The "Great" 3/5 Compromise - let's clear some things up...

"If you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes the truth."

Cynical as that may sound, this adage is semi-true - at least by today's societal standard of 'truth'. Rather than defining truth as what is correct and provable, we seem to define truth today as what a majority of the people believe. Whether it's believing that Columbus's crew purposely gave the Indians smallpox-laced blankets (even though germ theory wasn't even advanced as a credible hypothesis for another several decades into the future) or believing that "The Great Three-Fifths Compromise" was motivated by racism (more below), most people know just enough about the reference to be dangerous, and are intimidated from asking questions or challenging the ideas because of fear of appearing intolerant or bigoted.

The worst part about these untruths being repeated to the point of acceptance is that they essentially become cliche, and no one bothers to think about what the words they're repeating truly mean. Think about it for a minute. If you were a politician, what could possibly motivate you to equate a black slave with 60% of a free white person? Sadly, I'm guessing that few people have ever thought about it that way. Or have you been programmed by the blame-America-first people simply to equate any legislation having to do with black people as motivated by sheer racism?

I bring this up because Jack Kemp, a seemingly intelligent fellow and a reputable politician (if that's not too much of an oxymoron), recently used this very lie to underscore his point about politicians who oppose the voting rights act. He opens said article with

"The small minority of Republicans who derailed the vote to renew the Voting Rights Act of 1965 are in danger of being portrayed as members of the "Know Nothing" Party of the 1850s, whose hypocrisy President Lincoln said he could never stomach. These were nativists who disdained Catholics and immigrants while dismissing African-Americans as three-fifths of a human being. When asked about their party's position, they would reply: 'I know nothing.'"

See how sneaky that is? Everyone with any knowledge of Civil War politics will recognize the 'three-fifths' ratio as referring the compromise, and since states' rights, including the right to uphold the institution of slavery has to do with black people, it's obviously racist, right?

So what exactly was the Three-Fifths Compromise, and why is it so misunderstood? Even though the Civil War was nearly a century off into the future, the 3/5 Compromise actually became an issue during the drafting of the Constitution in 1787. In trying to build a representative democracy, one of the main building blocks was the definitions to be used when proscribing census procedures. Why was defining a census important then? The same reason it is today: it determines (among other things) how many legislators each state is apportioned in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. Let's look at the text of the Constitution for a moment and see how it ended up - that will help us figure out how and why we got there.

Article 1, Section 2 reads: "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." In laymen's terms, that means free people would count as 1.0 persons, and slaves and indentured servants (including white slaves and indentured servants) would count as 0.6 persons when determining the state's population. The mention of "Indians not taxed" was because at that time (and to a lesser extent, today) Indians (excuse me, Native Americans) were considered a sovereign people. Now, let's look at who was on each side of the compromise.

Every state is motivated to have a large population vis-a-vis the other states, in order to gain more representatives (and thus more power) in the House and the Electoral College. Where slavery was dominant (the South), it stands to reason that folks from that are would want slaves to count in full toward their census tallies. HEAR THAT? The very people who owned slaves, and thus participated in the hideous institution, wanted the "non-racist" definition of 1.0. And while I'm on the subject, note that the Constitution doesn't mention race in regard to slaves - only their free/owned status. This is NOT a lucky accident (more later).

Yankee Northerners obviously wanted the South to have less influence in Congress, so their motivation was to reduce the number of people counted in the Census. So those damn Yankees who opposed slavery were the racists who equated black people with three-fifths of a white person? As George W. would say: "tha-duz-zent-make-inny-see-inse".

And exactly what type of laws would be so egregiously influenced by North/South influences and interests? Why, laws that restrict the practice of slavery, of course. Can't you hear the thoughts of those sneaky Yanks now....

Yank A: Let's see, if I wanted to push a law that restricted slavery, how could I minimize the power of those people who would be most opposed to my law?
Yank B: I know! Reduce the number of votes they get!
Yank A: Wait, how do I do that?
Yank B: Reduce their population!
Yank A: But short of killing a whole bunch of people, how do I reduce their population?
Yank B: I know! Don't count slaves in the census!
Yank A: BINGO! Wait a minute... That might prevent them from joining the Union altogether...
Yank B: Who wants those evil slave-holders in my Union anyway... Wait a minute - what if I were to get them into the Union, limit their power, and somehow give them an incentive to free their slaves? I KNOW! I could bargain with the definition of a person by linking it to their free/owned status, thus incenting their legislators to free more people!
Yank A: Brilliant!

So the Compromise not only reduced Southern power to oppose laws that restricted slavery, it also gave Southern moderates a reason to want more slaves freed and to pressure slaveowners to do so. At this point, do you think it was an accident that Southern politicians, whose constituents relied on slave labor to produce comparably-priced goods (slavery was NOT a uniquely American institution, by the way), attempted to secede from the Union? The only thing that surprises me about the South's attempted secession is that it took them nearly 100 years to figure out that they were duped by the 3/5 Compromise. It was truly a raw deal for them. Think about it - if you're an agricultural entrepreneur, especially one that produces cotton and tobacco (which are big-time leachers of soil nutrients and thus require tons of land), do you want more wealthy landowners bidding up the price of potential crop sites, or do you want more slaves to be brought in to work the the new land you just got for dirt cheap? (pardon the pun) Obviously, you'd choose the latter. So with every slave you acquire and every acre you purchase, you're strengthening the North's grip on political power at the Federal level. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch, ain't it?

If you like learning about things that are vaguely familiar from your high school history classes but are little more than cliches to you, I emphatically encourage you to read Bill Bennett's new book, America: The Last Best Hope. It's a pretty hefty tome at 544 pages, and admittedly I'm only about 1/3 of the way through it, but it's by far the best and most interesting history book I've ever read, because Bennett (Secretary of Education under Ronald Reagan) takes the time to explain historical and political events in their proper historical and political contexts. As simple a context as that may seem to be, it's one that's lost on most textbook writers, apparently. Trust me, if you are remotely interested in American history, this book is for you.