Page 1 of 3 [ 41 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

18 Jan 2011, 9:45 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
And I believe the reason they were classified as 3/5th was so the south would not be able to have disproportionate representation over the free north. The south would of actually wanted slaves to have counted as a "full person".

But they did not want them to vote. To count someone for purposes of apportioning representation when they are not permitted to vote is a flagrant fraud.


Exactly. The 3/5 rules a way of augmenting the white representation of the slave states in Congress. It was a cheat. The entire constitution of 1787 was shot through with compromises and cheats.

ruveyn


Well, it DID augment white representation of slave states in Congress--that much is true. It would have been wrong NOT to account for them at all, though. It wasn't in the best political interests of the Great White North for slaves to be counted at all. The 3/5 compromise was effectively more an anti-slavery measure than a pro-slavery measure.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

18 Jan 2011, 10:55 pm

AngelRho wrote:

Well, it DID augment white representation of slave states in Congress--that much is true. It would have been wrong NOT to account for them at all, though. It wasn't in the best political interests of the Great White North for slaves to be counted at all. The 3/5 compromise was effectively more an anti-slavery measure than a pro-slavery measure.


Oh, those poor, victimized White Southerners.

Always getting the short end of the stick.

What is the point of counting slaves to determine political representation, if the government refuses to recognize them as human beings?

You might as well count pet goldfish.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

18 Jan 2011, 11:06 pm

pandabear wrote:
You might as well count pet goldfish.

The Northern representatives at the Constitutional Convention argued that they might as logically claim representation for their horses.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

19 Jan 2011, 2:26 am

AngelRho wrote:

Well, it DID augment white representation of slave states in Congress--that much is true. It would have been wrong NOT to account for them at all, though. It wasn't in the best political interests of the Great White North for slaves to be counted at all. The 3/5 compromise was effectively more an anti-slavery measure than a pro-slavery measure.


Not so. Anyone who counts in representation should be allowed to vote for his representative.

Each adult slave should have been permitted to cast 3/5 of a vote.

ruveyn



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

19 Jan 2011, 9:28 am

pandabear wrote:
AngelRho wrote:

Well, it DID augment white representation of slave states in Congress--that much is true. It would have been wrong NOT to account for them at all, though. It wasn't in the best political interests of the Great White North for slaves to be counted at all. The 3/5 compromise was effectively more an anti-slavery measure than a pro-slavery measure.


Oh, those poor, victimized White Southerners.

Always getting the short end of the stick.

What is the point of counting slaves to determine political representation, if the government refuses to recognize them as human beings?

You might as well count pet goldfish.


Hold on...

The government DID recognize them as human beings. A slave is not 3/5 of a person. A slave is a whole person. But slaves didn't get a vote; their owners did, and because slaves were human beings--"people" under the law--their owners for all practical purposes represented their interests.

Now, that's how it worked in "principle." I'm not saying slave owners were wonderful people or that slavery is acceptable. I'm just saying that slaves were intended to be represented because they were considered people, too, and their owners were, in effect, their representatives. If they were poor representatives, then it's not unlike our current political atmosphere when you have so many elected officials not really doing what they were elected to do. The only problem is, as recent elections have shown, we can vote out ineffective representatives. If you were a slave, you were stuck whoever you happened to be with.

I personally don't care whether or not you sympathize with the south. As persons recognized by the government, the slaves had the right to representation, at least by their owners. But giving them a full COUNT when they aren't even allowed to vote would have created a disproportionate level of voting power. If slaves weren't even considered persons, you'd have had the opposite problem, with representation for tax purposes favoring the North.

And that's another issue. Taxes. If slaves are merely property and not persons, then they still represent either great wealth or great source of wealth, like business inventory. The North would have had another advantage over the South in that taxation votes would have favored Northern interests, unfairly taxing southern farmers. But if slaves are persons, there is a better chance for the South to balance the vote to better represent their interests for tax purposes.

Alexander Hamilton said, "They are men, though degraded to the condition of slavery. They are persons known to the municipal laws of the states which they inhabit, as well as to the laws of nature."

The government didn't consider them less of a person for being slaves. The issue had to do with not having the right to vote. For the purpose of taxation and representation, the 3/5 compromise was only for counting purposes, not determination of personhood.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

19 Jan 2011, 11:35 am

I'm certain that in the South you were taught to celebrate the Dred Scott decision:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

Quote:
The only relevant question, therefore, was whether, at the time the Constitution was ratified, Scott could have been considered a citizen of any state within the meaning of Article III. According to the Court, the authors of the Constitution had viewed all blacks as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.


