"one of the reasons I object to the characterization (and the implication that it was abolitionists who wanted slaves to be counted as whole people and slaveowners who wanted slaves not to be counted as human"
I wasn't making this characterisation though. Nor was I implying this. I was simply stating the fact that slaves (who just so happ…
"one of the reasons I object to the characterization (and the implication that it was abolitionists who wanted slaves to be counted as whole people and slaveowners who wanted slaves not to be counted as human"
I wasn't making this characterisation though. Nor was I implying this. I was simply stating the fact that slaves (who just so happened to all be black), were considered 3/5ths of a person by the constitution. And this was because the alternative, aka recognising their humanity, was considered unacceptable.
You argue that the consequences of doing so could have been disastrous. But slavery *was* disastrous. Not only for black people (including many black people today), but for the soul of America. We're having this conversation now because America made, what I'd have hoped everybody could agree, was the wrong choice. Over 150 years after the end of slavery, we're seeing all this division precisely because of that choice.
So I'd argue that I'm not the one missing the context of the 3/5ths compromise. The context is that rather than do what was necessary to live up to the founding ideals of this still young country, a compromise was made that America has been struggling to heal from ever since, and sadly will for some time to come. This compromise temporarily fixed a few problems for the white people of America, and did absolutely nothing for the problems of the black people.
Glossing over the fact that it was the slaveowners who wanted slaves to be considered whole people (no small part of "recognizing their humanity") does mischaracterize the situation. Substituting "black" for "slave" further confuses the abolitionist arguments against slavery. You can disagree with the results of their strategy, but they're the people who were trying to free slaves. Taking it at is worst, it still leans to freedom, not slavery.
"a compromise was made that America has been struggling to heal from ever since"
America has been struggling to heal from slavery, not the compromise. America would still be struggling to heal from slavery if a civil war had been fought in 1790 instead of 1860. The compromise ended up deferring a conflict, and allowing a repugnant practice to continue, for far too long. In that regard, the strategy of the compromising abolitionists may very well have been wrong and they probably would have admitted as much in hindsight.
Slavery was disastrous. Deferring on the issue a single day is a day too long. The abolitionists would agree with us on that. But attributing to them the qualities of selfishness, greed and evil does a disservice to them.
"America has been struggling to heal from slavery, not the compromise"
Also I'd argue that this isn't true. Imagine if America had abolished slavery in 1787, just over a decade after its founding (we'll ignore the 1619 lot shall we?) instead of 1868. Do you think we'd still be talking about slavery today? Do you think, if America had lived up to those founding ideals, Jim Crow and segregation would have happened?
The founding of America and the writing of the constitution was an opportunity. One that was sadly squandered. One that told black Americans very clearly that "our laws and our values ardour bill of rights weren't written for you". African Americans continued to be told that until less than 60 years ago.
So I'd say that to focus on slavery is to miss the point. What really did the damage was compromising on those founding ideals.
Ideally, yes. But I can also imagine a cleaving of the union at its inception and the founding of two separate countries on this continent, one for which slavery was quickly abolished and in the other, an entrenchment of slavery that no war could undo. Could it have been better? Oh yes. Unquestionably so. And I hope that none of my comments suggested otherwise. Could it have been worse? I guess I'm just cautious in stating unequivocally that it couldn't have been, as hard as that position may be to defend.
" But I can also imagine a cleaving of the union at its inception and the founding of two separate countries on this continent"
Yeah, that's true, but it's worth pointing out that this is basically what happened anyway. The north became increasingly hostile to slavery, the south formed the confederacy so they they could maintain it, and to preserve the union, there was a civil war. Given the fact that the south *was* so entrenched regarding slavery, this was pretty much inevitable.
Perhaps the divide simply comes down to whether you believe the preservation of the union was more important than the abolition of slavery. Or, perhaps more accurately, whether you think the dissolution of the union could have been worse than 90 more years of slavery (and the 100+ years of oppression that followed). And I guess one's position on that is down to where their empathy lies.
So sure, there's no situation that couldn't conceivably be worse. I'm sure there are even worse options (if I took the time to dream them up) than continuing slavery right into the present day. But we'd be weighing imaginary harms against the very real, well-documented, still divisive harms that affected and affect black people in America.
As you say, this is a hard position to defend. Which makes me think you should consider why you're defending it. I'm all for being accurate. And also for being cautious about absolutism. But losing track of the humanity of these situations while doing so will inevitably make you come off in a way that I don't think you intend to.
"But attributing to them the qualities of selfishness, greed and evil does a disservice to them."
Maybe this is where we're getting our wires crossed. I'm not doing this at all. In fact, if you notice, I haven't referred to the abolitionists a single time.
The abolitionists wanted to abolish slavery, not strike compromises. But they weren't able to do this because they were *opposed* by those who were too selfish, greedy, and in some cases, evil to consider it. I wasn't calling the abolitionists any of these things.
I'm not really criticising the people who made the compromise, at least not those who did it to weaken the power of those who supported slavery. I'm criticising the compromise itself. I'm criticising the fact that more wasn't done. I'm criticising the fact that a compromise was necessary on an issue that should have been so simple and fundamental.
I'm reminded of a talk James Baldwin gave about the Little Rock Nine. He mentioned how some Americans were proud that the national guard had been brought in to make sure those black kids could attend their school in accordance with Brown vs Board.
"No other country in the world would have gone so far", said one proud white liberal at the time. "True," said James, "but you don't seem to have realised that no other country would have *had* to."
I agree on all counts (with the caveat mentioned above). And I guess that this ended up being the dialogue that I think is critical but typically gets sidelined in any discussion of the compromise (in my experience).
