Three Fifths of a Whole Person: Will The Real U.S. Constitution Please Step Forward

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The new Republican controlled House of Representatives decided for the first time in history the U.S. Constitution, the law of the land and the foundation of our system of governance, would be read in its entirety on the House floor.

Well, according to a number of liberals, almost in its entirety.

There are sections of the Constitution that are no longer in force due to amendments that supersede the previous clauses. The GOP chose not to read those obsolete portions of the Constitution. The liberal left, particularly the hard core progressive Marxists who desire to do whatever they can to discredit America through her history, believe that to expose those sections as being examples of the horrible history of the United States somehow reveals a flaw in the United States, rendering her system of governance under the Constitution flawed, therefore giving them the excuse to destroy what America has been so that a new system, a utopian system of centralization and collectivism (also known as socialism, communism, Marxism, and liberalism), may rise up as the new foundation of this nation.

The strategy to discredit the U.S. Constitution is behind the complaint regarding the "left out portions" by leftists, and liberals called the decision to leave out those parts of the Constitution in the reading on the House Floor that are no longer in force: "creative", as if the GOP was creatively changing the Constitution for political purposes.

One of the passages not included in the reading of the Constitution because it has been since amended is the "three-fifths" provision in which slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of taxation and representation.

Text: "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."

The Left would like to use this passage as an example of the "racist" attributes of the founding of this nation. Of course, they don't take into account that the Southern States who used slaves for their agricultural economies, and who were needed for the ratification of the Constitution, wanted the slaves to be counted as one whole person each in the hopes of tipping the scales in their favor through increased representation in the new United States Congress. After all, the populations in the southern states were lower when compared to the northern states due to their rural nature. The Northern States, under the heavy influence of merchants, political elitists, and a group of abolitionists, wanted the slaves counted as "zero" each in order to reduce the number of representatives the southern states would receive, which would give all of the legislative power to the northern states, in the hopes that the federal government through legislation influenced by northern representation would tyrannically force the southern states into submission.

In the interest of compromise, primarily so that the southern states would be willing to ratify the constitution, while giving the northern states the satisfaction that the southern states did not get exactly what they wanted, the decision was made that slaves would be counted as 3/5 of a whole person for the sake of apportionment. In other words, it was not a declaration that they believed blacks to be less than a person, but simply to affect the census in such a way that too much power through apportionment would not be given to either The North or The South, while also ensuring that the Constitution got ratified.

Dividing power so that tyranny in any form could not rise up was the whole purpose of why the Constitution was written in the manner that it was. Limits were placed on government, voting power, and so forth in order to keep at bay the forces of "centralization" and political elitism. The decision to count slaves as 3/5 of a whole person was largely in the interest of not giving too much power to any group of states, plus ensuring that the Constitution could be ratified. Besides, as far as the Founding Fathers were concerned, in line with the concept of state sovereignty, the slavery issue was a state issue. The federal government could not, Constitutionally, force the states to let go of slavery. That was a decision that each state needed to make on its own someday in the future.

Unfortunately, in a horrid display of infringement on state's rights, down the road under President Lincoln, The North would plunge the nation into a bloody civil war where 700,000 men died because the federal government decided to unconstitutionally force its will on The South - when within the next decade or two after Lincoln's inauguration, due to the industrialization of the agricultural industry through new technologies, and the growing abolitionist movements in each of the southern states, slavery would have vanished in a constitutional manner, with each of those states abolishing slavery independently, by their own decision, as sovereign states (and saving the lives of the soldiers who fought the War Between the States).

To further understand that the Founding Fathers not only were not racists, but desired that someday the sin of slavery would be abolished, they also put into play Article I, Section 9, Clause 1, which the liberals conveniently forgot to say anything about in their accusation of the GOP being "creative" in regards to the reading of the Constitution on the House Floor.

