Slaves 3 5 Compromise

Ignorance, Stupidity or Manipulation

Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., referring to his race and the Constitution on John Stossel's recent show "The State Against Blacks," said, "I wasn't even considered three-fifths of a guy." The Rev. Al Sharpton, debating on Sean Hannity's show, said, "Any black, at any age at any stage, was three-fifths of a human." Even eminent historian John Hope Franklin charged the Founders with "degrading the human spirit by equating five black men with three white men." Statements such as those either represent ignorance or are part of the leftist agenda to demean the founding principles of our nation by portraying the nation's Founders as racists. Let's look at the origin of the three-fifths clause.

Northern delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention and those opposed to slavery wished to count only free people of each state for the purpose of representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. Southerners wanted to count slaves just as any other person. By counting slaves, who didn't have a right to vote, slave states would have had greater representation in the House and the Electoral College. If slaveholding states could not have counted slaves, the Constitution would not have been ratified and there would not be a union. The compromise was for slaves to be counted as three-fifths of a person in deciding representation in the House and Electoral College. The compromise reduced the power of slave states relative to the South's original proposal but increased it over the North's original proposal.

My questions for those who condemn the three-fifths compromise are: Would blacks have been better off if slaves had been counted as a whole person? Should the North not have compromised at all and a union not have come into being? Would Rangel and Sharpton have agreed with Southerners at the Constitutional Convention, who argued slaves should "stand on an equality with whites" in determining congressional representation and Electoral College votes? Abolitionist Frederick Douglass understood the compromise, saying that the three-fifths clause was "a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding states" that deprived them of "two-fifths of their natural basis of representation."

Patrick Henry acknowledged reality, saying, "As much as I deplore slavery, I see that prudence forbids its abolition." With the union created, Congress at least had the power to abolish slave trade in 1808. James Wilson believed the anti-slave-trade clause laid "the foundation for banishing slavery out of this country.

The Colossus of Rhodey: Just D.U.M.B.

Making a law which made a black man 3/5 of a white man is hardly “working hard to end slavery”, in my view. That slavery persisted for another 70 plus years, with the vestiges of slavery evident to this very day, can hardly be construed as working hard enough to end slavery for once and for all. Moreover, it appears to me that racism remains alive today – ask most any black person about that. Better is not good enough!!! The following false statements are just three examples of inaccurate interpretations that persist regarding the three/fifths compromise : the 3/5s compromise of 1788 . . . enshrined slavery in the United States Constitution African Americans in this country were considered only 3/5s human at one point in history. We tried "compromise" and declared blacks to be 3/5s human.

Let's look at a couple of things here.

First, regarding the 3/5 Compromise, Perry needs to consider what actually happened at the Constitutional Convention. There was a deadlock on how to deal with slaves, who EVERYONE acknowledged were every bit as human as white people. Both Northern and Southern delegates wanted to count them as whole persons -- just for different purposes. Southerners wanted them counted 100% for purposes of representation -- but not at all for purposes of taxation (the Constitution established a capitation tax), while the Northerners wanted slaves counted not at all for purposes of representation and 100% for purposes of taxation. Compromise was necessary in order to get the Constitution adopted, lest the new nation fragment -- so slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person for both purposes. The effect was to penalize slave states -- both financially and in terms of representation -- for the peculiar institution.

As for Perry's assertion regarding the Electoral College -- Perry does have something of a point. The idea was that the electors would be independent of the voters, and that they could overrule the people of their state if they chose poorly. But when one considers that the Constitution nowhere gives the people any guaranteed right to vote for President at all (a state legislature could Constitutionally choose to abolish the practice of voting for President and instead appoint the electors directly with no ballot by the people), part of the goal was to keep the republic from descending into what Madison and others called a "mobocracy".

As i pointed out at my site , Bachmann does flub a bit on her history. However, her biggest error -- the John Quincy Adams thing -- is not so glaring as to raise a question about her intellect. After all, she knows how many states there are, unlike Barry Hussein.

Debating the slave trade, rhetoric of British national identity, 1759-1815

What Your Fourth Grader Needs to Know, Fundamentals of a Good Fourth-Grade Education

The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Founding Fathers, And the Birth of Our Nation

Liberty and slavery, southern politics to 1860

American government for use in secondary schools