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 2 of 4)
16. Sean, did you not read the blog?! Read it again cause you are lost on the whole slavery issue. Do you think slavery would have less of a chance to survive if we gave the South more representation power in congress? I think it was a brilliant move. The South wanted us to count a black person as a whole person when it came to giving them representation but in reality they did not even consider a black person as anything other than a piece of property. Think before you spout your poisonous venom.
Ike at 1:11PM on Jul 3rd 2007
17.
The "3/5 clause" was a very hot, controversial topic on talk radio in the year 1992. I'm glad that Dinesh finally got around to addressing it. I wonder why he doesn't address something more contemporary such as the fact that his Fuehrer George W. Bush has commuted the prison sentence of "Scooter" Libby, a man convicted of perjury in a case involving the public "outing" of a covert CIA agent and a member of the very same Republican Party that insisted on impeaching President Clinton for the horrible crime of committing "perjury" by lying about a few blow jobs?
emelpe at 1:42PM on Jul 3rd 2007
18. This is just another crass, greed motivated attempt by D'souza to 'get paid' for revisionist history that belittles and minimizes the experience of Africans in America. He cut his bona fides on this crap and it plays to a tried and true audience. I haven't heard much from this guy lately; I guess this is his attempt to establish relevancy before outing a book. Crawl back in your hole, D'souza; hate is not selling as well as it use too.
Thomas at 1:55PM on Jul 3rd 2007
19. Actually, Dinesh this time got it right, Thomas. He neither belittled nor minimized what happened to blacks in the US. He simply spoke the truth.
I know--that's hard to believe. I had to read it three times just to make sure. But he is correct.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 2:14PM on Jul 3rd 2007
20. Does Mr. DeSouza's quote Frederick Douglass on the 3/5 rule, to suggest that he thought the South was right and the North (morally and legally) wrong for suggesting a "compromise"? A very clear picture of Douglass' views regarding this nation and its hypocrisy on slavery and a number of other issues can be found in his speech "What to the slave is the Fourth of July", delivered on July 5th, 1852. Read it and you shall see that it rings true 155 years later.
RML
RML at 2:35PM on Jul 3rd 2007
21. Dinesh D'Souza's comments about 3/5ths of a man are only interesting as the beginning of history, not as the complete evolution of an historic event. What might have been an effective political compromise took on a life unto itself, however unexpected by those who suggested it.
A parallel event might be the way in which the Statue of Liberty is primarily associated with those who come to this country seeking to become citizens. It was originally born of feelings for those who were enslaved here.
As the American Park Network notes on its website: "Almost 100 years later, in 1865, according to Frederic-Auguste Bartholdi, a successful 31-year-old sculptor (the man behind the Staute of Liberty), several French intellectuals opposed to the oppressive regime of Napoleon III were at a small dinner party discussing their admiration for America's success in establishing a democratic government and abolishing slavery at the end of the Civil War." Few know that the Staute of Liberty was conceived to celebrate those who were perceived to be 3/5ths of a man, yet that does not diminish its power and presence to those who come here seeking opportunity, freedom, and asylum.
As Dinesh D'Souza well knows: History evolves, but it does not absolve.
Charles N. Jamison, Jr. at 2:44PM on Jul 3rd 2007
22. Greetings, Let it be known that these type of discussions have nothing to do with the general education of our fellow ignorant surfers. It is soundly, a method used by our federal government to seek out African Americans who know the truth of this Nations affair. Although there is an equal, if not greater number of Non- melaninated beings who are out of the loop of this nations' reality. The African American (Moors)is the only group of interest top the powers that be.ESPECIALLY in relation to the Asiatic types e.g. the Natives of the South and central Americas. As for the attempt of creating doubt as to the dehumane nature of the 3/5th clause. Know that when the constitution was written, slave/ chattel was considered property. Only free men were counted as representatives of states. Although the artist of half truths will continue, thus the great challenge approaches. It is the basic math of life, critical mass is inevitable when the tention of lies persist. But the caves await them as they always have. Thier home sweet home, is our homecoming celibration.
shaun at 2:51PM on Jul 3rd 2007
23. Some of you folks are pissy even when you know very well D'Souza is simply stating a very well known fact. Amazing.
Oh well, thankfully it is a slow news day - enjoy the 4th!
Ken Berg at 2:57PM on Jul 3rd 2007
24. What were they thinking back then?
They should have just sent 'em all back.
TT at 3:23PM on Jul 3rd 2007
25. The second one's even better.
FEDgov - it's ALWAYS FEDgov!
FEDgov's priority #1 is "continuity of the FEDgov"
All else pales (to them, which includes YOU).
