I don't tihnk the slaves were consiered people at all, they were considered mistakes!

They were considered property, not people. And the 4/5th myth is from a law passed by the congress, making a slave only count as 3/5th of a vote. (or 3/5ths, I think it was the 3/5th compromise, but can't be certain) to take away power from the states.

It was 3/5 of a person. But ONLY for purposes of counting the population of each state to determine how many representatives in Congress and how many electoral votes for president each state would have and how much direct tax could be levyed on each state. . The slave states wanted the slaves counted in the general population, that would give them more representatives, votes, and power, but they did not want them counted for tax purposes.. The free states didn't want ANY slaves counted as that would lessen their power, but did want them counted for taxes. The 3/5 person was a compromise, made to just get the Constitution written and t acceptable to the states and the people. It's in Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution. "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." 'Other persons' are slaves. That was changed by the 14th Ammendment, section 2, " Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed." ( Seems like when it comes to the Indians it was " No representation without taxation. Actually back then many Indian 'tribes' were considered to be seperate independant Nations.) In reality slaves were not considered to be persons at all. They were property, chattel, with no more rights than a cow, chicken, or even a barn.

So far as I know slaves were regarded as a certain kind of cattle or merchandise in legal sense. In ethnic sense they were regarded as a mixture between beast and human being. Some were regarding slaves basically as human beings but on an extremely low level and this was one of the most important reasons of the pro-slavers that they said that they were nothing doing but a very good and very noble deed by taking care of these poor creatures. Some even said that it was an impulsury duty given by God itself to own slaves because slaves needed mistreses and masters being unable to decide like a human being on a higher level of education and evelopment. So mostly women regarded their ownership of slaves mostly as a divine duty ordered by God himself.

After the Roman law aslave was mere property of his mistress or master and being the owner they usually could do with their property whatever they liked. The Greeks had the same opinion. How slaves were regarded in their personality in America, I do not know. In South American and the Hispanic or Portuguese areas slaves were more regarded as in Roman times and quite often daughters who were married did not get money but some slaves.