[Fhios]

Nice brief history lesson there, however I disagree with the assumption that counting slaves as a whole person would have been bad for them.

[pgkdan]

however I disagree with the assumption that counting slaves as a whole person would have been bad for them.

Counting them as whole persons would have increased the population in the South by about 16-20%, thereby increasing the South's representation in Congress. More political power for slaveholders would not have been to the slave population's benefit.

Slavery is a blot on our history but I dare anyone to find another people who sacrificed as much to end it.

[TheNext]

Wrong.

The Constitution does NOT count slaves as whole or partial persons.
Read the darn thing.

It talks about ‘representation’.
o Since a Republic grants States rights, does that say that people voters are not whole persons? NO.
o Since women could not vote, were they chattel, zero persons?

Read the darn thing.
Slavery and partial person hood is a common big mistake.
That is Democrat leftist Fake News.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I disagree with the assumption that counting slaves as a whole person would have been bad for them.

Not I. What benefit was it for the slave to have “representatives” not answerable to them?

The sum of the matter is that slaves could not vote, and they were better served by antislavery Congressmen in the North than by their political proslavery opposition. The more southern Congressmen, the worse it was for slaves.