Dr. Rice, in her confirmation hearings, just made reference to the old chestnut (frequently touted by race-baiters like Jackson and Sharpton) about her ancestors being worth "3/5 of a person." Condi, of all people, I'd expect you to know better: The 3/5 compromise was meant to be favorable to slaves. If measuring the value of a person was absolute, the slaveowners would be looked on favorably- after all, they wanted to count their slaves as a full person (without letting them vote), while the Northerners wanted to count them as zero.
1 comment:
I don't think they were taking the slaves' feelings into account. It was more of a representation vs. taxation compromise. The slave states wanted to count the slaves in their population so they would get more representation in Congress, but didn't want them to be counted for tax purposes. The non-slave states wanted it the other way around. It had nothing to do with the rights or feelings of the slaves, and didn't benefit them either. As they weren't allowed to vote, it did not help that they were partially counted in the states' representation.
Post a Comment