On the eve of America's independence day, I'd like to dispel a politically correct myth about the American founders: that they regarded blacks as three-fifths of human beings. Even so eminent an historian as John Hope Franklin charged the American founders with "degrading the human spirit by equating five black men with three white men."
As I show in my book What's So Great About America, the origins of the clause are to be found in the debate between the northern states and the southern states over the issue of political representation. The South wanted to count blacks as whole persons, in order to increase its political power. The North wanted blacks to count for nothing--not for the purpose of rejecting their humanity, but in order to preserve and strengthen the anti-slavery majority in Congress.
It was an anti-slavery northerner, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, who proposed the three-fifths compromise. The effect was to limit the South's political representation and its ability to protect the institution of slavery. The great black abolitionist Frederick Douglass understood this. He called the three-fifths clause "a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding states" which deprived them of "two-fifths of their natural basis of representation."
So a provision of the Constitution that was anti-slavery and pro-black in intent as well as in effect is today cited to prove that the American founders championed the cause of racist oppression. Isn't it time to set the record straight and teach our children what really happened? As Jeane Kirkpatrick once put it, "We Americans must learn to face the truth about ourselves, no matter how pleasant it is."
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 4)
1. l6Hi, men! today I found Britney Spears Nude video :) Enjoy..
..
http://sexy-tube-world.net/view.php?Britney_Spears_Nude
..
..
ghuyjdizkt at 10:29AM on Jan 24th 2009
2. 144 years and extremely subjective history has clouded the facts.
Slavery was not simply a "Southern institution." It began on this soil in 1619. The South, with greater land mass and smaller polulation than the North, and with the climate, was agrarian. The North with considerably fewer square miles, but a more concentrated population, relied upon industry and shipping.
We tend to focus (thanks to the motives of the educational system) upon slavery in the South, while ignoring the source of wealth for Northern businessmen: the Atlantic Slave Trade.
And, whether the Northern slave ship owners or Southern plantation owners, we tend to forget that the coffers of the US government were filled with riches from the importation of slaves, the sale of slaves, and the export of slave-produced goods.
Slavery was a horrible institution. But it was not exclusively a Southern one. It was an AMERICAN institution. Northern states, Southern states, and the US government were complicit.
Yes, the Northern states formally abolished slavery (though Northern-owned slave ships continued their trade), most well before the War of 1861-65. But, consider the lack of need for slave labor in the North, thus little economic dependence upon slavery, and the small slave population in the North. Had the Northern states' economies depended upon slavery, would they have so easily abolished the institution? If freed slaves were in large population, thus representing a "threat" to white communities (real or imagined; competition for employment to social and political rights), would the North have so easily abolished slavery?
Even with compensated emancipation, most Northern slaves were "freed" insideously: they were simply sold South.
"Let slavery, then, be the South's problem" was the attitude of the day for many Northerners. More than this, it is clear that the attitude was "Let the NEGRO be the South's problem."
Far from the storybook image of Northerners welcoming freed slaves from the South with open arms, many communities, in fact, passed laws FORBIDDING freed blacks from settling in their communities. The treatment of freed Southern slaves in Northern cities is documented. But, it stands to reason that Northern "natives" who would proclaim "No Irish Need Apply" would certainly feel considerably stronger sentiments about blacks from the South competing for employment, housing, and some semblance of rights in white Northern cities.
As difficult as it may be to accept in these "enlightened" times of government-school education, biased media and political correctness, the fact remains that white Americans - North and South - regarded blacks as inherently inferior to whites. Yes, the true definition of racism (unlike today's ludicrously broad definition, which includes the unforgivable act of ordering a "black coffee" at a Starbuck's!). Many whites, North AND South, desired an end to slavery. Yet, few believed blacks were - or could ever be - "equal" to whites. This sentiment was clearly held by even the illustrious "Great Emancipator" himself, Abraham Lincoln, in numerous speeches, letters, and in the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
So, folks, before accepting scantily-based government-approved history as fact, consider the attitudes of the times, geography, economic realities, and pure old greed before exonnerating the North and condemning the South.
