So, sorry for any formatting errors, as I'm on my phone.

The other day a guy at my work was talking about "when black Americans counted as 3/5 of a person," and essentially condemning the notion as utterly racist in every way. My question comes in two parts- did free and/or land holding blacks count as 3/5 of a person as well, or was it specifically slaves? This seems to be an important distinction to me, because it seems like that would imply that the concept was more a result of economics than racial discrimination, unless I'm misunderstanding the purpose of the compromise.

As such, my second question actually pertains to my understanding of the compromise- was the 3/5 compromise actually a terrible thing for slaves, or was it in fact very important to slowing the spread of slavery? The reason I ask is because, and I may be misunderstanding or misremembering some core concepts here so please correct me where I'm wrong, it seems like the southern slave states were vastly less populated than the growing industrial centers of the north. As such, the northern states had more of a presence in the Federal Government. Thus, the Southern states made the argument that their slaves should count towards their total populations in regards to seats allocated in the government. However, if this were to be allowed southern interests, including the practice of slavery, would be furthered and would have a stronger base of support in the Federal Government. The Northern anti- slavery states couldn't allow this to happen, but also didn't quite have the ability to check the southern states and deny them any representation as a product of their slave populations. So, the compromise was created.

From this perspective the 3/5 compromise was actually a brilliant move in the ongoing battle to halt the spread of the practice of slavery. Am I misunderstanding the ideas behind these events, or is this a giant misconception that we're taught from the beginning of our education?

Also, I will add that I understand that there were many factors at play both politically and economically that led to the northern states wanting to halt the spread of, and/or abolish slavery, I'm just referring to the effects of the compromise in practice. Was it actually bad thing for the slaves, or was it a good thing?

Also, how did people survive in places such as Ireland and England prior to settling?

Hello everyone,

I recently read that the age of consent in Delaware was put at 7 years old between 1870's and 1890's which seems very young.

Would there have been cases of children this young having sex? How would you be seen as a human being if you did act upon this law (both as the child and the partner)? How did such a law come in existence? Were there similar laws in other countries / states?

Many thanks in advance.

A few months ago I stumbled on a recommendation for Alfred Crosby's The Measure of Reality on this subreddit. It blew my mind and I've been trying to read around it (mainly the authors it references), but I'm keen for more recommendations from people in the know - especially since most of the books I've ended up with are 30 to 40 years old.

Particular areas of interest: General economic history for the period, La Société du Bazacle and anything like it that might have existed at the time, development of double entry bookkeeping, the Bardi/Peruzzi generation of bankers, Robert Grosseteste/Roger Bacon, the Cistercians, Norman/Gothic cathedral building

What I've read so far:

• Alfred Crosby, The Measure of Reality
• Jean Gimpel, The Medieval Machine
• Jacques le Goff, Pour un autre Moyen Age
• Frank Swetz, Capitalism and Arithmetic: The New Math of the Fifteenth Century
• David Landes, Revolution in Time
• David Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science

I've also just ordered Edwin Hunt's A History of Business in Medieval Europe, 1200-1550 and Otto Mayr's Authority, Liberty, and Automatic Machinery in Early Modern Europe, but have not yet had the opportunity to read them.

Any advice welcome! Can be in either English or French.

So, in ancient/medieval times, my understanding is that China tended to view the rest of the world as barbarians, unfit to be dealt with. My question was whether this view extended to India. Unlike Europe, it was close enough for regular contact, and it wasn't like China's largely nomadic northern and western frontiers. Did China have the same view of India, anyway?

for instance if the hansa decided to start up a salter in Visby would they send up craftsmen who know how to do it or did they send up books with instructions, or a combination of both?

We've heard a lot about the economic achievements of the time, as well as the military ones (if you can call them achievements...), as well as the social programs initiated by the state, and the persecution of Jews.

But how was crime like? Were crime rates high or low? What type of crime was common/uncommon? Was there corruption within the state apparatus?

