Thoughts on the 3/5ths compromise?

The 3/5's compromise was actually done to prevent the south from using its slave population from counting as persons in their census. The north said that only free persons should count towards a state's population from a political standpoint.

Yeah my thought on it is that the yankees started the whole mess. The south wanted slaves to count in the census for better representation in DC. The north didn't want more representation for the south, so they said slaves couldn't count as people. So the compromise was to give them 3/5th of a vote.

My personal thought on it however is that they shouldn't have been allowed any say or to make up a part of the census are they were not freemen, they were the equivalent of farming equipment and should've stayed as such.

fpbp

daily reminder: most slave owners were jews (not white) so naturally they tried to pull some subversive bullshit.

Yes, because that would mean the south would end up with a larger representation in the House, even though black either wouldn't be allowed to vote or would be forced to vote along with their masters interests. This means that the average citizen in the south has more voting power than the average northerner.

They didn't want to count them because they though blacks were human. They wanted more power in government.

I honestly don't understand the point you were trying to make with this post.

based

They can go be 3/5ths in Africa

It doesnt mention race specifically, it just mentions that slaves are guaranteed 3/5ths a vote under the constitution. Leftists try to make it a black thing

Idiot Democrats constantly saying that the racists didn't want to see blacks as a full person, when in fact the slave owners wanted them to be seen as such.

based, fpbp

>Free people (1)
>Slaves/prisoners (3/5)
Well of course, someone who's a slave, indentured servant (nicer word for contractual slave), or prisoner shouldn't have the same rights as someone who's a free man - only because the definition of "slave" is that of someone who has less rights, has to stay confined to a specific area or otherwise listen to the demands of their owners/captors, unless they can resist the state and become free through fullfilling contractual obligations (serving time or working) or otherwise out-wit their captors.

>Free whites (1)
>Black slaves (3/5)
Blatant systemic racism. What a terrible, awful way of thinking. How could anyone give someone else less rights just because they're their slave? Surely, slaves are people too. These people were clearly narrow-minded racists.

BASED
and redpilled

Attached: 1545971529775.jpg (960x720, 114K)

Goddamn people are retarded. There really isn’t any hope. As racist as the founding fathers might have been, counting each slave at all gives more electoral rights to the states with the most spaces, thus perpetuating slavery.

>They didn't want to count them because they though blacks were human. They wanted more power in government.
That's the same reason liberals import non-whites en masse today.

The truth will set you free.

Attached: FTFY.png (572x843, 108K)

The South would have had a permanent minority in the House without the 3/5ths compromise. Counting slaves would have given the South a supermajority in the House, thus making it impossible to ever abolish slavery. Not counting slaves would have given the North a supermajority in the House, making it very easy to abolish slavery as soon as enough free states had been admitted to the Union.

It had nothing to do with "humanness" and nothing to do with valuing people as actual people. It was pure gerrymandering by slavers to maintain slavery forever.

Unironically, the three fifths compromise is why the Democrats started supporting illegal immigration. If the Northerners had gotten their way and slaves weren't counted, on the basis of not being citizens, then apportionment would be solely based on citizenship. The compromise made it based on residency instead. So even if illegals never become citizens, Democrats get more Congressmen and electoral college votes and other perks.

For anyone still confused

Attached: FTFY.png (568x2592, 165K)

Whoops

Attached: FTFY.png (568x1285, 158K)

should have counted as ZERO seeing as they were slaves and thus not actual citizens of america. Not sure why Slave owners felt they deserve greater power in Congress for their farm equipment.

This is the only correct answer in the thread. The compromise was never about making former slaves less human. It was always about limiting political power in Congress to the former slave owners (ie- southern states) who would have voted to legalize slavery. Only race-obsessed libtards still claim that the three-fifths compromise is a demonstration of racism in the US. The compromise is the complete opposite of what the libtards claim it is, and their false argument is an glimpse into their ignorance, their low-IQ, and their desire to fundamentally undermine the US constitution and our society.

The fact that the (((media))) even dares to bring up slavery shows that it is, in fact not just the left who can't meme, but the amis too.
Incredible that you don't manage to wriggle yourself out of this one when it wasn't you, but the jews who held slaves. Sad. Amis can't meme, or else you would turn this around as fast on the jews as Trump turned around on you.

