Aren't you overlooking one part of that equation? The buyers? Without demand for slaves those slave ships would never have left port.
Yes, let’s just stop spinning it, the 3/5ths Compromise, so ignorantly attributed to “racist” southerners and demagogued to infinity, was a compromise insisted upon by northern interests, who did not want slaves counted as fully human in order to prevent Congressional reapportionment from shifting political power to the south.
Why would they want slaves counted the same as a free person? They were property in the South, not people. They had no more rights than a horse or a cow did. For the Southerners to demand that their chattel was entitled to representation was the height of hypocrisy. The 3/5ths clause still gave the South a disproportionate level of representation in the House.
Overlooking? No, there were buyers scattered up and down the colonies and then the states. The south was a far more agrarian region and so the presence of and dependence upon slavery was much more prevalent there.
Please don't tell me you suppose slaves were only in the south. That's just ignorant.
They were property in the South, not people.
... and apparently in the north as well, otherwise there would have been no debate placing moneygrubbing and politics over the very humanity of slaves.
They had no more rights than a horse or a cow did. For the Southerners to demand that their chattel was entitled to representation was the height of hypocrisy. The 3/5ths clause still gave the South a disproportionate level of representation in the House.
So, let's just chalk Freeper Drennan Whyte up in the "not human at all" category, then. Can't have "disproportionate" levels of representation based upon nonhumans. /sarc