"The War was over slavery"?
Would 600,000 white men of the 1860s have left their homes and families to fight a war over a race of people universally deemed inferior?
My points thus made for your kind consideration, I bid you good evening.
Deo Vindice
Graymalkin
Graymalkin at 11:28PM on Aug 18th 2009
3. Are you insane? I have never read anywhere a defense of the three fifths compromise as beneficent! That you would choose to do so on the eve of "Independence" Day is even more shocking. As if we should celebrate the "enslavement" compromise as we celebrate July 4th!
So you would have us look at the founding of our nation and its institutionalization of slavery in our Constitution via the compromise as the North weakening the South? I would call it appeasment. And when working with the invidious, appeasement is usually NOT successful.
What about the fact that the compromise betrayed Jefferson's ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal? You probably believe that in the context of the times, viewing blacks as inferior, was the norm not the exception. But is it not a permanent stain on our Nation that in our struggle to live up to our ideals that we had to fight a Civil War largely because the issue of slavery was deferred by the founders to later generations? And what about the fact that the for decades, new states and territories had to be admitted at parity (i.e. for each non-slave state admitted to the union, a slave state also had to be admitted)? Yes, the compromise limited political representation in the House of Representatives for the South, but it didn't limit political power. We know from today's headlines that the Senate can be blocked from action by the few, and if it doesn't pass the Senate, it ain't goin' nowhere!
Sean at 12:06PM on Jul 3rd 2007
4. Then we should also teach our kids that the War for Southern Independence wasn't fought over slavery solely and only, but rather over tariffs and other tyrannies of the federal government.
We should also teach them that FDR did not "save capitalism", that the great depression was not caused by capitalism, and that Hoover didn't just sit by and do nothing.
We also need to teach them that the "robber barons" were just sucking off the teat of the federal and state governments, gaining monopolies via fiat.
With that, we need to teach our kids that the "gilded age" was not a time of unfettered capitalism.
It's time to set right the lies of the statists.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 11:50AM on Jul 3rd 2007
5. I am reminded of the first time someone described 'whole' math to me or 'social promotion' in schools. I assumed they were elaborate jokes. Such is my reaction to very idea anyone could be so willfully ignorant of what is a very simple truth. I find this kind of thing to be genuinely insulting and I can only look on in some awe as modern day extremists from both ends of the spectrum twist the origins of our country for their own personal agendas. This is right up there with claiming the founding fathers were all devout Christians in the traditional Puritan mold which is also patently false.
Rob Zimmeman at 11:53AM on Jul 3rd 2007
6. In reviewing past comments on atheism and religion it became quite clear to me that the issues and related facts provided by the commenters support their world view. While I was enlightened by many of these comments since they were quite insightful it amazed me to what extent those who were "locked in" to their world view ignored the more compelling information and facts that didn't support their views.
The two sides clearly fell in line with the positive outlook likened to seeing the glass half full while the other side was negative and saw the glass half empty. As in the case with atheism and religion, the negative side seems to be driven by the dark side which at its extreme can be characterized as "Godless" while the positive side believes in Goodness and God.
Since birth we have focused on ourselves as distinct from others (selfish) and not until we gain more experience do we really see that without others life would be virtually impossible . . . and with that realization we come to see the "Light the end of the Tunnel." How and what pushes us to the point of shifting more from the negative to the positive (unselfish) is a function of each individual's personal experiences and your articles on this blog certainly speed that process and I'm grateful for your daily efforts to enlighten all of us . . . on either side of the fence; climbing over that fence is akin to "Being Born Again" in my opinion.
A friend of mine recently thought I might enjoy reading Anna Politkovskaya's new book. It is non-fiction and describes Russia's fall from a hopeful society just emerging from the Soviet rule to an increasingly authoritarian one where stifled, complacency reigns, democratic forces are divided and weak. She was murdered last year and this is her diary, A Russian Diary.
