Originally Posted by ChomskyOriginally Posted by OrphanSlug
Edit: Really...Im just curious...not being argumentative. OFTEN TIMES...people trot out things like the 3/5th compromise or 'Jim Crow laws' and dont have the first ****ing clue the historical relevance or sometimes even WTF they were about. Like...when they were passed, what 'flag' was flying when it was being discussed, who were the proponents of what, etc....
Last edited by VanceMack; 07-06-15 at 05:49 AM.
The North did not want the slaves counted - because they were property, much as a horse or cow was property.
In fact at the Constitutional Convention, some Northern reps even argued if property could be counted for reapportionment, why not their own horses?
The south wanted full count to beef up their numbers in Congress, which it did -- they just didn't want those same people -- er, property, to vote or to actually have representation.
That would kinda jam up their plans.
It was a compromise - because the southerners said they would not ratify the Constitution if they could not give their slave property at least 3/5ths representation in Congress.
Without giving them representation. They used their slaves as hostages to the negotiation.
Then the South went on to dominate congress for near all of the first quarter of our history.
Slavery had been abolished in most of the Northern states long before the Civil War.
The only way the South would join the Union in the first place was because the South insisted on keeping their slaves. That dirty compromise was made at the start with the Southerners and the die was cast, the can kicked down the road.
The Industrial Revolution tied up their world deeper and further into slavery and cotton was King.
There's no getting around the fact of just how entrenched they were in their longing to preserve, protect and expand their "peculiar institution."
Some seventy years later they were itching for that war and nothing was going to stop them. Those slaves were theirs, dammit. A republican president who made it clear he would not abolish slavery -- but also would not expand it was all it took.
The South commenced hostilities before that first Republican president ever stepped into office.
Damn shame it had to come to that, but in the end, it was a worthy and noble war because it destroyed slavery once and for all.
It's a wretched indictment of 19th century Americans though, that they had to slaughter each other to do that.
How many more generations should they have endured having their children, and their children's children ripped away from them,
their bodies put up on action blocks and sold like cattle?
their women raped legally by the slavers, most all slaves were whipped, and brutalized...
None legally allowed to be even married. Bred like livestock.
How many more generations to endure not even being citizens in the country they were born in?