Re:Amazon suspends Black Lives Matter from its charity platform
by dragonwriter on Saturday February 19, 2022 @03:10AM
(#30395298)
> I have often had people point to the 3/5's clause in the constitution as an example of racism.
Because it is.
> They don't understand that is was the abolitionist that fought for that
No, they didn't.
Abolitionists fought for...abolition. But there weren't many around among the Framers.
People who were neither slavers nor politically allied with them (but also not abolitionists in any substantial sense fought for slaves not to count for apportionment.
> the slave owners wanted all slaves to be counted as whole persons,
That's true, but no one fought for the 3/5 compromise. That’s why it's called a “compromise”. And it's closer to the position of the racist slaveholders than that of the also racist, but less so, people who were fine with slavery existing but against giving extra votes to slaveholders (by exactly the degree that 3/5 is closer to 1 than 0.)
Splitting the difference between racist, slavery accepting factions, in a way which favors the more racist one is, well, pretty racist.
Because it is.
> They don't understand that is was the abolitionist that fought for that
No, they didn't.
Abolitionists fought for...abolition. But there weren't many around among the Framers.
People who were neither slavers nor politically allied with them (but also not abolitionists in any substantial sense fought for slaves not to count for apportionment.
> the slave owners wanted all slaves to be counted as whole persons,
That's true, but no one fought for the 3/5 compromise. That’s why it's called a “compromise”. And it's closer to the position of the racist slaveholders than that of the also racist, but less so, people who were fine with slavery existing but against giving extra votes to slaveholders (by exactly the degree that 3/5 is closer to 1 than 0.)
Splitting the difference between racist, slavery accepting factions, in a way which favors the more racist one is, well, pretty racist.