Attached: 1551730959995.jpg (1295x598, 211K)

Lmao fbpb

Attached: ftftfy.jpg (113x224, 7K)

Attached: Untitled-1.jpg (568x1722, 89K)

kek

Calling northerners "abolitionists" is giving them too much credit. They weren't crusaders against slavery.

The average Northerner was opposed to slavery for only two reasons...
1) A hatred of black people and a desire to have them all deported from the country.
2) White-laborers not wanting to compete against literal "slave-labor" or other non-whites(which is basically still true).

The concern of the south in 1787 wasn't that the north would abolish slavery, but that they would create a central government which opposed southern interests. Slavery depended on free-trade with Europe(where they sold the vast-majority of the cotton), manufacturing requires protectionism and industrial subsidization.

The fight over tariffs and trade is what ultimately drove the slave-question. Without trade with Europe, there never would have been slavery in the first place.

f p b p

>, "He [Hamilton] advocated one of the most daring invasions of property rights that was ever made-- the abolition of Negro slavery.[1] Biographer Forest McDonald maintained, "Hamilton was an abolitionist, and on that subject he never wavered."
varsitytutors.com/earlyamerica/early-america-review/volume-15/hamilton-and-slavery
>Throughout his entire life, Thomas Jefferson was publicly a consistent opponent of slavery. Calling it a “moral depravity”1 and a “hideous blot,”2 he believed that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new American nation.3 Jefferson also thought that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, which decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty.4 These views were radical in a world where unfree labor was the norm.
monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jeffersons-attitudes-toward-slavery
>Washington never spoke out publicly against slavery. But in this private letter to fellow Virginian John Mercer, dated September 9, 1786, and written at a time when he owned 250 slaves, Washington avows his dislike of the institution of slavery, an institution that violates the ideal of freedom and equality: "I never mean . . . to possess another slave by purchase; it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted by which slavery in this Country may be abolished."
gilderlehrman.org/content/george-washington-abolition-slavery-1786
>In Address to the Public, a letter dated November 9th, 1789, Franklin wrote wholeheartedly against the institution of slavery. He argued that slaves have long been treated as brute animals beneath the standard of human species. Franklin asked for resources and donations to help freed slaves adjust to society by giving them education, moral instruction and suitable employment.
benjamin-franklin-history.org/slavery-abolition-society/

What is your point? I wasn't discussing whether or not there were people who wanted to abolish slavery. Thomas Jefferson wanted gradual emancipation, and to shift from cotton and tobacco to growing wheat, corn, and other food goods, to make us less-dependent on trade with Europe.

I was discussing whether the southern states in 1787 were concerned that the Federal Government would try to abolish slavery. For instance, they added a stipulation in the Constitution in regards to the Atlantic slave-trade(no law could be passed against it for 20 years), but asked for no such stipulation for slavery itself.

Obviously the total abolition of slavery was a much bigger deal than the slave-trade itself. So what was the difference?

The Atlantic slave-trade had to do with "international" politics. And since the Federal government was given authority over foreign-affairs, then the Atlantic slave-trade was within the scope of federal authority. But slavery within the southern states was assumed to be outside of federal authority(IE States' Rights).

Thus my point is, the southern states were not concerned that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT(IE what they wanted greater representation in) was going to push for abolition. But rather laws relating to foreign trade which would hurt it economically(IE the slave-trade, tariffs, etc).

Actually reduced southern power by reducing their vote in congress. Remember, the South wanted a whole vote for their slaves (who would of course be forced to vote in whichever way their masters insisted. Brilliant political maneuvering by northern abolitionists.

>I was discussing whether the southern states in 1787 were concerned that the Federal Government would try to abolish slavery.
They very much were. If there was the appearance that this was not on their minds, it's because by the time of the Constitutional Convention, Georgia and the Carolinas had already delivered their ultimatum. Slavery remains legal or they would leave.

By the time of the Constitutional Convention, there was only the details to discuss. The Northern states had already conceded that slavery in some form would be allowed to continue. They preferred this to a cancerous rival on their southern border and swallowing the loss of Georgia and the Carolinas would lead to the loss of Virginia and Maryland as well.