The Declaration Revisited
http://www.jpfo.org/unpopularsp-federalist-4th.htm
The Declaration of Independence, 2003
(rewritten to show the parallels between then and now
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Constitution_Issues/declaration_2003.htm
or
http://tinyurl.com/298869
Lon Horiuchi at 3:38PM on Jul 3rd 2007
26. Let's get this straight. Not only was the Civil War about slavery, the Revolutionary War was about slavery. Frankly, Western European society was gravitating away from involuntary human servitude, and the South was getting nervous about some British judicial rulings which favored slaves obtaining their freedom after traveling to England with their masters. When Massachusetts staged their ill-conceived "tea party," and England decided to take over direct rule of the colony, the New England states were ready to go to war against England, but they knew it was a battle surely to be lost unless they had the help of the southern states. The South wasn't exactly eager to go to war to get Massachusetts out of the pickle it had gotten itself into, but the South was also nervous about what appeared to be an impending abolition of slavery on British soil, which would include the colonies. The price the South demanded to help New England go to war against England was an assurance that the new country would always be a slave nation. This was the source of much controversy over the founding documents. James Madison's first draft of the Declaration of Independence, for example, stated that "all men are born free and independent." This was unacceptable to the South, as it appeared to have adumbrations of abolition. Jefferson's brilliant compromise was to say that "all men are created equal." The phrase "created equal" is abstract and spiritual, the words "free and independent" are legal terms. This is the kind of battle the South fought to keep the institution of slavery alive. The "three-fifths" compromise had nothing to do, on either side, with consideration of the African's humanity. It was simply a matter of representation. North and South Carolina's populations were over 80% slaves. They would have a negligible voice in a representative legislature unless the slaves were counted. The arguments for and against counting the slaves had only to do with representative weight, and nothing to do with morality or ethics.
The Civil War was an outgrowth of the compromises struck during the Revolutionary period, much like World War II grew out of the compromises settled at Versailles. The South quite correctly perceived that the North was not keeping its promise to maintain the country as a slave nation. This was, make no mistake about it, the ONLY impetus for the outbreak of the Civil War. It was a battle for state's rights all right, the state's right to have a slave economy.
Carlos Diaz at 3:47PM on Jul 3rd 2007
27. I too am the descendant of a slave. My ancestor was condemded to slavery by James and sold at Port Royal as a slave for 3 pounds sterling in 1587. He was an Irishman. To his credit he was only a slave for a few months before he sharpened a piece of flint stone he found in a field and used it to murder his master, the master's wife and children, and several overseers. He then escaped to become a pirate. (although not a pirate of any note)
One of his descendants was a Templar abolishionist supporter of John Brown who smuggled guns to the south in an attempt to get the African slaves to rise up and murder their masters. (considering the slaves outnumbered the masters by about 50 to 1 it should have been easy)As any Irish child knows from reciting the dirge of John Brown's body the uprising attempt failed miserably because the Africans weren't up to the fight.
Had the Africans been up to the fight they might have freed themselves and saved the rest of us the bloody civil war.
The founders who opposed slavery did not think the Africans were up to the fight either, which is why they chose not to risk open war with the much stronger south at that time just for the sake of a foreign people. They went for the 3/5 compromise to postpone the inevitable showdown until they calculated that they could soundly and permenantly defeat the slavers. (not for the sake of the Africans, but to insure the future of their own children)
The Africans feel shame that their ancestors were slaves, but we Irish are extremely proud of our slave ancestors because they were quite willing to murder any slaver's family, right down to the suckling infants, as they slept.
Darkmanwp at 3:50PM on Jul 3rd 2007
28. To Carlos:
" Let's get this straight. Not only was the Civil War about slavery, the Revolutionary War was about slavery. "
Wrong. In fact, I'm trying to determine how you could be more wrong. I don't think there is a way. Neither the War for American Independence nor War for Southern Independence were about "slavery".
Both wars were more economic (and not about the economics of the slave trade). Rather, it was about mercantilism, protectionism, and tyrannical interventions.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 3:54PM on Jul 3rd 2007
29. Knight - Carlos is using the term "slavery" in a very broad sense. He means that in effect, if you have taxation without representation, that would be a form of slavery to the King.
One can also say that some people are "slaves to fashion". It is simply a matter of semantics, and not anything to get wound up about.
Ken Berg at 4:04PM on Jul 3rd 2007
30. Actually Ken--that's not at all what Carlos referred to. Now while I agree with your statement re: taxation w/o representation (and in fact, taxation period), Carlos' words do not line up with your assessment.
To wit:
"Frankly, Western European society was gravitating away from involuntary human servitude, and the South was getting nervous about some British judicial rulings which favored slaves obtaining their freedom after traveling to England with their masters"
Carlos wasn't talking about what you said he was.
Now then, I do believe it is time to be free from the slavery of government officials and government itself. We should declare a new independence day, and eliminate government.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 4:43PM on Jul 3rd 2007