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 3 of 4)
31. Hey, dude, Bill Clinton had people killed or allowed it. Can we be real. There are no truly honest politicians. Do you just want to debate on who was worse? That is lame.
dave at 5:12PM on Jul 3rd 2007
32. To Knight_of_BAAWA and Ike:
Please. I fully realize that the Civil War was not fought to abolish slavery, nor was Reconstruction about making Blacks equal citizens. Most northerners would not have lifted a finger for abolition, but they just didn't believe in allowing secession. And I get the point of Dinesh's argument that in his eyes, the compromise was a brilliant solution to limit southern power in the House. 1) I question how much southern power was ultimately limited given the slave state/free state issue I mentioned, and 2) I just find it repulsive to celebrate this compromise as a brilliant exercise of political negotiation on the eve of Independence Day. It's a patently offensive notion to me, and I'm sorry you don't seem to get it.
For some of us the compromise represents American hypocrisy at its height: i.e. we'll exploit the fruits of black labor but treat the people like cattle. (Cattleowners weren't given additional representation, so why were slaveowners? Were blacks more like people or more like animals?) The compromise allowed the nation to be founded under this unabashed cloud and entrenched in the minds of Americans that blacks are inferior.
War, as we know from our endeavors in Iraq, is a military means to political end. The three fifths compromise was just as someone poined out, a carrot to get the South to sign the Constitution and get the Nation started. That slavery was a contentious issue that shaped politics for the next four score and seven years is a fact of that compromise. Is there no profile in courage of one of the founders who would rather have allowed the South to go its own way rather than accede to the stain of slavery on a nation founded on ideals? Northerners obviously weighed the facts and decided that the compromise was the best way to get the southern states to join because they didn't want to go it alone. Then, lo and behold, those uppity southerners decided they wanted to go it alone. The North preserved the Union but it came at an undeniable price to some, aspects of which were not acknowledged until the Civil Rights Act was passed.
Sean at 5:23PM on Jul 3rd 2007
33. Sean:
"Please. I fully realize that the Civil War was not fought to abolish slavery, nor was Reconstruction about making Blacks equal citizens."
Good for you.
"Most northerners would not have lifted a finger for abolition, but they just didn't believe in allowing secession."
Actually, many of them did. There were several newspaper editorials in northern states which essentially said "If they want to leave, we should let them. Forcing them to stay is against what this country was founded on." But you don't have to take my word for it; it's documented in writings such as Tom DiLorenzo's _The Real Lincoln_.
" And I get the point of Dinesh's argument that in his eyes, the compromise was a brilliant solution to limit southern power in the House. 1) I question how much southern power was ultimately limited given the slave state/free state issue I mentioned, and 2) I just find it repulsive to celebrate this compromise as a brilliant exercise of political negotiation on the eve of Independence Day."
He's actually just busting the myth that the Constitution says blacks are 3/5 of a person, nothing more.
" It's a patently offensive notion to me, and I'm sorry you don't seem to get it."
That's because you're seeing something that isn't there.
"For some of us the compromise represents American hypocrisy at its height: i.e. we'll exploit the fruits of black labor but treat the people like cattle. "
That's what slavery was about. Did it suck? Oh yeah. But to condemn "the US" for it is stupid.
"(Cattleowners weren't given additional representation, so why were slaveowners? Were blacks more like people or more like animals?) The compromise allowed the nation to be founded under this unabashed cloud and entrenched in the minds of Americans that blacks are inferior."
That was already entrenched in people's minds, though. It's not like the 3/5s issue make them inferior in people's minds.
"War, as we know from our endeavors in Iraq, is a military means to political end. The three fifths compromise was just as someone poined out, a carrot to get the South to sign the Constitution and get the Nation started."
Yes, and if you had read D'Souza's article carefully, rather than thinking that something is there that isn't, you'd see that it's not about calling blacks inferior.
"That slavery was a contentious issue that shaped politics for the next four score and seven years is a fact of that compromise."
Yet wasn't the only thing.
"Is there no profile in courage of one of the founders who would rather have allowed the South to go its own way rather than accede to the stain of slavery on a nation founded on ideals?"
Then why didn't they allow the south to leave when it wanted?
"Northerners obviously weighed the facts and decided that the compromise was the best way to get the southern states to join because they didn't want to go it alone. Then, lo and behold, those uppity southerners decided they wanted to go it alone. The North preserved the Union but it came at an undeniable price to some, aspects of which were not acknowledged until the Civil Rights Act was passed."
Preserving the Union created the Imperial Presidency we have today, among other nasty things.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 5:50PM on Jul 3rd 2007
34. Why would Dinish pluck this piece for discussion at this time? I've read some of his past blogs, and it seems to me that his point of view is tainted in a very subtle bigotry towards African Americans.
Is it really important that some people believe that African American slaves were considered a portion of a person or just a North/South compromise to gain political power? The real stain on American History is that the country allowed such an institution in the first place. It's saying that a group of highly intellectual men, who called themselves men of culture and religion went to bed every night with this plague that infested their country. Some of this countries forefathers like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had sexual relationships with their slaves and fathered mixed children.