You seem to think these details debated at the Constitutional Convention were the primary debate. They were compromises meant to limit slavery as much as possible while keeping the South in the Union. You can see this especially clearly in the ensuing legal struggle to expand slavery. Slavers in the South, now rallying around the Democratic Party, argued the Constitution guaranteed slavery. Their fathers, often literally their fathers, had fought to get specific mentions of slavery included for this exact reason. Some of the same Founding Fathers who argued that there was no need for a Bill of Rights, because obviously no one would imagine the government would intrude on free speech without a First Amendment, had only months before demanded slavery be explicitly mentioned out of fear the government would intrude on slavery without it.

Most slave owners were not jews, the vast majority were white. What is true however is that 80% of Jews in the south were slave owners, only 9% of whites were.

>Georgia and the Carolinas had already delivered their ultimatum. Slavery remains legal or they would leave.
The slave-states didn't demand that slavery "would exist", but rather that it would "be protected". Those aren't quite the same thing.

The South didn't believe the Federal government had the authority to abolish slavery. But they were concerned that the Northern states could interfere with slavery in other ways.

Which is why you have things like the "Fugitive-slave clause". Which prevents Northerners from "interfering" with slavery, not at the Federal level, but on the state level. And the Atlantic slave-trade clause, because the south understood that the Federal Government would have authority over international trade.

If the South believed that the Constitution gave authority to the Federal Government to abolish slavery, it would have demanded a protection of the franchise itself, as it did for the Fugitive-Slave Act.

The south didn't worry that the north would abolish slavery. And in fact, the south wasn't even afraid that Abraham Lincoln would abolish slavery in 1860. And Lincoln wouldn't have abolished slavery had the war not happened. Or even if the south had reentered the union voluntarily prior to the Emancipation Proclamation.

The fear of the south in 1860 was economic. Which is why the "elites" of the south(IE the planters) pushed for secession. And the most-immediate cause of the Civil-War, was the Morrill tariff.

Some errors here
>The South didn't believe the Federal government had the authority to abolish slavery.
The authority or lack thereof was established by the Constitution, so the arguments leading up to, at, and just after the Constitutional Convention precede any claim that the Federal government did or did not have the authority.
>The south didn't worry that the north would abolish slavery.
>If the South believed that the Constitution gave authority to the Federal Government to abolish slavery, it would have demanded a protection of the franchise itself, as it did for the Fugitive-Slave Act.
Such demands were made in the 1780's. Several Northerners wanted a sunset clause on slavery like the sunset clause on the import of slaves. A few wanted immediate or near-immediate abolition. Enough thought slavery would eventually stamped out with the final version of the Constitution that they were willing to accept its continuation.

You've kind of jumped ahead, time wise, in this post. I don't want to change the discussion to the Civil War, but I tend to trust the horse's mouth on the motivations for the war. Numerous Confederate leaders explicitly stated their primary motivation was to protect the continuation slavery. Even if you want to disclaim them, the economic and legal reasons also claimed were all underpinned by slavery. If there was no slavery, the trade policy issues and states' rights issues would have been moot.
>The slave-states didn't demand that slavery "would exist", but rather that it would "be protected". Those aren't quite the same thing.
If slavery "be protected" then it exists. I wouldn't normally take issue with a semantic argument, but this seems to be on par with saying flammable and inflammable aren't quite the same thing.

>1) A hatred of black people and a desire to have them all deported from the country.

Source please

One of the ironic things about the 3/5ths compromise is that when it was rescinded following the Civil War, the Southern states came back into the Union with more political power than ever. All of the sudden they had about 1.5 million more citizens based solely on the addition of the 2/5ths of black slaves into the Southern voting rolls.

Probably referring to the Liberia plan, which happened decades after the Constitutional Convention and was backed by a faction of abolitionists and a faction of slavers. Not really representative of the average Northerner.

It was a mistake. The US should have done more to kill slavery. Or at a minimum ship them back post civil war.

This was the statement:

>The average Northerner was opposed to slavery for only two reasons...
>1) A hatred of black people and a desire to have them all deported from the country.

I'm interested to know the source of information for this claim.

"The Liberia Plan" wasn't deportation. It was voluntary repatriation. These to things are not the same thing.

>Several Northerners wanted a sunset clause on slavery like the sunset clause on the import of slaves. A few wanted immediate or near-immediate abolition.