I saw the NY Times write-up and it looked interesting to me more because she was a Liberal and learned through hard "experience" how wrong that view of life really is . . . And I'm coming to accept that no amount of talking will take the place of personal experience. Life is Good (God is a contraction of Good) and all of us are destined to eventually see that what we thought was "Bad" was really a means for us to achieve the higher divine potential we will all realize sooner or later, although it may be many, many life times from now. Thanks gain, Dinesh, for speeding that process for me! - Karl May
P.S. Eventually as we grow in spirit, Mom (who has loved us unconditionally) is replaced by God (in whose hands we are at all times) as we come to realize through gratefulness how lucky we are to be alive living in American, the land of the free, healthy, and happy under whatever external conditions might challenge us at the moment.
Karl at 12:05PM on Jul 3rd 2007
7. Great. So the south wanted to count slaves as full persons to increase their power. Did they plan on allowing the slaves to vote? We all know the answer to that. Count blacks as full persons, thus giving the south more power in Washington to repress slaves further.
I have never read any of light-weight thinker Dinesh D'Souza's columns that were in any way enlightening. Is this the best the right wing can do for thought?
Angry at 12:09PM on Jul 3rd 2007
8. Our founding fathers were some of the greatest men this country has ever seen. They showed courage where most of us would show fear. However, let's not act like they were saints! Many, including Washington and Jefferson, were slave-owners. Furthermore, almost all of them were NOT devout Christians, and in fact criticized those who made political decisions based on religion.
Even for those founding fathers who opposed slavery, there was no way the Constitution was going to abolish slavery. With over half the states relying on slavery for their economy, there was no way these states were going to sign a Constitution that got rid of slaves.
As for the 3/5 compromise: It was not about being pro or anti slavery at all. It was about getting the southern states to sign the Constitution. The southern states wanted their blacks to count when calculating state populations, for this gave the states more votes in the House. The Northen states wanted to avoid this, because with less slavs they would have less votes. Thus, a compromise was reached.
Jon at 12:12PM on Jul 3rd 2007
9. To Sean:
"But is it not a permanent stain on our Nation that in our struggle to live up to our ideals that we had to fight a Civil War largely because the issue of slavery was deferred by the founders to later generations?"
This is precisely what I referred to: the mythmaking of the War for Southern Independence as THE GRAND WAR TO ELIMINATE SLAVERY. Just as the 3/5 clause wasn't to say that blacks are 3/5 of a person, the War for Southern Independence wasn't to eliminate slavery.
The 3/5 clause was for the purposes of House representation alone. I realize that goes against what you were taught in school, but what you were taught is, frankly: wrong.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 12:18PM on Jul 3rd 2007
10. Dinesh appears to be trying to get people to forget about his Blame America for making that moral religiously correct misunderstood Osama Bin Laden attack us BS he spewed in his book The Enemy At Home. I think Dineshs days in the Reagan administration have him stuck on the Jihadi are wonderful Freedom Fighters page... You don't "show" anything in your books Dinesh. You writing something does not make it so.You fantasize bend and twist reality to support your own agenda.. There is a huge difference.
Steve at 12:26PM on Jul 3rd 2007
11. Pleasant hunh? Pleasant slavery. Well this is a nice pleasant book plug. That's for sure. However, the issue that some of us Black Southerners (descendants of those subjected to the pleasantries of American slavery) and Constitutional Law scholars have had is mischaracterized by your statements. There is no debate about whether or not the founding fathers actually thought descendants of African heritage were fully human or homo sapien. The three-fifths clause has never stirred any Darwin-type debates to my knowledge. The issue was whether or not slaves qualified as men within the meaning of The Constitution for taxation and representation purposes. For taxation purposes the Northern anti-slavery supporters wanted them counted as property and rightly so, since that is what slaves were by conventional and legal terminology of the day. Legal property NOT persons with legal rights. On the other hand, the other hypocritical Slave-holding forefathers did not want slaves counted as property for purposes of taxation and representation while giving them no voting rights or legal standing of any kind under The Constitution, and at the same time giving themselves the rights of property owners in relation to slaves particularly "fugitives". This is what the debate was about. The debate was "property" vs. demographic "person". NOT human vs. non-human. The result meant additional representation and political power for the South and additional revenue for the country, the Northern goal. This neither added to nor changed the legal and social rights of Black persons under that regime. Both characterizations are equally unpleasant and both sides of the debate are equally culpable for the shameful result which is immortalized in the three-fifths clause.
