Matthew, allow me to bring back your claim that the 3/5ths compromise was a "a measure to ultimately END slavery". I was going to let it rest, but I've thought better of it. Since you didn't like my adding to your claim. I ask you again to explain how this had any bearing on the end of slavery. To me this is like saying slavery was a measure to ultimately end slavery. For if you didn't have slavery you couldn't actually end it. Political reasons aside. The 3/5th compromise could have cared less about the slave themselves. It did nothing to benefit them in any manner. In fact it was used as a way consider slaves less than human. It may not have been the political reason to call them 3/5th human but it was the result.

Our country and it's people are not perfect. We've made mistakes and I find it best to fess up to those mistakes. Having the ability to understand our past failings makes us better as human beings and a country as a whole. But when I see claims that putting in writing that slaves were only 3/5th human (regardless of the resoning behind it) "ultimately ended slavery" I have to call foul. You are only looking at the intent for the compromise and completely overlooking the damage that was caused to those human beings.  

No one who wrote that compromise had the intention of using the 3/5th compromise to end slavery. We know this because there are no writings by the founding fathers outlining this 3/5th plan. It is just a revisionist approach to our history. It is done to downplay the past crimes of this country. I don't find that fair to those who had to endure those crimes and to those who really fought hard to end slavery in America.

Paul,

I could happily quip that ALL history is revisionist, because post-modernists don't believe in absolute truth and we pull from history only what we need to support the attitudes and movements of today. After all, in my lifetime I've seen Louis Riel go from traitor to patriot because we need aboriginal symbols and want to be more sensitive to minorities, while the cold, absolute facts about the man have not changed. (We just see the shades of gray in a new light...) However, as a student of history, I personally do believe in absolute truth and I try to remove the barnacles that grow attached over time that obscure the truth.

First, let's remove some barnacles from our conversation. My comments were originally directed in reply to Brad Krawchuk who in articulating the plight and mistreatment of blacks in America included the statement "Which of those groups is considered 1/3 of a person in the Constitution?"

The inaccurate math aside, Brad and many people today seek to claim the 3/5 ths compromise is clear evidence that the Founders didn't care one whit about black people. "Blacks weren't even considered a full person to those racist Founders!" is a comment you'll often hear in the black community. (I know: part of my job responsibilities include being the liaison to the black community in my city.) The fact that the 3/5 ths compromise ONLY applied to slaves and NOT free blacks in the North and South is neglected in the effort to make political points about racism. Truth is secondary to maintaining the belief that old dead white guys are racists and their constitution thus invalid.

What is the truth? The 3/5 ths compromise was about political power, more specifically about limiting the political power that could be exerted by the South in the coming union. The South wanted to count the slaves as population to get additional representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. The North, particularly the anti-slave Founders, didn't want the slaves to count as population for representation if they had no rights as citizens and remained slaves. (Again, remember, this is not about racism: Free blacks counted as FULL citizens, because they WERE full citizens. And if they held land, they even had the VOTE, unlike women, slaves and non-land holders.)

Limiting the political power of the South meant that the South could not fully exert its mores, attitudes and social systems upon federal legislation. It forestalled any possible changes to and the overturning of legislation like the Ordinance of 1787. As new non-slave states were added to the union and as northern states abolished slavery, this led ultimately to a rough balance between the number of free states and slave states. Thus, because of this rough balance, the Missouri Compromise could be overturned in the Senate. Dred Scott, of course, changed that progress.

And again, you continue to misinterpret my earlier claim. I have not said the 3/5 ths compromise "ultimately ended slavery" as you state in your post and have suggested previously. In my reply to Brad I said the 3/5 ths compromise (which he claimed to be an example of racism) was "a measure to ultimately END slavery." Unlike your tautology "slavery was a measure to end slavery", the 3/5 ths compromise was a limitation of political power, influence and control of the pro-slave South in the federal union that in time contributed to the balance between free and slave states prior to the Civil War. (Would the Civil War, and the abolishment of slavery, have come about without this rough balance between free and slave states? Could this rough balance have ever come about if the South had those extra 2/5 ths of representational power?)

Imagine the alternative you are arguing for: that somehow it would be better if the Constitution counted slaves as full persons so as to increase the representation of the South in Congress. "Congratulations! I know you're held captive against your will, been bought and sold like chattel and have no rights as a citizen of this fair country, but thanks to you we've got more representation in Congress that wants to keep things just the way they are. Nice and status-quo-like. Don't you feel better about yourself? Now get back to work before you taste my whip!"

Or, using a similar tautology that you've expressed above, because the anti-slavery Founders did not want to count slaves as whole persons for the purposes of calculating southern representation and allowing undue influence by the pro-slave South on the union they were obviously racists (because they didn't want to count the slaves as whole persons).

What gets lost in the equation is the word "compromise". ANY reduction in the counting of slaves as whole persons for determining representation while they remained enslaved without any rights of citizenship was a victory for the anti-slavery forces who did not want them to count at all. No revisionism necessary; just pure logic and simple math. Was it perfect compromise? No. Was it a compromise that immediately put an end to slavery? Unfortunately, no, but neither was that the intent nor was such a measure likely. The 3/5 ths compromise was a step in the right direction. As I learned a long time ago, politics is the art of the possible, and sometimes the possible just isn't possible right now.

Paul, you're quite correct that this country has made its share of mistakes in that past, and I don't believe my comments varnish over that. Moreover, unlike many countries in the world, America not only recognizes its mistakes but also seeks to make amends. Meanwhile, in nations across the globe today slavery is a common and accepted practice. Indeed, one could argue the Asian and Caribbean sweatshops and factories that pump out your Nikes and iPods are essentially operating with slave labour.

We can argue about the fair historical representation to those who endured the crimes of the past. I am in no way meaning to minimize the crimes of the past, but would we not be better stewards of the moment if we invested our energies in helping those who endure the crimes of today?

One final item, perhaps less for you because you seem very familiar with the Constitution, but for those reading our discourse who may not be as familiar:

Here's the exact wording of the 3/5 ths compromise, as found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution dealing with the House of Representatives:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Shudder in horror at the dehumanizing language! My eyes burn at reading it.

Of course, the 14th Amendment overturned the 3/5 ths provision. Unlike countries that airbrush their mistakes out of their photographs, the US Constitution leaves warts and all exposed even after corrections are made.

Canada, ostensibly a socialist nation, has a stronger economy than the U.S.

_______________________________

Well, you're Canadian so you must know .