The existence of a minority of abolitionists doesn't mean the north wanted to force the south to abolish slavery, any more than the existence of a minority of communists mean America is a communist country.

The point I was trying to make is, the south demanded and got protections for slavery in all areas where it believed the Federal Government had the authority to interfere with both the institution itself, or the economic conditions of the south.

If the south had actually believed the Federal government had the authority to abolish slavery, it would have a demanded a Constitutional protection, as it demanded and got for its other concerns.

Slavery was intentionally a "States' rights" issue. And it would have required, and did require, an amendment to the Constitution for the Federal government to abolish it. Which is why the south did not demand a protection in the Constitution.

The debate here is why the south wanted "more representation" in the Federal Government.

And the real conflict between north and south was economic. Abraham Lincoln promised the south they could keep slavery forever. Thus the immediate cause of the Civil War was not because of a fear of abolition, but a fear that the Federal government would pass other laws which harmed the south. Especially tariffs.

never2l8

Jews being Jewish. Nothing to talk about.

>"The Liberia Plan" wasn't deportation. It was voluntary repatriation.
Abraham Lincoln wanted every black person to leave the country. And the vast-majority of Northerners felt exactly the same.

Maybe my use of the word "deported" was a bit strong, since deportation means "forced-out", when they had really just hoped they would leave voluntarily.

>And the vast-majority of Northerners felt exactly the same.

I'm not getting where the source of your information comes from. Why do you have no source?

>when they had really just hoped they would leave voluntarily.
No one leaves voluntarily. As you can see they never did.

>The existence of a minority of
Here's the issue: I'm talking about the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Of the delegates from the Northern states, the minority were delegates who were either ambivalent toward or in favor of slavery. I'm merely pointing out that, among the majority of Northerners who wanted the ultimate abolition of slavery, there was a vocal minority therein that were radical abolitionists. I raised this because you said they were hardly crusading abolitionists. They were abolitionists and they often gave an outsized voice to the crusading abolitionists among them. The message was pretty clear to the slavers at the Convention and they sought to achieve what guarantees they could, in the form of explicit mentions of slavery and time-limited protections of the slave trade. Of the Southern delegates, the minority were abolitionists, but of that minority were a few very influential politicians, two of whom became the first and third Presidents.
>Slavery was intentionally a "States' rights" issue.
This was a concession the Southerners were forced to make to the Northerners at the Convention.
>If the south had actually believed the Federal government had the authority
I'm not sure why you're still on this. Federal authority was decided at the Constitutional Convention. Any opinion on what Federal authority actually existed prior to that time is tantamount to current opinions on the authority of Gallifrey over the earth. You can have an opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that Gallifrey doesn't exist.
>The debate here is why the south wanted "more representation" in the Federal Government.
Because they were forced to relegate slavery to a states' rights issue instead of getting their desired Constitutional guarantee, the Southerners feared that less representation in the House would lead to a Congress making states of territories with anti-slavery sentiment, ultimately leading to an abolitionist supermajority.

we will re-define literacy as competency and scale voting power accordingly

>I'm not getting where the source of your information comes from. Why do you have no source?
Do you actually think I'm wrong?

qconline.com/editorials/black-codes-recall-terrible-time-for-illinois/article_5d4a4246-f1cf-5818-ad1a-477e83f8ab78.html

>>when they had really just hoped they would leave voluntarily.
I agree that they didn't want to leave, but the whites of the north wanted them to, and Lincoln practically begged them to.

etymonline.com/columns/post/lincoln

>vast majority
>9%
dumb mick

>I raised this because you said they were hardly crusading abolitionists.
The vast-majority of northerners were not "Crusading" abolitionists. By crusading I mean people who were willing to go to war, or to otherwise use force to end slavery in what was effectively a "foreign country".

>African Americans have White slave owner dna
>African Americans need reparations from slave owners
>African Americans pay themselves reparations

Am I wrong on this?

>cont
And were perfectly willing to accept slavery in the union, indefinitely. As long as it was happening "somewhere else".

I felt like calling this position on slavery, "abolitionism", is a perversion of the word.