Miriam Moore at 12:36PM on Jul 3rd 2007
12. Yes of course. Appropriate for a particular purpose at a particular time. Practical and more importantly doable.
Your founders were wise not to fight the Revolutionary and Civil Wars simultaneously. Simply would not have worked, in casu. st
meherestillalways at 12:51PM on Jul 3rd 2007
13. I appreciate your effort to make the facts known, but no matter what the supposed reason for the three-fifths compromise, it was an act of inhumanity to declare a group of people less than human. There is no justification for this devasting proclamation nor was there ever any consideration of how the African decendants would be affected upon learning of the classification. The truth in it's factual presentation, with regard to this matter, does nothing, in my opinion to exonerate any of the individuals invovled in that horrific period in history. I am reasonably certain that if the people of your heritiage had been declared less than human, you might not have approached this topic with such a sterile and incompassionate approach. No matter how you slice it, so to speak, the topic of slavery is detrimental to my psyche. You cannot begin to fathom the emotional impact it has on Black youth in America to keep hearing that seemingly their existence in the world or claim to fame began as slaves. There's a historical disconnect between the ancestral kinship of Blacks in America and the Africans who are responsible for the marvels of the building of the the Pyramids, the Sphinx, King Tut, Timbuktu, the royal African dynasties as well as all other contributions that the people of the entire continent of Africa have contributed to the world. It should be all encompassing, but instead, slavery is pulled out as if it, in and of itself is the totality of my existence as a Black person in America. So please understand that I cannot adequately express on paper how sick and tired I am of reading about slavery. There is no part of the subject that solicits any good feelings from within. Theresa Atwood
Theresa Atwood at 12:46PM on Jul 3rd 2007
14. It is quite straightforward to me; I recall learning this in school in South Dakota, a northern, "yankee" state : )
However for those who still have trouble understanding this, keep in mind that while under the US Constitution each state is allowed two senators in the Senate, that the number of congressmen in the House of Representatives is determined by the population of each individual state, and that number comes from the national census that is conducted every ten years.
The Southerners of those days wanted to count their slaves in the census, which would give them (i.e. the white Southerners) more representatation (i.e., more congressmen) in the House of Representatives. That would have made the Southern slave states more powerful, and would have helped them better tend or preserve their special interests, the main one in those days being the awful institution of slavery.
The hitch of course was that first of all, most of the Northern states were not happy with the institution of slavery and secondly, while Southerners wanted the slaves to count for the census, they were not about to let Blacks vote.
Keep in mind also, that the founders were trying to build a nation, and did not want Southerns to bolt and form their own nation. The 3/5 clause was obviously a reasonable way to limit the power of the slave-holding Southern states, which was altogether a correct thing to do. What to do specifically about slavery was wisely left to the next generation.
For those of you who think the 3/5 clause was indefensible, given the circumstances of the era, what would have been your solution?
Ken Berg at 12:49PM on Jul 3rd 2007
15. Actually, as much as I dislike agreeing with Dinesh. He is essentially accurate about the counting of the slaves as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of representation in the House of Representatives. The slaves would not get the right to vote, but if counted as a "whole" person, would have given the southern states a significantlyl higher number of representatives. And, yes, that would have given the southern states more ability to affect change, and, probably, strengthen slavery laws. Although, other arguments may be presented concerning property and taxation, the south had more to gain by having the slaves be counted as whole people, as they would have greater lattitude in changing the future of the country.
C at 12:58PM on Jul 3rd 2007