The slaves didn't request that their 'masters' did to secure more political power.
@higheena, Well, their masters wanted them to count as one whole person, vastly increasing the South’s good ol’ boys’ voting power. To curb this, the North put the 3/5 rule into effect.
@higheena, soy is right here. North sacrificed slaves personhood for power.
Slave holders wanted slaves to count as whole people so that their states would have more representation in Congress. Abolitionists didn’t want slaves to count as people at all so that they could out vote the slave states. The 3/5th compromise worked in the abolitionists’ favor over the long run, and put the civil war off for several critical decades. If you think the 3/5th compromise is racist, you’re probably the same kind of dumbass who gets all their news from reading headlines
The Three-Fifths Compromise is not racist.
Change my mind.
@That one lurker, bottle
@AlyciaFear, your random comment was both incoherent and a small brain play. I'm not convinced.
edit: I now have learned what the bottle meme is. I move to change my insult to calling this gentleman a boomer for using a ten year old meme.
@That one lurker,
As a history major, at the time it was considered revolutionary to consider an AA a person. Now, considering everything. Its deeply offensive, also considering it was used as a ploy to have more state representation for sparse population.
@timofborg, yes, I agree. And in that historical context is were form this opinion. The entire way it was set up was a catch-22. Saying yes what allows slave-owners to get controlled votes, possibly reinstituting slavery laws. While voting no would have kick stared the Civil war early, possibly giving the South a better footing when it came to making allies. Since they would be on the side of "civil rights".
That's why I assert that the Three-Fifths Compromise had no malice and its construction. Without the intent to make One race above another or vice versa, it shouldn't be viewed as racist.
@timofborg, look i agree with you but no one gives two fvcks if you personally find it offensive.
@That one lurker, you picked a dumb place to put down a weird soapbox.
@That one lurker, I don't know what you're on about xD, I literally just picked a random word and posted it lol
@AlyciaFear, the meme's kind of cute. But I see why it's dead.
@ThePandaPool , who talks about the 3/5 compromise? When will be the next time this comes up?
@AlyciaFear, wtf does bottle mean?
@That one lurker, it literally considered black slaves to not be the same worth as a white person. How is that not racist?
@K1l, the slave owners didn't see them as pe opl. They saw them as tools. They tried to give their tools the right to vote, in the hopes that later on they could get more tools. The north saw these tools as people, that's what the slave owners wanted. Either to have the north to go against their own principles or to bully them with those principles. If the north outright said no, the south would have seceded under the cause of civil rights. The only reason why the Civil War was so short was because Lincoln declared that the war was over slavery, forcing the south to stand alone. This is why it's cold the Three-Fifths Compromise. It was not instituted to say one race was better than another or vice versa. It was put in place because the country was fracturing.
Granted, that is unless you could bring up evidence to the contrary.
@That one lurker, Declaring that a race does not have the same worth as another is racist, by definition.
@K1l, but that's the thing, they didn't declare a race of people. It was over free people and people in servitude, specifically. A british butler was counted the same as, the scullery maid, the wet nurse, and the slave. It was over a classification, not a race.
@That one lurker, nearly 40% of black men are felons and thusly cannot vote. So the 3/5 compromise was just another example of how the founders were visionaries
@BigJohnson86, oof, the hottest take.
@That one lurker, I do my best to stir the pot With facts that have no real bearing but are close enough to drive my opponents insane trying to find a counter argument. I had a professor in college that referred to this power as weaponized statistics and he’d never seen anyone argue like that. I once proved he was a racist by his stance on gun control this was a calculus class btw
@That one lurker, American slavery in particular was racist. By technicality, yes the 3/5 compromise was on a class of people, but the entire class was made up of a singular race.
American slavery was racist. Any bill/law that justified or said that slavery was okay, was racist.
Come on, this is like textbook definition of racism.
@Not him again, I have no idea.
@K1l, the compromise had no opinion on slavery. It was talking about taxes and representations. It affected people that where slaves. It didn't effect any freed slave. It was not about their race.
Yes, but actually, no.