The Myth About the Three-Fifths Clause

[snopes]

On the eve of America's independence day, I'd like to dispel a politically correct myth about the American founders: that they regarded blacks as three-fifths of human beings. Even so eminent an historian as John Hope Franklin charged the American founders with "degrading the human spirit by equating five black men with three white men."

http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/07/...fifths-clause/

[Dr. Dave]

Originally Posted by snopes

http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/07/...fifths-clause/

One should also realize that slaves were counted as 3/5. Freed black (men) were counted whole. Slaves were of course exclusively (almost exclusively?) black ("endentured servants" were counted whole), but not all black people were slaves.

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.

From the US Archives

[Kutter]

The 3/5ths compromise says nothing about the value of human beings. It was simply 18th Century politics needed to get the Constitution passed in the Southern States.

As stated above, it applies only to slaves and only for the purposes of apportioning House districts and tax revenues.

If you think about it, philosophically, it really was a win for abolitionist thought. In passing the compromise, the slave owners had to acknowledge that their slaves had some value as human beings, not just as property to be bought, sold, or whatever. However, as with most idealistic victories, it never really amounted to anything except to be taken out of context 200 years later. Oh, and to give the South more House seats than they should have had in a just world (providing slavery existed in just world, which of course it wouldn't...)

But the fact remains, if the 3/5ths clause, or something like it, had not been passed, the Southern states would not have ratified the Constitution. No one at the time was willing to allow that to happen.

[Victoria J]

Originally Posted by Kutter

The 3/5ths compromise says nothing about the value of human beings.

The rest of your post makes a lot of sense, and seems like a fair historical assessment. But I have to disagree with this.

It is indicative of views of the time (possibly as you suggest less harsh than some views) and as such does say something about the value assigned to human beings. It may not be the main purpose of the clause, but it is good evidence of the low value accorded to some members of society.

Historical documents always tell you more about society than the message they were meant to convey.

Victoria J

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Victoria J

It is indicative of views of the time (possibly as you suggest less harsh than some views) and as such does say something about the value assigned to human beings. It may not be the main purpose of the clause, but it is good evidence of the low value accorded to some members of society.

Yes and no. Obviously it demonstrates (as if any such demonstration were necessary) that blacks had much lower status than whites. The point is that, contrary to some erroneous modern intepretations, nobody at the time really considered blacks to be (only) 60% as "good" as whites -- it was just a number used to effect a political compromise. The attitudes of the time towards blacks were generally much more polarized (e.g., a large segment of society viewed them not just as belonging to a lower class, but as being sub-human).

- snopes

[Victoria J]

Originally Posted by snopes

Yes and no. Obviously it demonstrates (as if any such demonstration were necessary) that blacks had much lower status than whites. The point is that, contrary to some erroneous modern intepretations, nobody at the time really considered blacks to be (only) 60% as "good" as whites -- it was just a number used to effect a political compromise. The attitudes of the time towards blacks were generally much more polarized (e.g., a large segment of society viewed them not just as belonging to a lower class, but as being sub-human).

- snopes

The only thing that I was objecting to was the idea that it had "says nothing about the value of human being". I believe that any historical document has to read in a richer manner.

I'd say that no one would try and mathematically quantify human beings like that - but sadly that's not actually true. (The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen J Gould had quite an effect on me, and I still think it is a fascinating book). However, despite or even because this topic has never been a particularly major topic for me (my American history is fairly basic), I have always understood this to be a politic act that was concerned with allocation of funds and power. And as I said I agreed with the rest of kutter's post.

I also know I'm being pedantic. It does obviously indicate something about the status of those being counted in this way - other political concessions would not have been framed in this manner for more rerspected groups of people. And obviously, as you say, evidence of low status is not needed in this case - nothing is more indicative than being slaves in the first place. I just love the way that even the most insignificant items can tell us so much about their time - I'm never going to agree that a historical decision tells us "nothing" about an important aspect of the society when it does toucjh on such matters.

I'm pedantic therefore I am.

(Now if it had been a mathematical estimate of the worth of a person it would be notable that that would still make the slave infinitely more valuable than a woman as they aren't counted at all...)

Victoria J

[Meka]

Originally Posted by Kutter

The 3/5ths compromise says nothing about the value of human beings. It was simply 18th Century politics needed to get the Constitution passed in the Southern States.

As stated above, it applies only to slaves and only for the purposes of apportioning House districts and tax revenues.

If you think about it, philosophically, it really was a win for abolitionist thought. In passing the compromise, the slave owners had to acknowledge that their slaves had some value as human beings, not just as property to be bought, sold, or whatever. However, as with most idealistic victories, it never really amounted to anything except to be taken out of context 200 years later. Oh, and to give the South more House seats than they should have had in a just world (providing slavery existed in just world, which of course it wouldn't...)

But the fact remains, if the 3/5ths clause, or something like it, had not been passed, the Southern states would not have ratified the Constitution. No one at the time was willing to allow that to happen.

Arguably, that makes it at least as big a victory for the South as it is for the North. Really, what has a greater effect on the Abolitionist cause? The subtlest of acknowledgements that, just maybe, slaves have something more than simple monetary value? Or the fact that more seats in the House will be controlled by voters with a vested interest in maintain slavery's status quo, with a significantly smaller seat-to-voter ratio than in the Northern states?