I honestly did intend it to be a "small point" as I originally wrote and not as thorough a discussion as this ended up being (and probably not warranted by a single line in an exchange between you and Michael) but I appreciate it.
"one of the reasons I object to the characterization (and the implication that it was abolitionists who wanted slaves to be counted as whole people and slaveowners who wanted slaves not to be counted as human"
I wasn't making this characterisation though. Nor was I implying this. I was simply stating the fact that slaves (who just so happened to all be black), were considered 3/5ths of a person by the constitution. And this was because the alternative, aka recognising their humanity, was considered unacceptable.
You argue that the consequences of doing so could have been disastrous. But slavery *was* disastrous. Not only for black people (including many black people today), but for the soul of America. We're having this conversation now because America made, what I'd have hoped everybody could agree, was the wrong choice. Over 150 years after the end of slavery, we're seeing all this division precisely because of that choice.
So I'd argue that I'm not the one missing the context of the 3/5ths compromise. The context is that rather than do what was necessary to live up to the founding ideals of this still young country, a compromise was made that America has been struggling to heal from ever since, and sadly will for some time to come. This compromise temporarily fixed a few problems for the white people of America, and did absolutely nothing for the problems of the black people.
Glossing over the fact that it was the slaveowners who wanted slaves to be considered whole people (no small part of "recognizing their humanity") does mischaracterize the situation. Substituting "black" for "slave" further confuses the abolitionist arguments against slavery. You can disagree with the results of their strategy, but they're the people who were trying to free slaves. Taking it at is worst, it still leans to freedom, not slavery.
"a compromise was made that America has been struggling to heal from ever since"
America has been struggling to heal from slavery, not the compromise. America would still be struggling to heal from slavery if a civil war had been fought in 1790 instead of 1860. The compromise ended up deferring a conflict, and allowing a repugnant practice to continue, for far too long. In that regard, the strategy of the compromising abolitionists may very well have been wrong and they probably would have admitted as much in hindsight.
Slavery was disastrous. Deferring on the issue a single day is a day too long. The abolitionists would agree with us on that. But attributing to them the qualities of selfishness, greed and evil does a disservice to them.
"America has been struggling to heal from slavery, not the compromise"
Also I'd argue that this isn't true. Imagine if America had abolished slavery in 1787, just over a decade after its founding (we'll ignore the 1619 lot shall we?) instead of 1868. Do you think we'd still be talking about slavery today? Do you think, if America had lived up to those founding ideals, Jim Crow and segregation would have happened?
The founding of America and the writing of the constitution was an opportunity. One that was sadly squandered. One that told black Americans very clearly that "our laws and our values ardour bill of rights weren't written for you". African Americans continued to be told that until less than 60 years ago.
So I'd say that to focus on slavery is to miss the point. What really did the damage was compromising on those founding ideals.
Ideally, yes. But I can also imagine a cleaving of the union at its inception and the founding of two separate countries on this continent, one for which slavery was quickly abolished and in the other, an entrenchment of slavery that no war could undo. Could it have been better? Oh yes. Unquestionably so. And I hope that none of my comments suggested otherwise. Could it have been worse? I guess I'm just cautious in stating unequivocally that it couldn't have been, as hard as that position may be to defend.
" But I can also imagine a cleaving of the union at its inception and the founding of two separate countries on this continent"
Yeah, that's true, but it's worth pointing out that this is basically what happened anyway. The north became increasingly hostile to slavery, the south formed the confederacy so they they could maintain it, and to preserve the union, there was a civil war. Given the fact that the south *was* so entrenched regarding slavery, this was pretty much inevitable.
Perhaps the divide simply comes down to whether you believe the preservation of the union was more important than the abolition of slavery. Or, perhaps more accurately, whether you think the dissolution of the union could have been worse than 90 more years of slavery (and the 100+ years of oppression that followed). And I guess one's position on that is down to where their empathy lies.
So sure, there's no situation that couldn't conceivably be worse. I'm sure there are even worse options (if I took the time to dream them up) than continuing slavery right into the present day. But we'd be weighing imaginary harms against the very real, well-documented, still divisive harms that affected and affect black people in America.
As you say, this is a hard position to defend. Which makes me think you should consider why you're defending it. I'm all for being accurate. And also for being cautious about absolutism. But losing track of the humanity of these situations while doing so will inevitably make you come off in a way that I don't think you intend to.
"But attributing to them the qualities of selfishness, greed and evil does a disservice to them."
Maybe this is where we're getting our wires crossed. I'm not doing this at all. In fact, if you notice, I haven't referred to the abolitionists a single time.
The abolitionists wanted to abolish slavery, not strike compromises. But they weren't able to do this because they were *opposed* by those who were too selfish, greedy, and in some cases, evil to consider it. I wasn't calling the abolitionists any of these things.
I'm not really criticising the people who made the compromise, at least not those who did it to weaken the power of those who supported slavery. I'm criticising the compromise itself. I'm criticising the fact that more wasn't done. I'm criticising the fact that a compromise was necessary on an issue that should have been so simple and fundamental.
I'm reminded of a talk James Baldwin gave about the Little Rock Nine. He mentioned how some Americans were proud that the national guard had been brought in to make sure those black kids could attend their school in accordance with Brown vs Board.
"No other country in the world would have gone so far", said one proud white liberal at the time. "True," said James, "but you don't seem to have realised that no other country would have *had* to."
I agree on all counts (with the caveat mentioned above). And I guess that this ended up being the dialogue that I think is critical but typically gets sidelined in any discussion of the compromise (in my experience).
I honestly did intend it to be a "small point" as I originally wrote and not as thorough a discussion as this ended up being (and probably not warranted by a single line in an exchange between you and Michael) but I appreciate it.