Lincoln was famously mysterious and inconsistent on his views of race and slavery. Estimates go from he was a white supremacist to he would do anything necessary to abolish slavery and everything in between.
I'm starting to think there are multiple sets of goalposts here and I no longer know whether we are playing football or chess. I said myself that the crusader types were a minority within the majority of abolitionists, so I don't even know whether you are trying to disagree with me on this point. In any case, the crusaders had the loudest voices and the most influence at the Convention, even in the Virginia delegation which was mostly slavers.

>Do you actually think I'm wrong?
Yes I think you are wrong.

>I agree that they didn't want to leave, but the whites of the north wanted them to, and Lincoln practically begged them to.

"The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed in 1868 to help ensure the rights of newly freed blacks. Black men were given the right to vote in 1870 by the passage of the 15th Amendment.In 1874, state laws forbidding segregation were passed. The Illinois Civil rights Act of 1885 was passed forbidding discrimination in public facilities and places such as hotels, railroads, theaters and restaurants."

What year was the civil rights act passed?

>Estimates go from Lincoln was a white supremacist to he would do anything necessary to abolish slavery and everything in between.
What do you believe to be true?

>I'm starting to think there are multiple sets of goalposts
I made four claims in my first post.
1) That the North weren't "Crusading abolitionists"(IE they wouldn't have fought a war to abolish slavery). And they were willing to allow slavery indefinitely(or until the south decided to abolish it on their own).
2) That Lincoln and most northerners hated black people and wanted them out of the country.
3) That most white opposition to slavery was by white-laborers who didn't want to compete against slave-labor.
4) That the reason the south seceded from the union wasn't that Lincoln intended to abolish slavery, but merely that he was going to raise tariffs.

Which one of these claims is untrue?

>Black men were given the right to vote in 1870 by the passage of the 15th Amendment.
One of the last things Lincoln pushed for before he was killed was the right of blacks to vote. Why did he want blacks to vote?

You have to put these things in proper political-context or you'll draw false conclusion...

>"It must be admitted, truth compels me to admit, even here in the presence of the monument we have erected to his memory, Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man.

>He was preeminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country. In all his education and feeling he was an American of the Americans. He came into the Presidential chair upon one principle alone, namely, opposition to the extension of slavery. His arguments in furtherance of this policy had their motive and mainspring in his patriotic devotion to the interests of his own race. To protect, defend, and perpetuate slavery in the states where it existed Abraham Lincoln was not less ready than any other President to draw the sword of the nation. He was ready to execute all the supposed guarantees of the United States Constitution in favor of the slave system anywhere inside the slave states. He was willing to pursue, recapture, and send back the fugitive slave to his master, and to suppress a slave rising for liberty, though his guilty master were already in arms against the Government." - Frederick Douglass

Upon further examination it would also seem that the "black laws" of Illinois aren't specifically anti-black but they are designed to prevent fugitive slaves from entering the state. I'm still trying to find a digital transcript of the original text. Hang on...

Force Jews to pay reparations

Attached: 1540759706909.jpg (800x600, 85K)

I should have provided the link to the text which I had quoted. The referene to voting had nothing really to do with Lincoln it was an allusion to the fact that Illinois 'Black Law" had only been in effect for 10 years or so, and really isn't indicative proof that "northerners hated black people and wanted to deport them". If this was the case they actually could have done so. Easily. I'm trying to understand why they didn't.

>Northerners weren't racist, and had no black codes, or racial-covenants, and never discriminated against blacks, and saw them as equals.
Please stop.

>"Thus it is, in the United States, that the prejudice which repels the negroes seems to increase in proportion as they are emancipated, and inequality is sanctioned by the manners whilst it is effaced from the laws of the country. But if the relative position of the two races which inhabit the United States is such as I have described, it may be asked why the Americans have abolished slavery in the North of the Union, why they maintain it in the South, and why they aggravate its hardships there? The answer is easily given. It is not for the good of the negros, but for that of the whites, that measures are taken to abolish slavery in the United States." - Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America

marxists.org/reference/archive/de-tocqueville/democracy-america/ch18.htm

I don't really know what was going on in Lincoln's head, but his actions are very clear. He pushed for abolition, even when it cost him politically. He was a very principled man and on the few rare occasions he publicly compromised those principles, it was towards the end of slavery. He may well have thought blacks were inferior.

