4 ms·
>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 w
by 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 agoBecause 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 agoThere'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.