The 3/5ths Compromise and Chris Matthews

Just recently there has been some discussion in politics relating to the 3/5ths compromise included in the constitution from the 1787 Constitutional Convention.  It was postulated by Chris Matthews of MSNBC, that this clause to the US Constitution was in fact proof of America’s racist past and more specifically that of our founders.

What is the 3/5ths Compromise? 

Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the US Constitution 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 perons.

Reading that clause, it is obvious this paragraph is specific to apportionment for Representatives and taxes.  Remember, at the time of the writing of the Constitution slaves did not have voting rights and contrary to the beliefs of Chris Matthews the 3/5ths Compromise was not about reducing a slave to that of less than one person.

What was the purpose of the Clause?

 The Southern states were in effect slave states whereas the northern states were manufacturing with their delegates tending towards the end of slavery altogether.  The Southern states wanted the luxury of counting every slave as property for the purpose of the census and therefore retain power over the Northern states in terms of their representation in Congress.  The true abolitionists in the North wanted slaves to count for ZERO persons and thus creating a level playing field with the South in terms of voting and representation.  Eventually, the true equitable situation would be for all people to be free and have voting rights.  But without a compromise, the South would not sign on and the concept of a United States would be lost.

The Ultimate IMPACT -

The true impact is that the South wouldn’t have joined the final agreement founded at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 if it wasn’t for the 3/5ths compromise approach.  This compromise set in motion the ability to dismantle the Southern states strangle hold on Power (which wouldn’t have happened if they counted every slave as one person).  Think about Slavery as a global concept and the years and years of this evil practice with the consent of country after country and government after government.  Yet here is this newly formed country and government that sets up the concept of ridding slavery altogether and then fights a brutal war totally obliterating slavery within 90 years of it’s inception.  That took progress, patience and some serious divinely-inspired forethought.

Revising History to Score a Political Point?

Maybe Chris Matthews should be forgiven for his mistaken interpretation of the Constitution.  Even Frederic Douglass, the great Black Abolitionist of the 1800’s first thought the 3/5th’s Compromise was a pro-slavery clause.  But after further review of the notes from the Constitutional Convention and discussions with Abraham Lincoln, Frederic Douglass came to the realization that this clause and the Constitution as a whole was an anti Slavery document.

Regardless, let’s not let some blowhard political pundit (Matthews) change history to his advantage just because it serves his purpose to denigrate another person with whom he disagrees with on taxes or healthcare.