Did the USSR know of the US's containment policy? Did it try to counteract it?

How did the political system of the Italian merchant republics, more specifically the Republic of Pisa, worked during the High Middle Ages? Was there feudalism? What where elections like? How did the peasantdom fare? Was it any more equalitarian than other European states at the time? I'm sorry if this question's already been asked, I couldn't find anything on the FAQ.

I've seen a lot of comments on the various historical subreddits accusing one another of presentism. Though I have an idea of what it is, it would be good for historians to really clarify what presentism is, and why historians avoid it. What is and isn't presentism? When is it proper to use modern standards to judge the actions of people in the past?

[deleted]

Some context, I love Woodrow Wilson a lot. A large reason for this is because of his many fantastic domestic achievements, some of which include banning child labor, 8 hour work days for railroad workers, and the federal reserve. However, many people when talking about him (completely justifiably I might add) mention his personal racism and the terrible things he did to set back Washington D.C in terms of racial integration. However, I've often seen these racial failings emphasized more than his domestic successes when discussing him (hell, one of the first posts involving Wilson that comes up here has someone actually refer to him as a monster of a human being). So, I was curious about what affected more people? Did Wilson's domestic achievements help more people, or were more hurt by his racist policies (both in the short and long term)? The one other thing I'd like to say is that I'd like to focus on his policies before World War 1. War is a different time than peace, and a lot of stuff can be somewhat justified in war that cannot be allowed during peace.

how did the Israeli's get Sherman's tanks? Was it a third party or did they buy them from the U.S.? And where did the upgraded guns come from? I know they didn't use WW2 era tank guns and modified the Shermans.

when razing villages/towns to the ground did the army want to kill the civilians or did they just want to burn the confederates homes?

Ever since elementary school, whenever learning about Native Americans & their history (a subject I enjoyed greatly), the conversion always referenced the percentage of NAs (Native Americans) killed by European colonists as upwards of 90%. Every single time this number is referenced I remember thinking to myself "How in the BLOODY HELL can ANYONE claim to know the total number of NA people killed down to the bloody percentage!?". My reasoning for this does not come from a place of vitriol; I cannot begin to fathom the amount pain endured by these innocent people for such senseless reasons. Still, seeing as how in the modern world, academics still constantly argue over the number of deaths that occurred during WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Chinese Cultural Revolution, Stalin's industrialization efforts, etc... for good reason, it seems outrageous that people can claim to know the percentage killed of a whole population over a span of centuries across an entire continent whether it was as low as 10% or as high as 95%.

Where did this 90% number come from, what source/report/paper/survey/whatever is everybody referencing? Is there a source? If I were to put myself in the shoes of a 19th century historian in search of the number of NAs killed since Columbus' arrival, I do not know where to even begin. How could Europeans keep detailed accounts of the number of all the natives they encountered in their travels? Why would they? Even if every conquistador did, how is that an objective reference frame considering the untold number of NAs scattered across the TWO-THOUSAND mile wide continental United States at the time?

I'm just starting my sophomore year of college and am a history major, but through all the history classes I've had I've never once had a teacher gone over this, so I'm curious as to what their reaction to the Civil War was? And what their role was and if they participated in it.

By the people? By all the soldiers that served him? I know that his speech and propaganda and mass control had a lot to do, if not everything, with his success in his early days, but at the same time... I wonder. Did people really believed in him as a human being? At least before the war?

From what I can tell, Qing faced heavy humiliation, and lost numerous wars to western powers. But despite this, western powers took very little. Things like Hong-kong, maccau, Port Arthur, etc. Why didnt western powers take bigger chunks out of China like they did with Indochina?

Was there any sort of dedicated artists that produced works of the intimate nature or was it simply left to the imagination of the person to satisfy their urges?

Hi folks! Since the new weekly topic reminded me, I'm interested in knowing about the history of bondage/BDSM. Do these 'styles' have their roots (hehe) in a particular society or culture, or are they older and more widespread than I might expect?