In the grand scheme of things, treating a groups of people less than whole citizens was the crime against nature and God. It continues today, but was very obvious throughout the 20th century under Jim Crow laws in many parts of the U.S. Something tells me that Dinesh already knows this, but enjoys wallowing in the mud of controversy.
Rod at 6:25PM on Jul 3rd 2007
35.
Okay, this is a bit of a ridiculous argument.
One of the major conflicts of the Civil War was the right of states to determine their own law versus the federal government, of course. But where did those conflicts arise? Over slavery, and nothing else. So saying that the war was not over slavery is a complete and utter falsehood.
By the end of the war, the federal government won out, and the rights of the states were further limited, yes. But there would not have been a civil war at all if not for the issue of slavery, so let's drop this nonsense about alterior motives. The fact is, the North and the majority of the population objected to slavery, and the South rejected it because it was such a vital part of their economy, and they were just not willing to give that economic staple up to accomodate the majority opinion of the country. In that respect the war was to defend democratic opinion, more than anything.
I suppose it is similar to the abortion debate of today in many ways. Some people believe it should be up to the states to decide, and that's the same argument that was made for slavery before the Civil War broke out.
Peter at 6:11PM on Jul 3rd 2007
36. Per Sean in post 30: "For some of us the compromise represents American hypocrisy at its height: i.e. we'll exploit the fruits of black labor but treat the people like cattle. (Cattleowners weren't given additional representation, so why were slaveowners? Were blacks more like people or more like animals?) The compromise allowed the nation to be founded under this unabashed cloud and entrenched in the minds of Americans that blacks are inferior.
KB - The Northerners thought they could not win a war of independence against the British without the help of the Southern states. Even so, since the North disliked the institution of slavery and wanted to limit it to the South, they needed to come up with a way to limit the power of White Southerners. Now, White Southerners wanted to count Blacks in the census, but of course were not willing to let them vote. White Northerners knew if they agreed to that, the power of White Southerners would be disproportionally increased.
S - "War, as we know from our endeavors in Iraq, is a military means to political end. The three fifths compromise was just as someone poined out, a carrot to get the South to sign the Constitution and get the Nation started.
KB - Exactly.
S - "That slavery was a contentious issue that shaped politics for the next four score and seven years is a fact of that compromise.
KB - Exactly. The issue of slavery was deferred to the next generation.
S - "Is [Was] there no profile in courage of one of the founders who would rather have allowed the South to go its own way rather than accede to the stain of slavery on a nation founded on ideals? Northerners obviously weighed the facts and decided that the compromise was the best way to get the southern states to join because they didn't want to go it alone.
KB - You answered your own quention. Northerners were convinced the would not win a war of independecne against Britain unless the had the Southern states on board.
S - "Then, lo and behold, those uppity southerners decided they wanted to go it alone. The North preserved the Union but it came at an undeniable price to some, aspects of which were not acknowledged until the Civil Rights Act was passed.
KB - "An undeniable price to SOME"?? More Americans died during the Civil War than in all of the wars we have been in since then combined. I do not think it right to minimize the price we paid for the sin that was institutionalized slavery. Like Lincoln said in his second inagural address (well worth reading sometime), paraphrasing; 'Perhaps the Almighty will not be satisfied until every drop of blood drawn by the task master has been paid for by a drop of our blood on the battlefield'.
Before second-guessing 18th and 19th century people and actions from a 21st century vantage point, it is better to think a bit more about this. It is important to try to realize the scope of what happened in those days, and the depth of thought and emotion involved. It cannot all fit into a bumper sticker slogan.
Ken Berg at 7:16PM on Jul 3rd 2007
37. On second thought, I think it was:
'... for every drop of blood drawn by the lash ... '
Ken Berg at 7:18PM on Jul 3rd 2007
38. Peter:
"One of the major conflicts of the Civil War was the right of states to determine their own law versus the federal government, of course. But where did those conflicts arise? Over slavery, and nothing else."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Ever heard of the Tariff of Abomination? How about the Black Tariff? Or the Morril Tariff?
Those are far better reasons. And those are reasons.
Stop swallowing the load of crap your teachers gave you and start thinking for yourself.
"By the end of the war, the federal government won out, and the rights of the states were further limited, yes. But there would not have been a civil war at all if not for the issue of slavery,"
Wrong. It was far more about economics than slavery.
"so let's drop this nonsense about alterior motives. The fact is, the North and the majority of the population objected to slavery, and the South rejected it because it was such a vital part of their economy, and they were just not willing to give that economic staple up to accomodate the majority opinion of the country. In that respect the war was to defend democratic opinion, more than anything."
No it wasn't. It was a war of agression by the federal government upon several states that wanted to end the contract called the Constitution.
