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 4 of 4)
46. only a dumb white guy from back in the day, would have come up with this 3/5th thing. might as well just say zero, that blacks are nothing. fast forward to the modern time, look at how many afro-americans have accelerated beyond their wildest dreams. every time i read history, i always have a sense of disgust as i turn the pages.
mr lee at 10:35PM on Jul 3rd 2007
47.
Knight_of_BAAWA-
I'm pretty sure I mentioned the economic implications for the South which led to the Civil War in my post, I think you're missing the point. Slavery was a key institution in the Southern economy of course; at that time it was one of the only ways to profit from the production of cotton due to the amount of labor necessary for picking and processing it. It was because of that economic necessity that the South seceded from the Union when the institution of slavery was threatened by a growing abolitionist movement in the North, and the election of an openly abolitionist president and Congress.
The issue at the heart of the conflict was the moral argument over slavery, and everything else is a non-sequitor. If it were simply a matter of economics, the North would have had no problem with slavery at all, because it was a boom for the economy of both the South and the nation. Yet the North was on the cusp of banning the practice, and that led to the war. If this was not the case as you claim, then what, exactly, was the war about in your opinion? Does thinking for yourself mean making up your own historical facts to suit your view of history?
Peter at 11:42PM on Jul 3rd 2007
48. "I'm pretty sure I mentioned the economic implications for the South which led to the Civil War in my post,"
I know that you said it was only slavery, period. Nothing else mattered. Only slavery.
That, of course, is a laod of crap.
"I think you're missing the point. Slavery was a key institution in the Southern economy of course;"
And it was actually dying. Of far more import were the horrific tariffs imposed on goods in order to "help the northern manufacturers compete".
" at that time it was one of the only ways to profit from the production of cotton due to the amount of labor necessary for picking and processing it. It was because of that economic necessity that the South seceded from the Union when the institution of slavery was threatened by a growing abolitionist movement"
Wrong. That's the lie that's told in grade and high schools. It's simply not true.
"The issue at the heart of the conflict was the moral argument over slavery,"
Wrong. You really need to do some research and stop believing the pablum you were told in schools.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/stromberg/stromberg28.html
"In chapter four, Adams unfolds his revenue-based theory of the war. The shift from a pro-peace to a pro-war position by the New York press and key business interests coincided exactly with their realization that the Confederacy’s low tariffs would draw trade away from the North, especially in view of the far higher Northern tariff just instituted. There is an important point here. It did not automatically follow that secession as such had to mean war. But peace foretold the end of continental mercantilism, tariffs, internal improvements, and railroad subsidies – a program that meant more than life to a powerful Northern political coalition. That coalition, of which Lincoln was the head, wanted war for a complex of material, political, and ideological reasons."
Look past the christ myth of Lincoln and the "slavery only" crap. There's more out there.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 12:08AM on Jul 4th 2007
49. I wonder if 3/5ths of the population are as mean-spirited as about 3/5ths of the posters here.
Maybe the chance to blog anonymousely brings out the worse elements. That's the problem with Internet- a large chunk of human communication is removed for lack of a physically noted presence. A lot of these whiners wouldnt dare in public, or would be easily cowed, since they have nothing to root in.
Go for a swim or something and cool off. And burn your agenda.
Dinesh- good essay. Thanks for your time.
giles at 9:21AM on Jul 5th 2007
50. I am amazed at the grown-up babies who, when their mothers and fathers naturally die, these babies grasp at the illogical and violent religious existence, from Joseph and Mary, being married, yet Mary had a "virgin" baby to Moslems who think if they blow themselves up, and kill innocent people in the process, will be rewarded with 72 virgins. If war and death weren't so serious, it would be laughable. We see today neocons, who are rabidly religious, initiate a war that former President Bush knew, by not going into Baghdad after Saddam, the Pandora's Box his stupid son the prototypical neocon, open. Not one thing neocons said would happen has turned out beneficial for the U.S.A. Indeed, neocons have succeeded in having the whole world hate us, only a few years after the whole world loved us after 9/11, which wouldn't have happend if, as John Lennon wrote, "Imagine no religion ..."
