Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Sick Sun (sun@shitposter.world)'s status on Friday, 09-Aug-2024 06:14:10 JST Sick Sun

   in reply to

   • feld
   • Kermode
   • nev
   • keithzg
   • sollat
   @feld @nev @keithzg @sollat @gemlog 2/3 is read as bad but slaveowning states didn't let slaves vote at all but wanted them for apportionment. free states rightly saw this as a bad deal but the best they could do was negotiate a less bad deal. I think every example of non slaveholding states collaborating with slaveholding states over slavery is them trying to make the best of a bad situation where they'd rather have no slavery at all but slaveholding states held too much power. Modern people fault people of the past for making awful compromises instead of tearing apart the country with a civil war over it. In retrospect, seeing how terrible the civil war was, this was rational.
   • Linux Walt (@lnxw37j1) {3EB165E0-5BB1-45D2-9E7D-93B31821F864} likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     feld (feld@bikeshed.party)'s status on Friday, 09-Aug-2024 06:14:12 JST feld

     • Kermode
     • nev
     • keithzg
     • sollat
     @keithzg @gemlog @nev @sollat It's all dirty tricks
     
     "State congressional power (representatives) is limited by the population, and we don't want to give the slave states too much power so slaves are only 2/3 a person, and then we should make sure that we have our own stooges decide who really won the election in case the people have been compromised..."
     
     A democracy founded on intense fear and distrust of its own people is how it seems to read sometimes