Think. For. Yourself.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 7:38PM on Jul 3rd 2007
39. To rationalize the motives of the 3/5th compromise without equally taking the political, social, and economic context into consideration is ridiculous. While part of the 3/5 compromise may have been mired in the manufacturing north's need to retain political and economic control over the more populated (due to the high number of slaves - blacks) natural resources of the south. Let's not forget that many of the congressmen of the time owned slaves & had other motives for supporting the 3/5th compromise which was more in line with the common belief of the time, that Black men as well as Native Americans, and women held less political and socioeconomic value than their white male counterparts.
ishiboi at 7:44PM on Jul 3rd 2007
40. I love how people like to correlate without causation. It's fascinating.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 8:03PM on Jul 3rd 2007
41. The 3/5's clause allowed white southern men to get additional representation in the House of Representatives and the electoral college because they owned slaves. The slaves had no political say, and the 3/5's compromise flies in the face of the concept of "one man one vote." The clause had a tremendous impact on U.S. politics. Thomas Jefferson was elected president, in the eyes of many, on the backs of these unrepresented slaves. Read Gary Wills' book about Jefferson's election "Negro President" to learn the full story and don't rely on D'Souza's half told history and out of context quotations of Frederick Douglass (who was arguing about the unconstitutionality of slavery when he wrote the quoted words. D'Sousa's piece is just another example of his propensity for spreading bovine feces in the name of whitewashing American history and promoting neo-conservatism.
Margalynne at 8:48PM on Jul 3rd 2007
42. Why does everyone always have to be so stereotypical about the north and the south? Yes, southerners owned slaves. Yes slavery was abolished in the north. That does not mean that every southerner owned slaves. Actually less than twenty percent of southerners owned slaves. And that also does not mean that the north was perfect. The northerners were taxing the southerners shamelessly, and then using the money to improve the economy and the infrastructure of the north, giving none of it back to the south. Another thing people often don't realize is that the Civil War was not fought over slavery. The Civil War was fought by Union soldiers for their country. The Civil War was fought by Confederate soldiers because they were fighting for their country, the south. Duty for one's country; duty for one's homeland; duty for one's family. Those were the reasons soldiers fought in the Civil War. Actually most of the people who fought for the Confederacy did not own slaves. If you owned twenty or more slaves you were exempt from the draft. Large plantation owners would divy up the slaves between themselves and their sons, so none of the family would be drafted. This was NOT ABOUT SLAVERY. Yes slavery was a factory, but a very small factor. And people would do good to realize that.
Ann at 9:16PM on Jul 3rd 2007
43. This is my second time reading something by Mr. Dinesh, both times it was regarding racial indifferences of the past. I feel that his efforts to set the record straight, are just a facade for a man who has racist, bias intentions in everything he writes about race. The media in all forms consistantly want to link blacks to all the problems of yesterday and today. When the majority of us just want to live our lives in peace as normal memebers of the human race.
Donovial at 9:22PM on Jul 3rd 2007
44. The 3/5th rule was not about limiting slavery nor was it pro-black at all. It was about political power AND THAT WAS ALL IT WAS ABOUT. It was passed because the North HAD FEWER SLAVES not because they didn't have any!
There was never considered to be any chance of abolishing slavery and that wasn't the purpose of the debate. Indeed, the Constitution also provided for an inability of the Congress to regulate the importation of slaves until 1808 and prohibited free states from freeing escaped slaves. Even President Lincoln during the Civil War didn't want to force the issue of abolition until it was well under way.
Another fact that is conveniently overlooked by everyone here is that even in 1790 AFTER the Constitution was ratified, you had to be a WHITE MALE PROPERTY OWNER to vote. It was only until about 1850 that the property requirement was abolished throughout the US. Still most Northern states prohibited blacks from voting, serving on a jury, etc. Plus many practiced slavery in the 1800s. So much for the argument that abolitionists held much sway at the time of the Constitution.
Indeed, the division between slave states and non-slave states isn't so easy. The North has PLENTY of blood on its hands:
In New Jersey, slavery was legal, although the importation of slavery was not. It wasn't abolished until 1804 that the New Jersey Legislature passed "An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery."
According to the Census of 1800, there were 384 slaves in Rhode Island.
Vermont: Slavery outlawed
New York: In 1799 the Legislature passed "An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery"
New Hampshire: Outlawed slavery in 1857. In 1790, 158 slaves.
Delaware: 1800 slaves still existing at time of civil war -- so much for being a 'free state'
Massachusetts: Abolished slavery by court action in 1783 in Quock Walker v. Jennison.
Pennsylvania: Abolished slavery in 1780.
Connecticut: Gradual elimination beginning in 1784. Still had 54 slaves listed in Census of 1840.
Carolyn Wu at 9:20PM on Jul 3rd 2007
45. I thought freedom of speech is what America ia all about. Good work, Dinesh. When we are children they teach us about the greatness of America. Then they give us the freedom to go to college or the library to learn the truth and reach our own conclusion. The human experience has always been about wealth and cultural dominence. Otherwise, Muslims would not have invaded Europe, Ghengis Khan would not have invaded Europe and Europeans would not have invaded Africa and parts of Asia. And most of you posting would not be drinking Fiji water, eating Kobe Beef or be wearing Rolex watches, Armani clothing or be driving Beemers, Lexis or Escalades.
Joseph Poli at 9:56PM on Jul 3rd 2007