GOP state lawmakers: The Three-Fifths Compromise was actually good

The Washington Post ^ | May 4, 2021 | Aaron Blake

[Retain Mike]

Republican lawmakers across the country are moving to restrict teaching about systemic racism in our education system, targeting critical race theory. But in the course of doing so, some are attempting to rewrite a very pertinent part of that history.

Twice in recent weeks, Republican state lawmakers have defended the infamous “Three-Fifths Compromise” — the constitutional agreement by which enslaved people would count as three-fifths of a person for representation purposes — by arguing that it was actually somehow anti-slavery.

[Retain Mike]

The left is having great fun with articles such as this one. All the usual suspects have taken part. Here is my take on the issue.

The Constitutional Convention finished their work on September 15, 1787. The confederation formed by the Continental Congress was fracturing and delegates knew dissolution into thirteen countries or possibly three confederations was only months away. They settled hugely vexing problems prompting Benjamin Franklin to say, “I consent to this Constitution, because I expect no better and because I am not sure that it is not the best”.

Slavery was not an immutable characteristic of the nation, but Congressional action was deferred until 1808. Discourses during debates abhorred the institution and none defended it. Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania said, “It was a nefarious institution. It was the curse of heaven on states where it prevailed. Compare Middle States where a rich and noble civilization marks prosperity and happiness with….great regions of slaves presenting a desert increasing in proportion to these retched beings”. George Mason of Virginia said, “This infernal traffic originated in the avarice of British merchants…. Slavery discourages arts and manufactures….Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant….They bring the judgement of heaven on a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this”.

The philosophical doctrines consulted for founding this country already placed master and slave on the same natural plain of existence. Following the beginning of the rebellion, the country had already seen six of thirteen colonies free slaves and two others abolish the international slave trade. Such initiatives had been prohibited by the Crown and Parliament, which mandated this universal system of bondage for their charters, so colonial economic activities would support the mercantile policies of the mother country. Total abolition of slavery would await future debates because settlement was encumbered by Northern economic interests, as well as the supposed profits of Southern planters.

After the Convention, the invention of the cotton gin in 1794 revived slavery and made it appear genuinely lucrative. Only appearance was possible, because the Southern planters provided the basic needs for all slaves even though only about half labored meaningfully on a plantation and they without incentive to be productive. Slavery disappeared from the Northern states, because indentured servitude and European hardships, such as the Irish Potato Famine, provided cheap sources of labor for factories and farms.

However, for over seven decades politicians ignored the precedents of our founding documents. Instead, they engaged in all the vices, follies and infirmities expected of humans as they debated and implemented policies accommodating trade, fisheries, agriculture, transportation, and mining amid speculative fevers. They ignored the rising influence of the political infallibility and intransigence of abolitionists and planters, whose myopic ideologies, forced a final estrangement between North and South. Through their dereliction of duty, the fire-eating miscreants of both persuasions were allowed to stumble us into the Civil War. They forced the establishment of armies that through the application of power resolved these issues, but without resort to reason, contemplation, or mutual understanding.

Faced with the same exigencies, the persistence of William Wilberforce caused the most ordinary men of Great Britain to find positions needed to abolish slavery throughout the Empire in 1833. Here was a roadmap to follow. Men demonstrating the same determination, courage, and wisdom could have separated the principles of states’ rights protecting individuals from the moral disgrace of slavery. By selecting from Great Britain’s experience, the best reasoned arguments, and proposals to begin debates, our politicians should have arrived at an antebellum equivalent of a Nash equilibrium and final settlement.

Partial Bibliography:

Miracle at Philadelphia by Catherine Drinker Bowen

James Madison: His notes to the Constitutional Debates of 1787 by Publius Marcus

History of the United States by John Clark Ridpath, LLD

The History Civil Political & Military of the Southern Rebellion by Orville J. Victor

Constitutional Convention (United States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(United_States)

Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: Thursday, May 31 by James Madison http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0531-2/

British Prohibit Abolition of Slave Trade https://books.google.com/books?id=VqVzeHFaa1QC&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=%22slave+trade%22+virginia+%22privy+council%22&source=bl&ots=KHnj2vqxY5&sig=14kubMg1qCFRlTvKLSy4KaaQW5Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjg0O7MktTaAhUOEqwKHecgAKs4ChDoAQg3MAU#v=onepage&q=%22slave%20trade%22%20virginia%20%22privy%20council%22&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=VqVzeHFaa1QC&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=%22Virginia%27s+assembly+intended+to+prohibit+absolutely+the+slave+trade%22&source=bl&ots=KHtn4vrw53&sig=ACfU3U2KtJ7zBW7UvBdAiDKcSZdZS9_JrA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjryd310aDpAhVEPawKHQq-CzMQ6AEwAHoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Virginia's%20assembly%20intended%20to%20prohibit%20absolutely%20the%20slave%20trade%22&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=VqVzeHFaa1QC&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134&dq=remove+all+Restraints+on+your+Majesty%27s+Governors+of+this+Colony,+which+inhibit+their+assenting+to+such+laws+as+might+check+so+very+pernicious+a+Commerce&source=bl&ots=KHtn4vrAY5&sig=ACfU3U01RHw9Q-T8NgyY1rvOP91TiYigDg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj3gMKK06DpAhUmnq0KHfnMA_MQ6AEwBnoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=remove%20all%20Restraints%20on%20your%20Majesty's%20Governors%20of%20this%20Colony%2C%20which%20inhibit%20their%20assenting%20to%20such%20laws%20as%20might%20check%20so%20very%20pernicious%20a%20Commerce&f=false

The Virginia Slavery Debate of 1831-1832 https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Virginia_Slavery_Debate_of_1831-1832_The

Nash Equilibrium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium

Cotton gin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_gin

William Wilberforce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce

Slavery Abolition Act 1833 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833

[teeman8r]

it was anti slavery, preventing slave states from having more representation in congress.

teaching that it dehumanized slaves is not true, and that they were viewed as less than human is not true.

when will the stupid end.