Robert Berkowitz at 3:28AM on Jul 6th 2007
51. Knight,
There is more out there but quoting another historian to prove your point is one of the fruitless uses of History. History in itself is biased, cause we can never know the truth of the matter, that is why it is history. Fact of the matter was that this much of this war was about slavery(In the broadest sense that it encompasses every facet of the discussion from its morality to its economic and political value).
In an illogical sense I think this whole idea of what was the war over has moved away from the whole them of D'souza's article - the myth of Slaves(Africans and their descendants) as 3/5th human. It would seem to imply that if representation meant that one man had one vote and you counted an individual of another group as 3/5th's of a man so their vote doesn't count as one vote. Doesn't the math suggest that the person isn't equal to One whole person.
This argument could be twisted to fit the ideals and motives of the writer, D'souza makes a good point of view from his perspective but it leaves him open to the attack. Take his wording "whole person", Can't a whole person also equal one whole human being.
Stating that the 3/5th clause was anti-slavery contradicts the essential knowledge that most Northerners cared more about the economics of the situation more than slavery.
The one thing D'souza is good at is provoking controversy which in turn leads to dialogue. If anything I applaud him for that even though I quite vehemently disagree with his ideology.
Mecc at 10:53AM on Jul 10th 2007
52. I seriously don't care if DD is right or wrong, what I do care is that on the eve of the fourth he blogs this and last week he used Fredrick Douglas to open old wounds (and sell his book). I think that we as Americans have enough on our plates right now without anyone native or foreign born attempting to separate us any farther than we already are. To forget the past is to repeat it, we all know that, but to wallow in the past is to limit growth.
I read three Native American news papers every month, I could use those to hate and to wallow in the past. I could blame white guys for all the sadness in our NA communities. I would rather spend my time helping the NA kids learn to assimilate without losing their spirituality or their hair. I could wake up every morning still mad about what was. I would rather teach every little NA girl that she too can grow up to be the next Wilma Mankiller or Elouise Cobell.
Would I like to see our treaties honored? Sure I would, but I am not going to wait for it. Nor will I wallow in the pain of the past.
I could protest the 4 th and cry that the white eyes freedom and liberty cost my people their land and life style. What/where would that get me? I haven't forgotten, nor will I, but I refuse to wallow.
We all have our crosses, there isn't a nation a culture a religion that doesn't have past mistakes. We all know what was done to the last perfect guy.
No matter how we got where we are today, the 4th should be a day of celebration and unity within our country.
I know this sounds paranoid, but if the radicals (right and left alike) can keep us workin stiffs mad at each other we are less likely to see they are selling us down the river. We are in this boat together, we can learn to get along or we can freakin drown. Like it or not sink or swim we're in this together.
Mackie at 12:07AM on Jul 7th 2007
53. most of these posts would be rejected as way to far from the subject.....
Eugene Dalton at 4:57AM on Jul 7th 2007
54. Take your insanely stupid ass back to INDIA. We don't need cretins like you attempting to tell us about OUR history.
Go back to INDIA and tell your people about YOUR history, creep.
Another FOREIGNER attempting to rewrite OUR history. GO BACK TO INDIA YOU F****ING Non intellectual BUFFOON.
IAMERICAN at 3:29AM on Jul 8th 2007
55. Uhhhhhh BWaaa - Slavery was not dying by 1860, and in light of the Jim Crow Laws established in the South - there is absolutely no evidence the South would have given it up.
99% of the economy of the South was generated as a direct result of slavery. The ending of slavery economically flatlined the South for near 100 years. It is absolutely rediculous to assert that the same murdering scum who had profited from slavery's depredations were going to somehow...
Find Jeeezus.
Bushthwak at 8:54AM on Jul 10th 2007