White Slavery in the Southern States
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
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.
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.
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
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
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.
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
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?
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
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
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
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.
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.
Here is the famous speech written by Senator John C. Calhoun, who regarded slavery as a "positive good."
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/libr ... ocument=71
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.
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.
The Quadroon Girl, by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow:
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!
Here is another interesting article on White slaves in the South:
http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/460/27/
http://books.google.com/books?id=Qu5zll ... &q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=Qu5zll ... &q&f=false
Can you explain how my statement and your quote are related? Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see it.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
911 outages in 4 states |
18 Apr 2024, 11:38 am |
Tik Tok will be banned by the United States again. |
12 Mar 2024, 4:12 am |
Do you often tell white lies about your life? |
15 Apr 2024, 6:50 pm |
White nationalist wins Oklahoma council election |
19 Mar 2024, 3:45 pm |