And Civil War is just ahead on the sixty-five year horizon. Imagine if all thirteen colonies had to agree on whether or not to have kids. Sure you could sweep the issue under the table for a little while, but eventually it will erupt in a total war that has its true roots edited in Texas textbooks.
I can completely understand the argument on both sides of the case. In the no-kids column, they’re a bunch of smelly, sticky, ungrateful money pits who ruin your plans for the next twenty years of your life. They ignore you from ages twelve through seventeen, then talk to you so that they can ask for money after that. Then they leave you alone without so much as a thanks for their existence.
In the argument in favor of having kids, it gives people something to talk about. I guess. I don’t really know.
And slavery is much the same thing. You’re trapped, at the mercy of a belligerent master who needs constant coddling and attention and the analogy works a little more accurately if the kid is white. Or if you want to dress said child in cotton.
It would appear, at first, that the logical solution is to count children as three-fifths of a person, much as one would do to their prospective slave. People who don’t want kids don’t want other people’s children screwing the number of representatives in the house, but people who do have children want to count them as real to give themselves a purpose in life.
Yet it never solves the real issue that can only be conducted in a true civil war between the two battling parties. Both sides think that they are the righteous ones doing Gods work in an all-out war between the states over whether or not to have kids because the problem was never solved in the first place. The three-fifths measure, along with the Missouri Compromise – to have kids in Missouri provided that they’re banned in Maine – were temporary stopgaps on the path to Civil War.
Then you get into a serious debate within the original war, which the South faced themselves: should child soldiers be used in the Civil War over children? The case against it is that, as we previously discussed, they are only three-fifths of a person. The South is loaded with youngsters and if they let these kids fight in their Civil War, then it might question what they’re fighting for in the first place. However, if the North allows kids to fight in their anti-children stance, then draft riots will ensue.
Should childless aristocrats in the Five Points district of New York be allowed to pay a few hundred dollars so that they can hire a freed child to take their place in a battle that is too distant and removed from their personal beliefs?
Either way, both sides can agree that antiquated battle tactics – whether they’re being performed by children or not – will be mowed down in the face of the machine gun. The memories of such brutal battles over children can be seen in the faces of thousands of old, strange, bearded and pathetic men who attend reenactments at Gettysburg every month. God speed, good men. And know that ye olde faithful will not all O be coming. Whether birth control is used or not.