It all comes down to people being owned as property and then being further exploited for political power that would enable the continued ownership of them and their children and their grandchildren as property.
-
-
Show this thread
-
"The 3/5s compromise was actually a pretty good deal" makes no sense in a world where NO SLAVERY WAS ALSO A POSSIBILITY.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Are they TRYING to make Kevin Kruse’s head explode? Jaysus.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
It increased the power of slaveholders! No factory owner in the north got to count even a small fraction of their property to increase the voting power of their state. That the benefit could have been increased yet further doesn't mean it wasn't a massive benefit to slave owners.
- Show replies
-
-
-
No one is saying it was a good deal, but the fact that it was a “compromise” shows there were anti-slave forces active in the earliest parts of American history and they were at least 67% as powerful as the the slave forces.
-
Ok, some idiots have said it was a good deal, but they’re wrong.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
It should come as no shock that he's also trying to both-sides what's happening in Minnesota.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Frederick Douglass: “instead of encouraging slavery, the Constitution encourages freedom by giving an increase of “two-fifths” of political power to free over slave States. So much for the three-fifths clause; taking it at is worst, it still leans to freedom, not slavery”
-
That's an interesting thought, but it didn't appear to work that way.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
Language, Linguistics, Politics, History, & Cats. Way too willing to go down a rabbit hole. She/her