EDIT: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the SOUTH arguing for a full counting of slaves, with the Northern states saying, "You can't have it both ways; either they're people or property, not both"? Precisely because they didn't want pro-slave states to have an advantage in the House?

[Victoria J]

Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack

Er, free women were counted fully just as free men were. Women just couldn't vote. I have heard that men could not vote either unless they owned land, but I wouldn't swear that's not more legend than fact.

It wasn't clear to me from the language used that women were included. Sorry.

It was certainly the case in Britain at one time that only land owners could vote so it is not impossible that was a condition. (Though it is also possible that this has led to some confusion). I don't know about the US though.

Originally Posted by Kutter

That's exactly what I meant.

Apologies for the pedantry.

Is there a substantial number of people believing that the 3/5 is literal though ? This seemed to me more like something that never needed to be debunked. It may be just a difference in the way US history is presented within the country and without. I am unsurprisingly less knowledgeable about US history but my knowledge of this was always in the context of the financial negotiations between states.

Victoria J

[Tarquin Farquart]

Originally Posted by Victoria J

It was certainly the case in Britain at one time that only land owners could vote so it is not impossible that was a condition. (Though it is also possible that this has led to some confusion). I don't know about the US though.

I don't know about the US but all male householders weren't given the vote until 1867, so at that time it would have been landowners only (here)

[E. Q. Taft]

Originally Posted by Meka

EDIT: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the SOUTH arguing for a full counting of slaves, with the Northern states saying, "You can't have it both ways; either they're people or property, not both"? Precisely because they didn't want pro-slave states to have an advantage in the House?

As I was taught it, the South wanted the slaves counted for the purpose of determining the number of representatives each state got in Congress (since that would give them more power), but not for the purpose of assessing taxes. The North, on the other hand, wanted it the other way around. The 3/5ths figure was the eventual compromise that counted them in part for both.

It's distressing that a country founded on the premise that "All men are created equal" denied rights to so many people -- blacks, women, and Native Americans in particular. But it was still a huge step in the right direction -- the ideas of the government being accountable to its citizens, due process of law, and the various branches acting as checks on each other were all revolutionary. And we have made a lot of progress since -- if, alas, not quite enough.

[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by Kutter

If you think about it, philosophically, it really was a win for abolitionist thought.

Not exactly. The non-slave-owning North wanted the slaves to not count at all because they couldn't vote. The South wanted them to count 100% because they lived in their territory. If the Northern viewpoint had held the day, Northern states would have had more clout in Congress and there may well have been much stricter constraints on slavery as a result.

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

Not exactly. The non-slave-owning North wanted the slaves to not count at all because they couldn't vote. The South wanted them to count 100% because they lived in their territory. If the Northern viewpoint had held the day, Northern states would have had more clout in Congress and there may well have been much stricter constraints on slavery as a result.

And yet, as it turned out, it was the balance of the Senate that led to the Civil War, more than the balance of the House of Representatives. We got by for a while on the compromise system of admitting states in pairs, one slave state for one free state, but that clearly couldn't last.

Silas

[Meka]

Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer

And yet, as it turned out, it was the balance of the Senate that led to the Civil War, more than the balance of the House of Representatives. We got by for a while on the compromise system of admitting states in pairs, one slave state for one free state, but that clearly couldn't last.

Silas

This makes sense. I'm not sure of the exact figures, but I'm fairly certain that slaves made up not just a majority of the Southern population, but a large portion of the US population as well. So there's virtually no danger of an anti-slavery bill making it through the House. In the Senate, however, the balance you allude to means that even one Southern senator who has a change of heart or does a favor for a Northern colleague can get an anti-slavery bill passed.

[Kutter]

Originally Posted by Meka

Arguably, that makes it at least as big a victory for the South as it is for the North. Really, what has a greater effect on the Abolitionist cause? The subtlest of acknowledgements that, just maybe, slaves have something more than simple monetary value? Or the fact that more seats in the House will be controlled by voters with a vested interest in maintain slavery's status quo, with a significantly smaller seat-to-voter ratio than in the Northern states?

EDIT: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the SOUTH arguing for a full counting of slaves, with the Northern states saying, "You can't have it both ways; either they're people or property, not both"? Precisely because they didn't want pro-slave states to have an advantage in the House?

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

Not exactly. The non-slave-owning North wanted the slaves to not count at all because they couldn't vote. The South wanted them to count 100% because they lived in their territory. If the Northern viewpoint had held the day, Northern states would have had more clout in Congress and there may well have been much stricter constraints on slavery as a result.

Both of these are correct. But, looking at it wholy through the prism of Human Rights, where slaves were not counted as human at all, codifying some worth in the Constitution could be seen as a idealogical victory. But it would be a false victory because all it really did was give the South more seats in Congress.

However, the fact of the matter is, if the 3/5ths compromise, or something like it, had not passed, the United States would not exist as we know it.

Isn't all this rather like saying the average family is 2.4 children. It represents an overall view but no one actually looks for the .4 of a child.