There was nothing in the 3/5ths provision that would make one race inferior to another. It established that those who were in a condition of involuntary servitude are not having their full interests recognized by the elected representatives of their state.
Nothing in the 13th or 14th Amendment “corrected” the notion that an elected representative of a ‘slave State’ did not fully represent the interests of someone in a condition of involuntary servitude - the 13th corrected that someone COULD be held in a condition of involuntary servitude - and the 14th established equal protection under the law.
It is usually liberals who hate and wish to denigrate our Constitution who make the argument that it said a black was less than fully human - and that is both incorrect - and a reprehensible smear on our foundational document.
And yet in America, "involuntary servitude" did not extend to Caucasians (unless they were convicted criminals). It was reserved for "inferior races" — mainly blacks, though it was tried with American Indians as well. (The latter did not make "good slaves"; they had "ingrained" habits of "shiftlessness" and of constantly wandering off....)
You can try to whitewash this situation all day long; but it is a fact that many persons of that generation did indeed regard black people as "less than human." And thus fit to be slaves. The slave states would not have been able to compete with the Northern states for power and position in Washington if a huge sector of their population (the slaves) was ineligible to be counted for apportionment purposes. But they could only be counted at three-fifths strength. That right there is clear evidence to me that they were considered as "inferior" to other persons. Not to mention the fact that these three-fifths persons were not even regarded as citizens.
allmendream, you seem always so "doctrinaire," so "by the book" in your comments, as if the surface appearance of, say, a statement is all you need to know. But you need to look deeper than the surface to truly understand what's going on. Otherwise your understanding will be quite shallow....
For instance, everything you wrote in the above italics is "technically correct" — but "correct" only as far as it goes. It stops short of recognizing the actual human dimension of involuntary servitude and all the sheer human suffering it engendered. And to suggest that the three-fifths of a person language was adopted to ensure that black slaves got fair representation in Washington is really pretty risible.
JMHO FWIW