Skip to main content

View Diary: Cuccinelli's running mate defended three-fifths clause as 'anti-slavery' (91 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  How could it (0+ / 0-)

    be anti-slavery in effect when it strengthened the South's position? The default position was not to have slaves count at all, since they were property. The proponents of slavery got the better part of the compromise. They won.

    •  Perhaps you missed this: (0+ / 0-)

      Even more offensive, a nonperson clause would have ensured the demise of slavery even sooner.

      Ceterum censeo Factionem Republicanam esse delendam.

      by journeyman on Fri May 24, 2013 at 05:36:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A nonperson (0+ / 0-)

        clause wouldn't have been more offensive, under the circumstances.

        •  I believe that's Jackson's point. (0+ / 0-)

          Don't get me wrong, I think he's as crazy as they come. It just so happens that in this case, he is correct. If blacks had been counted as full persons, it would have been worse, politically speaking. If they had been counted as nonpersons, it would have been better, again, politically speaking. Three-fifths of a person was politically preferable to full persons, as philosophically and rhetorically disgusting as that may be. I believe that was Jackson's essential point, and insofar as that goes, I contend his analysis is fundamentally sound. That allowed, I'm sure that you and I are agreed that this bickering over fractions would be superfluous if it were not for the atrocity of legal slavery, which will forever be a stain on American history.

          Ceterum censeo Factionem Republicanam esse delendam.

          by journeyman on Fri May 24, 2013 at 07:28:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site