremely racist rants about he didn't mean that legal equality didn't mean that the races were ever capable of being equal, etc. The other blatant example that people misinterpret is the 3/5 compromise in the constitution. It often gets framed that the slave states valued slaves lives as less (3/5) than free persons, but remember that the northern states that were against slavery were also against counting slaves as constitutional persons at all: they wanted 0/5s.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > It often gets framed that the slave states valued slaves lives as less (3/5) than free persons, but remember that the northern states that were against slavery were also against counting slaves as constitutional persons at all: they wanted 0/5s. This actually gets the 3/5 compromise wrong worse than the view it (correctly) points to as being wrong. The 3/5 compromise isn’t about “constitutional personhood” of slaves at all. The southern states actually wanted 5/5 (which they ended up after the war, when they replaced chattel slavery with penal slavery) and the northern states wanted 0/5 — which is how 3/5 was a “compromise” — because the issue wasn’t about how much legal personhood slaves were granted (which was zero and not being negotiated), it was about how much voting power in the federal government the people allowed to vote in slave states got as a bonus for having them in bondage. The position of the northern states was “if you keep humans in a condition where they are legally something like livestock or industrial machines, you don’t get any more extra votes for having them than you would for livestock or industrial machines.”
  - beerandt 5y ago
    I'm not saying the south had the moral high-ground, just that this is proof that the north didn't hold it either. Yes- they (the south) wanted slaves to be counted 5/5 for apportionment for the purposes of representation. I'm not sure how that's getting it backwards. Women and children at the time had a similar "be counted, but don't get to vote" status. My point is that the north wasn't being altruistic with a lot of slavery/ equality issues, but ruthlessly political. And that being anti-slavery at the time definitely didn't (necessarily) mean being pro-abolition (even if they labeled themselves abolitionists), or even anti-racist (not by the standards of the time and definitely not by the standards of today), which is how it's now often framed. And what the comment I was replying to implied. Northern states being "anti-slavery" was not the evidence of moral high-ground that people give them credit for.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > I’m not saying the south had the moral high-ground, just that this is proof that the north didn’t hold it either. How is insisting that slave owners don’t also get bonus votes for holding slaves prove that? There are certainly arguments that the North was far from perfect on race issues (though I don’t think any of them come anywhere close to an argument that they didn’t have the moral high ground on racial issues compared to the South), but “didn’t give in to a demand that the South made specifically to secure the long-term future of slavery” is…not one of them.
    - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
      I'm pretty sure that anti-slavery was always taken to mean we don't want people to have slaves, not that we want you to have slaves but not get extra votes because of it.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  >the northern states that were against slavery were also against counting slaves as constitutional persons at all: they wanted 0/5s You're saying that 0/5ths was more racist than 3/5ths? That makes no sense, because the benefit of being counted was being given to the slave owners. I don't see any ambiguity or subjectivity here.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    Because at the time, basically only white land owners were voting. They were definitely the only ones putting the choices on the ballot. There wasn't any concern from the north over women, children, or (tax-paying) indians being denied voting rights, yet still being counted for apportionment. No, slaves didn't enjoy the same level of rights as those groups, but this also wasn't about voting power being synonymous with apportionment numbers. It was a politically convenient power grab, not an altruistic hill-to-die-on.
    - perl4ever 5y ago
      There's nothing anti-racist about 0/5ths vs. 3/5ths, that's true. But I never heard anyone claim that so I don't know why it's worth refuting.
perl4ever 5y ago
I'm no historical expert, but northern states didn't altogether welcome the great migration north.