1) By that definition, sure. On the other hand, they didn't think they needed to declare war. The consensus was that slavery wouldn't survive and if the Trail of Tears and the cotton gin hadn't paved the way for the westward expansion of plantations, they probably would have been right.
2) Unprovable and unproven.
3) Not sure why you would think that. Northern laborers didn't compete with slaves directly. Slave labor gave the Northern textile industries cheap cotton that they turned into valuable exports. Northern Democrats were often laborers opposed to immigrants who did directly compete with them.
4) Again, I side with the horses' mouths here. Confederate leaders were pretty clear slavery and their "way of life" were the primary cause. They feared an abolitionist President would turn the tide against them and they often used the motif of Lincoln as a tyrant who would rip the Constitution apart, simultaneously claiming that the Constitution indirectly guaranteed both slavery and states' rights. The irony, of course, is that the Courts had been siding with the slavers up to that point. Their own hysteria and militarism was their downfall, much like Hitler.

>Easily. I'm trying to understand why they didn't.
You need to understand there are two different groups at play here, as there always are.

There are "the elites" or "the ruling class", and then there are "the people". Just because the majority of the people want something, doesn't mean it will happen. In many cases, 80%, or 90% of the people want something, and it still won't happen. Because the "ruling classes"(IE the money) doesn't want it.

Blacks weren't deported for the same reason sharecropping merely replaced slavery. The United States needed to "protect the economy".

The United States, as a political entity, has no interest in deporting anyone. The United States' power is directly related to its economic size, and blacks add to the economy. They provide labor, and back before we had Mexicans, they were the low-wage laborers.

We need to separate the sentiments of individuals from the actions of governments.

>Blacks weren't deported for the same reason sharecropping merely replaced slavery.
Southern Democrats' terror campaigns? 40 acres and a mule, user.

>He pushed for abolition, even when it cost him politically.
When and where did it cost him politically?

He only issued the emancipation proclamation to prevent European intervention. And he only pushed for black voting rights because he knew they would vote for his party.

NOTHING Lincoln ever did was because he cared whatsoever about black people. And had the south reentered the union before the deadline(IE January 1st, 1863), there would be no Emancipation Proclamation.

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8319858/Abraham-Lincoln-wanted-to-deport-slaves-to-new-colonies.html

An N press is an N press. You cant say its only 3/5.

>Northerners weren't racist, and had no black codes, or racial-covenants, and never discriminated against blacks, and saw them as equals.

Law defines equality. You're questioning sentiment. You cannot prove sentiment but you can prove law. You are now asking me to use my imagination which isn't a valid argument. You can either prove what you say or you cannot. If what you were saying was true it would be very simple to prove it. Why can you not?

>"Thus it is, in the United States, that the prejudice which repels the negroes seems to increase in proportion as they are emancipated, and inequality is sanctioned by the manners whilst it is effaced from the laws of the country. But if the relative position of the two races which inhabit the United States is such as I have described, it may be asked why the Americans have abolished slavery in the North of the Union, why they maintain it in the South, and why they aggravate its hardships there? The answer is easily given. It is not for the good of the negros, but for that of the whites, that measures are taken to abolish slavery in the United States."

Why is this relevant? Niggers were slaves. This is known fact. This proves that northerners wanted to deport niggers?

Perhaps you have heard of the 13th Amendment? I vaguely recall an Oscar-bait movie made about it around 10 years ago. That was during his re-election year. An election that Lincoln feared losing so much he chose a slavery apologist and Democrat to be his running mate.

Blacks no longer played a role in the economy. Share croppers were White and after slavery niggers migrated north. Again it seems you are asking me to use my imagination.

fpbp

>Not sure why you would think that. Northern laborers didn't compete with slaves directly.
Lincoln was called the "rail" candidate. He was elected not because he opposed slavery, but because he opposed the extension of slavery.

>"Whether slavery shall go into Nebraska, or other new territories, is not a matter of exclusive concern to the people who may go there. The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them. Slave States are places for poor white people to remove FROM; not to remove TO. New free States are the places for poor people to go to and better their condition." - Abraham Lincoln

>Slave labor gave the Northern textile industries cheap cotton that they turned into valuable exports.
Which was my point. The North wasn't opposed to slavery as long as it was "somewhere else". The Northern laborer was fine with southern slavery, as long as it stayed in the south and didn't interfere in any way with northern labor.

