I link to the video in the third paragraph but here it is again.
Charlie Kirk Debates Bernie Sanders’ Press Secretary on Systemic Racism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTswW9dg07A
I think that I'm doing what many other people have been doing over the past week and will continue to do so. Kirk's debates are amazing to watch. Its no wonder they wanted him gone.
Ping to just my ping list, maybe you might have similar thoughts.
So it is said (I’m still having more new thoughts) It would be good to watch more than just the tiny clips referenced and also more than just the 5 minutes generally highlighted.
But its an embedded topic and it needed to be highlighted separately.
Slavey became so common for European colonial empires. I should add that slavery had been all but eliminated in Europe thanks to the power of Christianity. However larger more centralized monarchies reintroduced slavery in their colonies or permitted their overseas vassals to practice it because it was beneficial.
Slavery always happens because wealthy connected legal bodies recognize they can make even more money by controlling the human side of labor as property.
Its one of the legitimate reasons for having legal restrictions by government against slavery and its practices.
You keep reiterating that “the 3/5ths compromise was anti-slavery.” No, it wasn’t. It also wasn’t pro-slavery (although it’s been heavily criticized by people horrified by slavery). What was it actually? It was, duh, a compromise.
The issue was how to compute House of Representatives memberships for states where many of the residents were slaves. The slave states wanted the slaves counted in full. Agreeing to that solution would have been pro-slavery.
The free states pointed out that, under the slave states’ own laws, slaves were property. They asked “Should our horses and cows be counted?” They wanted the slaves excluded. That solution would have been anti-slavery.
What emerged was the well-known 3/5 rule. It was a compromise. Neither side got everything it wanted. It’s misleading to focus on the rejection of the complete pro-slavery position without also acknowledging the rejection of the complete anti-slavery position.
The effect of the compromise was ant-slavery because a whole free black person or indentured servant could be added to the census as Northern states did for representation. Southern states could add only six tenths of a person for a slave.
“. It is common practice for those who dishonestly wield slavery as a weapon to take a step back and cite some odd-ball random fact like France abolished slavery in the 1300s or whatever year it was. France abolished white people owning white people; France abolished Frenchies owning Frenchies. “
And omits entirely how “blacks” got to Haiti - brought in by the French as slaves for their plantations on Haiti.
bump
📌
bookmark