Sunday, January 9, 2011

Three-fifths Compromise

Last Thursday the U.S. House of Representatives opened their 112th session of Congress by reading the entire [amended] Constitution aloud from the chamber floor for the first time in its history. The amendment process does not delete text from the Constitution when changes are made. This allows us to go back and see our "scars". Pundits and congressional reps alike, however, made a big deal about "which version" of the Constitution would be read. One of the comments I saw most frequently is, "Will they read the part about African-Americans only being three-fifths of a person?" I even saw a comment on Answers.com that claimed the North wanted to count slaves as "one", and the South wanted to count slaves as "zero". This represents a completely upside-down understanding of the three-fifths compromise.

Slaveholders and Southern supporters of slavery wanted slaves fully counted for the purpose of apportioning representation in Congress (and distribution of taxes). This would give southern voters a disproportionate representation in the House to their advantage, further institutionalizing slavery into the new nation's fabric. Abolitionists did not want slaves counted at all since they could not vote, and for the above reason that it would give slave-owners disproportionate power in the House and electoral college. At no point does the Constitution refer to anyone as 3/5 of a person. By lowering the RATE at which "all other Persons" were counted, those founders were trying to set the stage for the day when slavery could be ended. Additionally, slavery opponents were showing the hypocrisy of slave-owners who claimed slaves were property, but demanded they be counted as people.

Despite the 3/5 not being as controversial as some want to believe, it was not read since it has been superseded by the 13th and 14th Amendments, and has no bearing on this session of Congress.



No comments: