2 ms·

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 cou

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.