I don't think that slaveowners ever intended to look after the political interests of their slaves--either in principle or otherwise.

At the time, American Indians were counted at all for apportionment purposes. What about their supposed interests?



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

19 Jan 2011, 12:36 pm

It looks like, initially, Africans imported into America had similar treatment to indentured servants from the British Isles. Gradually, laws were made to discriminate against Africans and others, particularly as the African slave trade eventually boomed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_codes

Quote:
Definition of "slaves"

Virginia, 1662
“Whereas some doubts have arisen whether children got by any Englishmen upon a Negro shall be slave or Free, Be it therefore enacted and declared by this present Grand assembly, that all children born in this country shall be held bond or free only according to the condition of the mother."

Maryland, 1664
“That whatsoever free-born [English] woman shall intermarry with any slave [...] shall serve the master of such slave during the life of her husband; and that all the issue of such free-born women, so married shall be slaves as their fathers were.”

Virginia, 1667
“Act III. Whereas some doubts have arisen whether children that are slaves by birth [...] should by virtue of their baptism be made free, it is enacted that baptism does not alter the condition to the person as to his bondage or freedom; masters freed from this doubt may more carefully propagate Christianity by permitting slaves to be admitted to that sacrament.”

Virginia, 1682
“Act I. It is enacted that all servants [...] which shall be imported into this country either by sea or by land, whether Negroes, Moors [Muslim North Africans], mulattoes or Indians who and whose parentage and native countries are not Christian at the time of their first purchase by some Christian [...] and all Indians, which shall be sold by our neighboring Indians, or any other trafficking with us for slaves, are hereby adjudged, deemed and taken to be slaves to all intents and purposes any law, usage, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Virginia, 1705
"All servants imported and brought into the Country...who were not Christians in their native Country...shall be accounted and be slaves. All Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves within this dominion...shall be held to be real estate."

South Carolina, 1712
"Be it therefore enacted, by his Excellency, William, Lord Craven, Palatine.... and the rest of the members of the General Assembly, now met at Charles Town, for the South-west part of this Province, and by the authority of the same, That all negroes, mulatoes, mestizoes or Indians, which at any time heretofore have been sold, or now are held or taken to be, or hereafter shall be bought and sold for slaves, are hereby declared slaves; and they, and their children, are hereby made and declared slaves...."



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

19 Jan 2011, 3:24 pm

pandabear wrote:
I'm certain that in the South you were taught to celebrate the Dred Scott decision:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

Quote:
The only relevant question, therefore, was whether, at the time the Constitution was ratified, Scott could have been considered a citizen of any state within the meaning of Article III. According to the Court, the authors of the Constitution had viewed all blacks as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.


I don't think that slaveowners ever intended to look after the political interests of their slaves--either in principle or otherwise.

At the time, American Indians were counted at all for apportionment purposes. What about their supposed interests?


Not really. I'm a scallywag Republican. The compromise goes all the way back to the Articles of Confederation, predating the Constitution AND Dred Scott.

Quote:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons


All other PERSONS.

The Dred Scott decision had nothing to do with this definition. Yes, it was discriminatory. Yes, it reflected a predominantly racist attitude of the Court. But an "inferior person" is still a person, nonetheless. That's all I'm saying.

And don't go on assuming I'm a racist just because I live in the South. That is an unfair and broad generalization which no longer applies as it did even 30 years ago.

If you say EVERYONE in the south is a racist, then you're plainly ignoring those more "open-minded" people over in the Democratic People's Republic of Chapel Hill. The only hatred they're capable of is directed against conservative Christian types, and they're in North Carolina, i.e. the South.

Anyway...

Now, did the slave owners really look out for slave interests? Obviously not. But there are plenty of examples in our day and time that our elected officials aren't representing us, but we haven't come anywhere close to abolishing Congress, have we? These laws only work when people are doing what they're SUPPOSED to be doing. If you MUST accept slavery as an institution, you must treat them fairly or free them. History, in my opinion, shows the abolition of slavery to be more conducive to the growth and progress of humanity than forced labor. I also think involuntary servitude is perfectly acceptable punishment for crime, but even that should not extend past a specified period of time (not more than a few years). I think incarceration has simply become a convenient way out.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

19 Jan 2011, 6:53 pm

Here is the famous speech written by Senator John C. Calhoun, who regarded slavery as a "positive good."

