• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    He also points out it’s about black people. Why are you ignoring that part when you quoted it?

    • doctordevice@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I’m not. I’m objecting to your saying the clause was racist when its very purpose was anti-slavery. Slavery is the thing that is racist.

      I think a Civil War era leader on abolitionism and civil rights would know what he’s talking about when he describes the clause as supporting his cause.

        • doctordevice@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          I think you should read it again. He’s saying even taking the worst possible interpretation, the clause promotes freedom for slaves.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Okay, I’ll read it again.

            Yep, it still says “A black man in a free State is worth just two-fifths more than a black man in a slave State”

            • doctordevice@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Yeah, because the clause doesn’t distinguish based on race like you said it did. It was on freedom. And it served to limit the political power of slavers.

              Everyone always brings it up as if the clause was some evil thing when it was in fact a fight against the evil of slavery.

                • doctordevice@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  You realize you’re taking his side on this argument, right? He argued against this clause since it hurt the South, he wanted slaves to count in full so it would bolster the political power of slave owners. Accepting it was his compromise in order to also lower the tax burden of slave states.