creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Walter Williams
Walter E. Williams
23 May 2012
Should Black People Tolerate This?

Each year, roughly 7,000 blacks are murdered. Ninety-four percent of the time, the murderer is another black person.… Read More.

16 May 2012
Should We Obey All Laws?

Let's think about whether all acts of Congress deserve our respect and obedience. Suppose Congress enacted a … Read More.

9 May 2012
Leftist Race-baiters

MSNBC's Chris Matthews, in a recent debate with former Republican National Chairman Michael Steele, called … Read More.

Ignorance, Stupidity or Manipulation

Share Comment

Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., referring to his race and the Constitution on John Stossel's recent show "The State Against Blacks," said, "I wasn't even considered three-fifths of a guy." The Rev. Al Sharpton, debating on Sean Hannity's show, said, "Any black, at any age at any stage, was three-fifths of a human." Even eminent historian John Hope Franklin charged the Founders with "degrading the human spirit by equating five black men with three white men." Statements such as those either represent ignorance or are part of the leftist agenda to demean the founding principles of our nation by portraying the nation's Founders as racists. Let's look at the origin of the three-fifths clause.

Northern delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention and those opposed to slavery wished to count only free people of each state for the purpose of representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. Southerners wanted to count slaves just as any other person. By counting slaves, who didn't have a right to vote, slave states would have had greater representation in the House and the Electoral College. If slaveholding states could not have counted slaves, the Constitution would not have been ratified and there would not be a union. The compromise was for slaves to be counted as three-fifths of a person in deciding representation in the House and Electoral College. The compromise reduced the power of slave states relative to the South's original proposal but increased it over the North's original proposal.

My questions for those who condemn the three-fifths compromise are: Would blacks have been better off if slaves had been counted as a whole person? Should the North not have compromised at all and a union not have come into being? Would Rangel and Sharpton have agreed with Southerners at the Constitutional Convention, who argued slaves should "stand on an equality with whites" in determining congressional representation and Electoral College votes? Abolitionist Frederick Douglass understood the compromise, saying that the three-fifths clause was "a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding states" that deprived them of "two-fifths of their natural basis of representation."

Patrick Henry acknowledged reality, saying, "As much as I deplore slavery, I see that prudence forbids its abolition." With the union created, Congress at least had the power to abolish slave trade in 1808.

James Wilson believed the anti-slave-trade clause laid "the foundation for banishing slavery out of this country."

Other Founders condemned slavery. George Washington said, "There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it." John Adams: "Every measure of prudence ... ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States. ... I have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in ... abhorrence." James Madison: "We have seen the mere distinction of color made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man." James Otis said, "The colonists are by the law of nature freeborn, as indeed all men are, white or black." Benjamin Franklin: "Slavery is ... an atrocious debasement of human nature." Franklin, after visiting a black school, also said, "I ... have conceived a higher opinion of the natural capacities of the black race than I had ever before entertained." Alexander Hamilton's judgment was the same: "Their natural faculties are probably as good as ours." John Jay wrote: "It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused."

Here's my hypothesis about people who use slavery to trash the Founders: They have contempt for our constitutional guarantees of liberty. Slavery is merely a convenient moral posturing tool as they try to reduce respect for our Constitution.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM


Comments

5 Comments | Post Comment
It seems to me that all politicians find it easy to divert attention away from the very fact that they are robbing the Americn people blind.
Comment: #1
Posted by: John C. Davidson
Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:21 AM
Is there someway you could get Sharpton or Jackson to read your article? Oh well, if they did, they would spin it or deny it somehow! Everyone in the US should read it and open their eyes. The blacks in this country are better off than any other place in the world...now if the majority of them would only take advantage of the opportunities for self-reliance and quit crying, we would all be better off!
Comment: #2
Posted by: Charlie
Tue Jun 28, 2011 11:31 AM
The "three-fifths" clause actually degreased slave buying in that it was cost-prohibitive to buy enough slaves to get more representation. Taken in context (something liberals are incapable of) the "three-fifths" was only for purposes of representation and not a definition of humanness.
Comment: #3
Posted by: David Henricks
Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:16 AM
I am reading H.W. Brand's biography of Benjamin Franklin, "The First American". The 3/5 compromise goes back even before the Constitution. The convention that created the Articles of Confederation faced the question of what representation by each state should be based on. Because the question of taxation was central to the whole independence movement, there was a divide between basing representation on taxable wealth versus population. But slaves, being "property", were both. The solution was the 3/5 compromise that carried over into the later Constitution as Prof. Williams describes.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Phillip Schearer
Wed Jun 29, 2011 5:40 AM
Good Article, Walter Williams.
Government Shutdown in Minnesota due to $5 billion deficit article! Government
would take Taxpayers money of $$3,600.00 from a woman with eight! This isn't
her money, anyway!
I don't know about you, but take this “one woman” and “one state” and multiply it
by tens of thousands getting social and welfare handouts, and it doesn't take a
rocket scientist to figure out why America is Bankrupt, now does it!

This was point I was trying to get across in my article about sterilization ‘tying
tubes' until one becomes responsible. It's obvious, none of these people, of all
races, are responsible or they wouldn't be having all these kids and call
themselves ‘stay-at-home moms!' Social and welfare programs hasn't taught
anyone anything, period! Just another government bureaucracy!

Taxpayers don't want government involvement nor bigger government, and
neither do I. Something has to be done immediately! Taxpayers know government
is going to have to be cut by 75% in order to pay the debt load that landing on the
backs of our children and grandchildren!

It would be beneficial if ‘babysitters' (politicians call them teacher assistants)
were eliminated; therefore, these ‘stay-at-home'moms, living off social and
welfare programs,' wouldn't have any spare time to get pregnant again, would
they? This is, and has been a mistake, for a long time. When most of us were in
school, there were 35-40 kids in a class and no one was disruptive nor got
pregnant or we'd suffer the consequences. Now that politicians have taken over,
you see nothing but total destruction. GET MY POINT? Taxpayers know it's time
to eliminate public schools and put your children in a good Christian School or a
good home-school, so they'll have a future!
Comment: #5
Posted by: Shirley deLong
Sun Jul 3, 2011 8:57 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Walter E. Williams
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Roland Martin
Roland S. MartinUpdated 20 Jun 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 27 May 2012

22 Oct 2008 Affordable Health Care

6 Feb 2008 Silly Talk

11 Aug 2010 What Handouts To Cut