>He only issued the emancipation proclamation to prevent European intervention.

>European intervention.

That's a wild one. Any proof?

That's a pretty far cry from
>The average Northerner was opposed to slavery for only two reasons...
>1) A hatred of black people and a desire to have them all deported from the country.
>2) White-laborers not wanting to compete against literal "slave-labor" or other non-whites(which is basically still true).

>Blacks no longer played a role in the economy. Share croppers were White and after slavery niggers migrated north.
1) I was referring to the United States, not to the south.
2) Sharecroppers were overwhelmingly black. The Great Migration didn't happen for another 50 years.>Perhaps you have heard of the 13th Amendment?
He feared losing that election, but not over the 13th amendment. He feared losing the election because people were tired of the war. And the guy that he ran against basically wanted to end the war early. And the reason Lincoln won the election, was because "Sherman's March" was successful, so opposition to the war fizzled out.

No what mainly drove the slave question was A) whether or not southern citizens' slave ownership rights extended to the northern states (runaway slave laws) and whether new states admitted to the union out west would allow the practice or not. There was already a decade long soft civil war going on in Kansas and Missouri over this before 1860. In fact John Brown was a major player out there and all the brutality that occurred out there is what shaped him into the extremist who massacred villages and initiated the Harper's Ferry Uprising.

historically speaking, large black populations have proven themselves to be ungovernable. and once full scale black political control of these large black populations happens we see a kind of 3rd world stagnation take place. its happened anywhere whites governed blacks and eventually the whites left and blacks took over or genocided the white rulers.

>That's a pretty far cry from
No it isn't.

Lincoln didn't want slavery to go "To the West", because he wanted all of the West to be only white people. And Lincoln was from Illinois, which was a state that made it illegal for blacks, free or slave, to immigrate there.

Northern whites did not like black people, and did not want them in their states. And many of them didn't want slavery to end because they didn't want the slaves to move to the north.

lib.rochester.edu/index.cfm?PAGE=4386

>"Objections to slavery are often urged with a show of sincere solicitude for the welfare of the slaves themselves. It is said, what will you do with them? they can't take care of themselves; they would all come to the North; they would not work; they would become a burden upon the State, and a blot upon society; they'd cut their masters' throats; they would cheapen labor, and crowd out the poor white laborer from employment; their former masters would not employ them, and they would necessarily become vagrants, paupers and criminals, overrunning all our alms houses, jails and prisons. The laboring classes among the whites would come in bitter conflict with them in all the avenues of labor, and regarding them as occupying places and filling positions which should be occupied and filled by white men; a fierce war of races would be the inevitable consequence, and the black race would, of course, (being the weaker,) be exterminated." - Frederick Douglass

Fucking retard.

"Approximately two-thirds of all sharecroppers were white, and one third were black. "

pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/themes/sharecropping/

It would be useful if you were able to provide links to your claims, that way I don't have to sift through your lies and stupidity myself.

I'm honestly pretty tired of your petty contrarianism. Do you even know what you're trying to say anymore? You've restated it a few times and each time it's a bit different only to be questioned on the change only to have you say you didn't change.

When Lincoln ran for re-election, he didn't have the benefit of knowing Sherman's March was successful and popular opinion turned in favor of victory, as it always does. When Lincoln chose Johnson, a man he deeply distrusted, he didn't have the benefit of knowing he would be assassinated and Johnson would destroy his plan for reconstruction. You're picking and choosing, changing decades and time periods, using post-hoc hindsight to read things that weren't there at the time. Remember when we were talking about the 3/5ths compromise? Good times.

I think the only conclusion to be drawn from this discussion is that you desperately want to believe two contradictory things
>Northern Republicans hated blacks and loved slavery, not Southern Democrats
>Noble Southerners endured slavery because it made them rich. They did wrong out of excusable greed, not because they enjoyed raping dozens of women, beating hundreds of men, and being pampered like kings at Versailles, or at least the dream that they may some day be one of those lucky elite.

Go vote for someone based on the color of their skin so you can pat yourself on the back for being so Progressive, you racist prick. The only person you're fooling is yourself. You think Jow Forumslacks don't recognize your ilk?

>Whether new states admitted to the union out west would allow the practice or not.
I would actually agree with this. But why did a state like Georgia want more "slave-states"?

For the same reason they wanted slaves to count as 3/5ths of a person. It was about controlling the Federal Government. And why did they want to control the Federal Government?

What was Abraham Lincoln actually threatening to do?

Please read the first three paragraphs of the "Georgia secession ordinance" for an explanation.

avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp

Moron. Why did you not include the twxt that preceded the statement?

>"It is curious to observe, at this juncture, when the existence of slavery is threatened by an aroused nation, when national necessity is combining with an enlightened sense of justice to put away the huge abomination forever, that the enemies of human liberty are resorting to all the old and ten thousand times refuted objections to emancipation with which they confronted the abolition movement twentyfive years ago. Like the one stated above, these proslavery objections have their power mainly in the slaveryengendered prejudice, which every where pervades the country. Like all other great transgressions of the law of eternal rectitude, slavery thus produces an element in the popular and depraved moral sentiment favorable to its own existence."

rbscp.lib.rochester.edu/4386

And you changed the text. Why?

More chimping out by southern retards

Attached: 1543765650693.jpg (1072x4616, 1.21M)

Lincoln's opposition in the 1864 election was George B. McClellan.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1864_United_States_presidential_election

You might recognize the name because he was a Union General who fought against the south in the Civil War, who was critical of Lincoln's handling of the war, and wanted to bring the war to an end.

Opposition to Lincoln began to grow until William Tecumseh Sherman captured Atlanta. After which the war seemed all but over, and Lincoln won a victory in the 1864 election.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Campaign

Lincoln's running mate was Andrew Johnson, who was from Kentucky. And Andrew Johnson was opposed to slavery, not because it was it was an evil institution, but for the same reason Bernie Sanders rambles about the "billionaire class".

Andrew Johnson was in favor of white-labor, just as Lincoln was. And he believed the abolish of slavery was necessary for the improvement of the white-laborer. He was practically a socialist for his day.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Johnson#Background

>And you changed the text. Why?
I only added "to slavery" after objections because it wouldn't have made any sense.>These pro-slavery objections have their power mainly in the slavery-engendered prejudice.
And would including that section have changed my point? Would it have led to a different conclusion?

All he is saying is, Northerners were opposed to slavery in part because they didn't want the slaves to come to the north.

Preach Brother!

It was meant to limit congressional seats in the south but don't let that get in the way of modern "education". Carry on.

Attached: ygjugyu.jpg (752x534, 50K)

based
redpilled. (just like kikes want their beaner vote-slaves today)

>I only added "to slavery" after objections because it wouldn't have made any sense.

So you admit you chop and screw text to suit your own purpose.

>And would including that section have changed my point? Would it have led to a different conclusion? All he is saying is, Northerners were opposed to slavery in part because they didn't want the slaves to come to the north.

Fucking retard. The text has nothing to do with northerners. The text specifically states that these are the statements used by "the enemies of human liberty" "resorting to all the old and ten thousand times refuted objections to emancipation "

Full text: It is curious to observe, at this juncture, when the existence of slavery is threatened by an aroused nation, when national necessity is combining with an enlightened sense of justice to put away the huge abomination forever, that the enemies of human liberty are resorting to all the old and ten thousand times refuted objections to emancipation with which they confronted the abolition movement twentyfive years ago."

Is reading that hard?

>>Northern Republicans hated blacks and loved slavery, not Southern Democrats
Both north and south hated black people. Southerners hated them but wanted to exploit them as slaves. And northerners hated black people and wanted them out of the country.

>>Noble Southerners endured slavery because it made them rich. They did wrong out of excusable greed, not because they enjoyed raping dozens of women, beating hundreds of men, and being pampered like kings at Versailles, or at least the dream that they may some day be one of those lucky elite.
I never claimed southerners were noble. I said slavery was about money. And the "War of Northern Aggression" was also about money.

I have no interest in defending the south. I hate the south. but I especially hate Lincoln and the northern mythology around the Civil War.

>And northerners hated black people and wanted them out of the country.
Again with this statement and not a single shred of proof. You must really need to believe that.

>So you admit you chop and screw text to suit your own purpose.
The words I added didn't change the meaning. Should I have posted the entire essay? It wouldn't fit.

You don't add words to text. That's not what the text says. Shut the fuck up.