Redstate

Posted at 8:52pm on Apr. 14, 2008 In Retrospect: The 3/5ths Clause of the Constitution

By Martin A. Knight

And Now For Something Completely Different ...

liberalrepublican's comment here on the Framers of the Constitution tsk-tsking their ignominy in "signing a document that says that recognizes and legitimizes slavery and counts a slave as 60% man ..." reminded me of an experience I had sometime in the not-so-distant past - especially after reading simpson316 say it's "far better than nothing."

My response to that is ... no. It would have been much better if slaves had not been counted at all.

I remember telling a black liberal friend I was having a friendly (Right V Left) argument with that I wish slaves had counted for far less than 3/5ths of a human being when the Constitution was written. I said that 0% actually would have been the ideal, but 20% would have been okay with me. The conversation got a little less friendly (I got called an "Uncle Tom") until I gave him a small history lesson ... and he ended up agreeing with me.

The 3/5ths Clause, ultimately, was a Good Thing. And if it had been the 1/5ths Clause, it would have been even better.

Of course, you need to think beyond the initial Outrage! at how one human being could be considered to be worth just 3/5ths of another human being to see what I (and GOPaisano) mean.

Not many people who huff and puff and level the accusing finger at the nation's founders about it seem to be aware that the Slave States' representatives at the Constitutional Convention were the ones demanding that slaves be counted as full persons, while the Free states' spokesmen were the ones demanding that they not be counted at all.

Posted in 0.60 clause | Archived | Constitution | History | Slavery — Comments (29) / Email this page » / Read More »