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/libr ... ocument=71

Quote:
However sound the great body of the non�slaveholding States are at present, in the course of a few years they will be succeeded by those who will have been taught to hate the people and institutions of nearly one-half of this Union, with a hatred more deadly than one hostile nation ever entertained towards another. It is easy to see the end. By the necessary course of events, if left to themselves, we must become, finally, two people. It is impossible under the deadly hatred which must spring up between the two great nations, if the present causes are permitted to operate unchecked, that we should continue under the same political system. The conflicting elements would burst the Union asunder, powerful as are the links which hold it together. Abolition and the Union cannot coexist. As the friend of the Union I openly proclaim it�and the sooner it is known the better. The former may now be controlled, but in a short time it will be beyond the power of man to arrest the course of events. We of the South will not, cannot, surrender our institutions. To maintain the existing relations between the two races, inhabiting that section of the Union, is indispensable to the peace and happiness of both. It cannot be subverted without drenching the country or the other of the races. . . . But let me not be understood as admitting, even by implication, that the existing relations between the two races in the slaveholding States is an evil:�far otherwise; I hold it to be a good, as it has thus far proved itself to be to both, and will continue to prove so if not disturbed by the fell spirit of abolition. I appeal to facts. Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually.

In the meantime, the white or European race, has not degenerated. It has kept pace with its brethren in other sections of the Union where slavery does not exist. It is odious to make comparison; but I appeal to all sides whether the South is not equal in virtue, intelligence, patriotism, courage, disinterestedness, and all the high qualities which adorn our nature.

But I take higher ground. I hold that in the present state of civilization, where two races of different origin, and distinguished by color, and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought together, the relation now existing in the slaveholding States between the two, is, instead of an evil, a good�a positive good. I feel myself called upon to speak freely upon the subject where the honor and interests of those I represent are involved. I hold then, that there never has yet existed a wealthy and civilized society in which one portion of the community did not, in point of fact, live on the labor of the other. Broad and general as is this assertion, it is fully borne out by history. This is not the proper occasion, but, if it were, it would not be difficult to trace the various devices by which the wealth of all civilized communities has been so unequally divided, and to show by what means so small a share has been allotted to those by whose labor it was produced, and so large a share given to the non-producing classes. The devices are almost innumerable, from the brute force and gross superstition of ancient times, to the subtle and artful fiscal contrivances of modern. I might well challenge a comparison between them and the more direct, simple, and patriarchal mode by which the labor of the African race is, among us, commanded by the European. I may say with truth, that in few countries so much is left to the share of the laborer, and so little exacted from him, or where there is more kind attention paid to him in sickness or infirmities of age. Compare his condition with the tenants of the poor houses in the more civilized portions of Europe�look at the sick, and the old and infirm slave, on one hand, in the midst of his family and friends, under the kind superintending care of his master and mistress, and compare it with the forlorn and wretched condition of the pauper in the poorhouse. But I will not dwell on this aspect of the question; I turn to the political; and here I fearlessly assert that the existing relation between the two races in the South, against which these blind fanatics are waging war, forms the most solid and durable foundation on which to rear free and stable political institutions. It is useless to disguise the fact. There is and always has been in an advanced stage of wealth and civilization, a conflict between labor and capital. The condition of society in the South exempts us from the disorders and dangers resulting from this conflict; and which explains why it is that the political condition of the slaveholding States has been so much more stable and quiet than that of the North


He raises a few valid points. For example, I remember reading an account of some Irish labourers working together with Black American slaves. The Irish labourers were given much more dangerous tasks to perform, because, if an Irishman died or was injured, it was no big deal--he could be easily replaced. A slave who became handicapped, however, would cause an economic hardship to the owner--the slave's resale value at the auction would have plummetted.

Still, in the South, they made it illegal even to teach a slave to read. Also, once President Jackson removed the American Indian population from the South, and Whites moved in to take over the land, they turned to cotton production, which was very labour intensive. The result was millions of slaves being sold and transported to the Deep South, where life expectancy for slaves was quite brief. There were doubtless some kind masters who would take care of slaves in their old age. Probably some others who would either kill them outright or find some means of hastening death.



Salonfilosoof
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,184

19 Jan 2011, 7:05 pm

pandabear wrote:
Well, here is another article on the subject:

http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/460/27/

I suspect that there were probably a number of White children and orphans who were kidnapped and sold into slavery.

