• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 个月前

    I’m not sure how quoting a man saying ‘A black man in a free State is worth just two-fifths more than a black man in a slave State,’ proves that the 3/5ths compromise is not racist.

    • doctordevice@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      9 个月前

      Because it’s not the clause that invokes racism, it’s the practice of slavery. The clause, as Douglass points out, promotes freedom.

        • doctordevice@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          9 个月前

          I’m not. I’m objecting to your saying the clause was racist when its very purpose was anti-slavery. Slavery is the thing that is racist.

          I think a Civil War era leader on abolitionism and civil rights would know what he’s talking about when he describes the clause as supporting his cause.

            • doctordevice@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              9 个月前

              I think you should read it again. He’s saying even taking the worst possible interpretation, the clause promotes freedom for slaves.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                9 个月前

                Okay, I’ll read it again.

                Yep, it still says “A black man in a free State is worth just two-fifths more than a black man in a slave State”

                • doctordevice@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 个月前

                  Yeah, because the clause doesn’t distinguish based on race like you said it did. It was on freedom. And it served to limit the political power of slavers.

                  Everyone always brings it up as if the clause was some evil thing when it was in fact a fight against the evil of slavery.