[gundog]

This will just incite the stupid.

[RedStateRocker]

The narrative today is:
Slavery was wrong; anyone not an ardent abolitionist has exactly no moral authority on anything at all.

Trying to explain anything beyond that is futile in my experience.

Within 25 to 50 years anyone who owned slaves, condoned slavery, or did not advocate abolishing it during that era will be as much of a non-person to history as the Germans and Japanese have made their WW2 leaders and military.

[Rurudyne]

Abolitionists wanted no slave counted for representation. If nitwits today are upset about 3/5ths imagine their response to 0/5ths?

[Rurudyne]

The Woke make their own gravy.

[Wuli]

Yes, the 3/5 was a condition AGAINS THE SLAVE HOLDING STATES.

Counting the slave holding states slave populations, on a one-to-basis, instead of 3/5ths, would have given a little greater representation in Congress to the slave holding states.

How much?

By 1860, this much:

The slave states total 1860 population was about 9.1 million, with about 5.5 million “free” and about 3.6 million slave. But due to the 3/5ths rule, the slave states population, for purposes of seats in Congress, would have been considered as only 7.69 million, instead of the 9.1 million, thus lowering their congressional representation accordingly.

(The 7.9 million is arrived at by using only 2.1 million for the slave population (3/5ths of the 3.6 million).

Yes, the 3/5ths measure was a good one. It was NOT a slant against the humanity of the slave, it was against the slave states, reducing their congressional representation BECAUASE their slaves did not enjoy freedom to represent themselves.

[gspurlock]

Bingo - since the slaves could not vote, their owners would be voting on their behalf, in their interests, not the interest of the slaves. . .sort of like how Congress is now treating voters when they pass legislation.

[Vision]

The Washington Post yet again at war with truth and logic while trying to inflame black racism and entitlement.

[SES1066]

The willful deceit in this one shows him to be a true LEFTist. He ignores the entire historical record of getting the US Constitution passed that this compromise enabled! If not passed, the British could have picked off individual states as the old Confederation agreement was too weak for mutual defense.

The LEFT has even gone after Franklin for having owned a slave couple early even though he founded one of the first abolitionist groups later. Remember, the LEFT requires perfection in history but ignores almost every fault in their own heroes! Ref: Margaret Sanger's views on eugenics and the founding of Planned Parenthood!

[sphinx]

The correct position was obvious in 1787 and is obvious today. Congressional apportionment should be based on the number of registered voters. That would have excluded slaves in 1787. It would exclude noncitizen residents today. I have no problem with excluding minors as well; for purposes of apportionment, count them when they’re old enough to vote. They can be considered for other purposes from the point of birth, but apportionment should turn on voting eligibility.

[muskah]

It had something for both sides, that is why it is called a compromise. Without it there would have been no Union.

[fatman6502002]

The Northern position was, if the southern slave states will not grant their slaves freedom to live as citizens then they cannot be counted for reasons of representation in the House. Also the Northern free states by agreeing to the compromise would lessen Southern slave state reps in Congress thus eventually making it easier to ban slavery eventually.

[ConservativeInPA]

by arguing that it was actually somehow anti-slavery.

It was exactly that. Quite simply it limited representation from pro-slavery states at the time when only white males could vote. If slaves were fully counted, then more representatives would come from the south, but fewer people would elected those representatives than in the north. It was a compromise required to have the south to enter the Union.

[euram]

the northern states didn’t want to count slaves at all, relegating them to non-persons.

[DoodleDawg]

the northern states didn’t want to count slaves at all, relegating them to non-persons.

They were non-persons in the South. In the South they were property, without any rights or benefits that a free person enjoyed. Why did they need congressional representation?

[Wiser now]

Honest answer: when Jesus returns. And not one minute before.

I’m not sure it’s possible for a leftist to understand the true purpose of that provision and why it was good. For one thing they’d have to shut up and really listen, then think. Something they are unaccustomed to doing.

[DoodleDawg]

That would have excluded slaves in 1787.

And women. And children. And white males who did not qualify as voters. And free blacks who were not allowed to vote.

[sphinx]

All of which would have strengthened the case for expanding the franchise.

[DesertRhino]

It was actually an elegant masterstroke. The south denied the humanity of the slaves as full citizens, forbade the education, the vote, etc. The North simply said “Ok, cool, then how much of a person should they count as? 3/5ths sound about right?

Neither side got what they wanted. The north had to allow slavery in the union for a while, the south was denied the representation it’s population would have given them.

In return they formed a union and successfully defended it from the world’s superpower, England. Without this deal, England would have clawed the colonies apart one by one.
it would have been child’s play.