Were Our Founding Fathers Racist? The Slaves are 3/5ths of a Person Debate

RedState ^ | July 18, 2010 | Jeff Dunetz

[EveningStar]

Many in the progressive world, believe that our founding fathers were racist. As their evidence they point to Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:

“ 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.”

To the liberals, the 3/5th figure is an indication that our founding fathers were a bunch of racists who thought that the African Slaves were less than human.

The truth is that the founders from the northern colonies  who opposed Slavery, insisted on counting the slaves as less than “full persons.” The reason for the insistence, is to prevent the slave states from getting too many congressman and electoral votes as to dominate the government and prevent Slavery from ever being abolished.

[Lord Castlereagh]

Wrong.

[IC Ken]

Lets go back to when you needed to own property to vote.

[Nifster]

Had the US not fought a civil war over this it might be an interesting topic

[Scooter100]

I’m getting really POed about the U.S. being the slave bad guys in so many discussions. Give it up, pu-leezzz. Global slavery existed in MASSIVE numbers that dwarfed the U.S. long before and after Lincoln freed them in the CONUS. As all those lefties say, MoveOn.

[JimRed]

The 3/5 rule was only for determining the number of representatives per district, and the slaves could not vote anyway.

[JimRed]

Free black constituents were 5/5.

Free blacks back then had to watch their backs to avoid being grabbed up and sold.

"Wait...let go of me... I'm not a slave, I'm free! I have my papers..."

(Sound of paper tearing, then the crackle of paper burning) "That's what they all say! What papers you talkin' 'bout?"

Not a proud era in our history, but long, long over.

[Slyfox]

The first draft of the Declaration of Independence had a section on slavery with Jefferson stating what most of the Founders believed that slavery was wrong and a great evil. His editors told him that the Declaration was not the place to discuss slavery. The Declaration was intended as the cutting off of the colonies from the King of England. It was believed at the time that slavery would have to be dealt with at a later time as it indeed worked out.

In other words, they could not fight both a battle with England and those who preferred slavery all at the same time.

When the Declaration says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It was their intention to include everyone, including slaves.

[Uncle Sham]

People forget that slavery was just one of many issues that were dealt with. The Civil War resulted from this stupid compromise because of the Northern states taking economic advantage of the Southern states due to their increased power in government. Slavery in the United States would have died out once improved mechanical processes came along to the extent that the cost/profit bottom lines called for it. This compromise, in essence, created a future war between the two factions as one side, the North, was given an advantage in power that they abused.

[arthurus]

Yes to all that but at the time the compromise was necessary in order to even get the Constitution done, the future not being terribly clear to the delegates. What changed was the population of the industrializing northern states increased faster than that of the southern states.

[ifinnegan]

Census.

[RegulatorCountry]

While I’m not about to defend slavery, women and children couldn’t vote either, and they were included for apportionment purposes, so expecting slaves to fully “count” isn’t quite as insidious as it sounds from the perspective of now.

[Paal Gulli]

Everyone is racist. Anyone claiming otherwise is either delusional or a liar or both.

The nation that spawned the USA still was slaughtering its own brown subjects by the hundreds with impunity as late as 1919. I’m not in the least ashamed of the fact that my American ancestors repented of that habit even before the English did.

[arrogantsob]

Right and the slavers could not afford per capita taxes with each slavers counted as a man and they knew they were men.

[TheNext]

3/5 counted slaves not African Americans. There were white slaves who also also counted 3/5.

[Becki]

The slave holders wanted slaves counted as 5/5 of a constituent. Counting slaves as a full constituent would have helped slave owners.

The Southern Democrats wanted to count them for the purpose of determining the number of state representatives, but would not allow them to vote.

They wanted to stack the house to overwhelm future votes on slavery.

[Mr. K]

I think you’ve missed the point - libtards use it to say that The Framer’s only thought they were 3/5’s of a normal human.

They ignore the historical significance. And completely ignore the fact that they gave women 0/5th’s of a vote.