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.

[grobdriver]

The BLM crowd has shown they have about 3/5 the normal intelligence - there may be something to this...

[Lord Castlereagh]

NEVER forget this!!!! The 3/5 clause is an ANTI-SLAVERY, ANTI-SLAVEHOLDER provision. The number of people who do NOT know this is staggeringly huge.

[Lord Castlereagh]

You give the FAR too much credit.

[arrogantsob]

Its primary concern was over taxation and representation not slavery.

[Lord Castlereagh]

It was still anti-slave and anti-slaveholder, as it limited the power of slaveholding states, based, well, on slavery.

[fruser1]

That’s due to the one word the left always wants us to do when they lose, and what they refuse to do when they win - compromise.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

There is no debate, no room for discussion no different points of view as 3/5th is history and was and is designed solely to apportion the House. The black is irrelevant.

[Timpanagos1]

Instead of the 3/5 Compromise they should have extended Voting Rights to all people including Slaves.

[SES1066]

Without this clause, the South would have had more Congressmen and the North would have had fewer. I challenge anyone, outside of the KKK and the Southern Democrats that were the predecessors to the KKK, to show how that would have been better for our country and the end of slavery!

I am trying to remember when the LEFTIST Progressives have been challenged by facts and errors. The Twelfth of Never, perhaps?

[Mr. K]

THE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS WANTED TO BE ABLE TO CAST VOTES FOR ALL THEIR SLAVES Without letting the slave actually vote himself.

This compromise allowed the north to counteract at least 2/5 th’s of that.

[CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC]

"... excluding Indians not taxed ..."

I'll bet most of you didn't realize that immigrants from India who make too little to pay income taxes, are not counted by the Census Bureau every 10 years.

C'mon, fess up. You didn't know that, did you?

[Regulator]

The Northerners didn’t want them to count at all.

Which is what it should have been. Why should people who have no say in the government be used to add electoral weight to another group of people who did?

They had no representation. Why count them and give the Plantation masters more power then they deserved?

Same thing happening today in California with the counting of illegals for the purpose of apportionment. A Congressional District based on non-citizens is an absurdity.

[ifinnegan]

The slave holders wanted slaves counted as 5/5 of a constituent.

Counting slaves as a full constituent would have helped slave owners.

Counting them as not a constituent, I.e. 0/5 would be bad for the slavers.

3/5 had nothing to do with personhood. Never use that term when discussing this, use constituent.

I have heard even Condi Rice use this misunderstanding to connote racism of the past.

Only ignorant people think the 3/5 rule had anything to do with designating degree of humanity.

Free black constituents were 5/5. It had nothing to do with race and counting slaves as a full constituent was what the slavers wanted and was bad for slaves, good for slavery.

[arthurus]

Indeed. It was to limit the number of representatives the slaveholding states would have in Congress. It was a compromise between the non slave states who wanted the slaves to not be counted at all and the slave states that wanted all the slaves counted so that they would bring more proslavery representatives to Congress and thus make things like limiting the exportation of slavery to the territories impossible or at least much harder to accomplish. The compromise kept the slave states from being overwhelmed ab initio in Congress while not permitting them to overwhelm the antislavery states. Anything else would have precluded the Union.

[Robert DeLong]

If they actually knew anything about history it was to take power away from the southern states. Had they been allowed to count their slaves as a whole then the south would have dominated the policies. In fact it took the north less than 80 years to completely abolish slavery. This would not have happened that quickly had the south been in control. In fact slavery may have still been present in the United States. Because they would have promoted slavery to each new state allowed into the union of states, instead of limit states that joined the union to have slaves.

[RedStateRocker]

I know the history.

I think, however, that a lot of the youngest generation does not see how anyone who was a slaveholder could be considered to have any moral authority at all, nor to be considered worthy of having their opinion given any weight on any subject. Context comes only with studying history, something many millennial and post millennial folks haven’t really absorbed yet.

[dljordan]

I’m so tired of this subject but I know it will never go away.

[heterosupremacist]

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. It was still anti-slave and anti-slaveholder, as it limited the power of slaveholding states, based, well, on slavery. I have argued that point countless times, all to no avail. I once considered it my civic duty to inform/debate lefty imbeciles - but I no longer attempt it. Imbeciles are impervious to persuasion! Facts/reason/logic/and even THOUGHT, does not ever work for these fools. Pray for the future of the United Sates of America - Team Trump = MAGA!

[ETL]

Were, or are, the BLACK slave masters in Africa, then and now (2017), racists?