A good-looking white slave might fetch a high price as a sex slave.


I may be wrong, but it seems that White people were considered genetically superior to Blacks and using Black slave labor was considered not very different from putting an animal in front of a cart. Considering this and the dominant Christian mentallity of the time, I highly doubt that White slaves and especially White sex slaves were common or acceptable.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

19 Jan 2011, 7:37 pm

The Quadroon Girl, by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow:

Quote:
The Slaver in the broad lagoon
Lay moored with idle sail;
He waited for the rising moon,
And for the evening gale.

Under the shore his boat was tied,
And all her listless crew
Watched the gray alligator slide
Into the still bayou.

Odors of orange-flowers, and spice,
Reached them from time to time,
Like airs that breathe from Paradise
Upon a world of crime.

The Planter, under his roof of thatch,
Smoked thoughtfully and slow;
The Slaver's thumb was on the latch,
He seemed in haste to go.

He said, "My ship at anchor rides
In yonder broad lagoon;
I only wait the evening tides,
And the rising of the moon."

Before them, with her face upraised,
In timid attitude,
Like one half curious, half amazed,
A Quadroon maiden stood.

Her eyes were large, and full of light,
Her arms and neck were bare;
No garment she wore save a kirtle bright,
And her own long, raven hair.

And on her lips there played a smile
As holy, meek, and faint,
As lights in some cathedral aisle
The features of a saint.

"The soil is barren,--the farm is old,"
The thoughtful planter said;
Then looked upon the Slaver's gold,
And then upon the maid.

His heart within him was at strife
With such accurséd gains:
For he knew whose passions gave her life,
Whose blood ran in her veins.

But the voice of nature was too weak;
He took the glittering gold!
Then pale as death grew the maiden's cheek,
Her hands as icy cold.

The Slaver led her from the door,
He led her by the hand,
To be his slave and paramour
In a strange and distant land!



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

19 Jan 2011, 7:54 pm

Here is another interesting article on White slaves in the South:

http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/460/27/



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

19 Jan 2011, 10:34 pm

jeez it sucks, that poem having been written.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

19 Jan 2011, 10:58 pm

Salonfilosoof wrote:
I may be wrong, but it seems that White people were considered genetically superior to Blacks and using Black slave labor was considered not very different from putting an animal in front of a cart. Considering this and the dominant Christian mentallity of the time, I highly doubt that White slaves and especially White sex slaves were common or acceptable.


http://books.google.com/books?id=Qu5zll ... &q&f=false

Quote:
In the states where slavery is allowed, the system cannot fail to prove disagreeable to the European immigrant; he cannot view without disgust, the sale of the human species, as if they were cattle. If an immigrant has a number of boys in his family, for him to reside in a slave-holding state would be highly injudicious, provided he regards the preservation of their morals. Where marriage is lightly esteemed, and where a boy is continually observing a free intercourse between white men and coloured females; such is the influence of example, that if his morals are preserved, it will be next to a miracle. In some Southern States, even the White Female is neglected, and the men lavish their caresses upon the Black or Mulatto.



Salonfilosoof
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,184

19 Jan 2011, 11:07 pm

pandabear wrote:
Salonfilosoof wrote:
I may be wrong, but it seems that White people were considered genetically superior to Blacks and using Black slave labor was considered not very different from putting an animal in front of a cart. Considering this and the dominant Christian mentallity of the time, I highly doubt that White slaves and especially White sex slaves were common or acceptable.


http://books.google.com/books?id=Qu5zll ... &q&f=false

Quote:
In the states where slavery is allowed, the system cannot fail to prove disagreeable to the European immigrant; he cannot view without disgust, the sale of the human species, as if they were cattle. If an immigrant has a number of boys in his family, for him to reside in a slave-holding state would be highly injudicious, provided he regards the preservation of their morals. Where marriage is lightly esteemed, and where a boy is continually observing a free intercourse between white men and coloured females; such is the influence of example, that if his morals are preserved, it will be next to a miracle. In some Southern States, even the White Female is neglected, and the men lavish their caresses upon the Black or Mulatto.


Can you explain how my statement and your quote are related? Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see it.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

19 Jan 2011, 11:18 pm

Southern men did actively engage in coitus with their female slaves, and by such unions did produce offspring which were their property. Because they were slaves, Southerners called them "Black" or "Mulatto" as a means of easing the conscience, but many were, in fact, White.