Text: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

This clause disallowed the federal government from placing limits on immigration or the import of new slaves for about twenty years after the writing of the U.S. Constitution. Then, in 1808, the U.S. Government would be allowed to pass legislation to prohibit any immigration, or the importation of new slaves. This means that prior to 1808 all immigration rules and enforcement was the sole responsibility of the States (the issue of immigration has since become one of concurrent jurisdiction), and up to 1808 the States were allowed to import new slaves as they pleased.

The twenty year buffer was offered as a compromise also to encourage the southern states to ratify the Constitution, while offering the northern states a bone as well by indicating that the import of new slaves may be prohibited after 1808 if the United States Government saw fit to propose and pass such legislation.

True to their original intention, "The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807" was put into law on January 1, 1808, ending the legal transatlantic trade of slaves, or at least the import of new slaves via that trade into the United States.

If the Founding Fathers were a bunch of racists that loved the slave trade, why would they prohibit the import of new slaves, or make a compromise of counting slaves as 3/5 of a whole person? If they loved slavery, they would have continued the transatlantic slave trade, and ensured the slaves counted as a whole person so that The South could maintain a strong foothold in the legislature and shoot down any legislation that may endanger their institution of slavery. The abolitionists in the North had the right idea from a basic moral standpoint, but to count the slaves as "zero" the Constitution would not have been ratified, and the union would have dissolved. As for the progressive political elites (who would be considered "liberals" in today's world), they were the ones that desired slaves to be counted as zero for the purpose of forcing their will through big government on the southern states, not because of slavery, but because of money and power. The industrial north wanted to force the agricultural south to abide by the will of the merchants of the north for the purpose of greater political power through their larger representation in the new Congress.

To count the slaves as whole persons would have given the South too much power and the process of ultimately abolishing slavery may not come to light. To not count the slaves as persons at all would give the North too much power, and the south would not only have kept slavery, but the entire southern portion (in the minds of the northern progressives) of the nation would have fallen under the iron fist of the powerful northern states - and the union would have dissolved, the southern states probably would have asked for help from the European nations who depended heavily on many of the goods and products that came from the South, and our independence as a country would have dissolved. The states, once again, would be nothing more than colonies under the control of a European country whose sole purpose of controlling the New World was for profit and power.

If the liberal left in this country had half a brain, they would embrace the portions of the Constitution they are so critical of. But, you see, principles have nothing to do with the argument by the progressive liberals of this country. The liberals simply made these accusations against the GOP in regards to their "creative" reading of the Constitution on the House Floor for the purpose of being against their sworn enemies (their sworn enemies basically being anyone that doesn't agree with them on every issue - specifically anyone that supports individuality, liberty, personal responsibility and self-reliance), regardless of right and wrong. They do what they do for political reasons alone. The American liberals have no concept of character or morality, inventing their own versions as they go along; their goal is the same as the goal of the merchants of the Federalist political elites in the northern states when this nation was founded. Liberalism simply seeks to gain political power so that they may use that power as a means of control over those they disagree with - something that can be accomplished through a centralized government system that expands to the point that it serves as your protector and ruler from cradle to grave.

Our nation's past is indeed full of mistakes, flaws, or missteps. Slavery is a horrible part of our history, no matter how anyone spins it. The presence of slavery, or any other portion of history that may not leave our past looking rosy, is still a part of our history. However, I do not look at our checkered past as one of proof that we are a flawed nation and must be changed into some totalitarian liberalistic state of insane government control because of it. I look upon our history fondly, because it is awesome to know that despite our mistakes, we have grown, prospered, and yes, learned from those mistakes, as a nation. Failure, flaws, and mistakes are a part of the process of building character and wisdom, be it personally, or as a country. Without those flaws that the Left is constantly so good about pointing out, we would not be the nation we are. We would not have improved, innovated, and prospered. Slavery is a lesson from the past, and even through that horrible part of our history, America grew, and became even more free than before.

When faced with the prospect of learning from our past and following the original intention of the Founding Fathers in the terms of limiting the powers of the federal government, or being a liberal that believes the government is the answer to every little hiccup in society while refusing to embrace the lessons of history, I choose freedom.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary