Why the 3/5ths Compromise Was Anti-Slavery | 5 Minute Video

Is racism enshrined in the United States Constitution? How could the same Founding Fathers who endorsed the idea that all men are created equal also endorse the idea that some men are not? The answer provided in this video by, Carol Swain, former professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University, may surprise you.

Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips.

FOLLOW us!
PragerU is on Snapchat!

JOIN PragerFORCE!

Script:

One of the most misunderstood clauses in the United States Constitution is found in Article 1, Section 2:

“Representatives… shall be apportioned among the… States… by adding to the whole Number of free Persons... three fifths of all other Persons.”

Known as “the three-fifths compromise,” it raises an obvious question: How could the Founding Fathers who endorsed the idea that all men are created equal also endorse the idea that some men aren’t?

In 2013, James Wagner, President of Emory University, answered the question this way: the three-fifths compromise was an example of difficult, but necessary, political bargaining. Without it, Wagner argued, the northern and southern states would never have agreed to form a single union. No three-fifths compromise; no United States of America.

Many people, including 31 members of his own faculty, vehemently disagreed. Wagner, the faculty members suggested, was excusing the inexcusable. They signed an open letter stating that the three fifths compromise was “an insult to the descendants” of slaves, and an example of “racial denigration.”

So, who’s right?

Let’s look at the text again.

“Representatives… shall be apportioned among the… States… by adding to the whole Number of free Persons... three fifths of all other Persons.”

Note that the Constitution does not say that a slave is not a person; it explicitly says that they are “persons.” And it also does not say that a slave is three-fifths of a person, as many today mistakenly believe. The “three-fifths” description had nothing to do with the human worth of an individual slave, but everything to do with how many representatives each state would have in the U.S. Congress. For that purpose, states could only claim three-fifths of their slave population.

The three-fifths compromise was devised by those who opposed slavery, not by those who were for slavery. Or, to put it another way, it wasn’t the racists of the South who wanted to count slave populations less than white populations – it was the abolitionists of the North.

The framers of the Constitution were deeply divided on the issue of slavery. The free states of the North wanted to abolish it. The slave states of the South wanted to expand it. You might say that the southern slave states wanted to have it both ways: They wanted to count their slaves for the purpose of representation, but they didn’t want to give any representation to their slaves.

[adamkasztankiewicz]

Americans did not know why it was written? I thought better for state education system in usa.... In Poland I knew it at age of 16

[RetroRobotRadio]

Never understood why people always seem to get this wrong. Why do so many people WANT the slave owners having MORE seats in the house? My history teacher in 10th grade taught it correctly. Are people stupid?

[Jarod_Schultz]

Q: How do you know when you've beaten a Liberal in a debate?
A: When they call you a racist.

[recoveringnewyorker]

I've been saying this for 30 years! (Only not so eloquently) In my opinion the founding fathers agreed to this with the idea of "We'll fix it later". One must remember, it takes generations to change ingrained attitudes. We are not yet at the point where all are judged "Not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character", but with G-ds help, we'll get there.

[drummerboy]

Ugh, you’re completely missing the fact that taxation was also a huge issue with this. The south wanted slaves to count towards representation but not towards taxation. It’s messed up using all sense of morality, but the compromise was to tie taxation and representation to the same amount, and it was the only way to create a union. See the south’s objection when this was originally brought up in the articles of confederation. 🤦

[rachelnln]

Wow, as an American, I feel cheated at every level of systemic education. This just blew my mind. 🤯

[Calmor]

Look, I agree with Wagoner here. Without the 3/5's Compromise, the United States of America would never have formed in the first place. It was a necessary compromise devised by the Northern representatives to mitigate the power the Southern states would gain by adding their slave population to their total population in order for more Congressional power.

But even in this very video, it explains how it was the South who forced the North into making the 3/5's compromise so that the Southern States still got more power. The North was forced to come up with something that would keep the Union together while not letting the Slave States have too much power. It was the South essentially saying "Let us count our slaves or we'll take our things and go home." Of course the North would make something that would keep the South in the Union while not giving them too much. The compromise itself was masterful.
But the Compromise isn't at all anti-slavery because it defines slaves as people. It is a measured Compromise to keep the South in the Union while not giving them insane Congressional Power. Sure, that's good for the North and Anti-Slavery, but the compromise itself didn't have some agenda other than keeping the Union together.

It was a necessary compromise made to keep the Union together while mitigating the power it gave to the Southern states in the process. It's not some great big racist idea, nor is it some fanciful anti-slavery piece. It was a necessary evil to keep the country together, and I say "evil" not because it calls slaves less than a person, because it DOESN'T say that. I say "evil" because it unwillingly, but necessarily, conceited power to Slave States.

It only existed because the South strong armed the North into it because it was the only way to keep all states in the Union, and that doesn't make it "anti-slavery."

[browk]

Was taught this in History class lol. I think the newer argument against the 3/5ths compromise takes more of a position that it is a matter of principle to count slaves as fully people, regardless of the adverse consequences.

[blakesliberator]

This 3/5ths Compromise shows that slavery was a contentious issue right from the beginning, not just leading up to the Civil War.

[Theeduckie]

The slave states wanted their property to each be viewed as a whole person. The free states said either they are people or property. But as you said, they knew a compromise was the only way to join all the states.

[XtremeConditions]

I was even taught by my leftist high school history teacher that the 3/5 compromise was SPECIFICALLY to avoid giving slave states too much power and to avoid slavery spreading to the rest of the country. It's not that hard to understand... I wonder how much longer slavery would have went on in the U.S. if not for the 3/5 compromise.

[Billybob-enmk]

The really funny part is that most abolishonist, including Lincoln, did not want slavery gone because of moral reasons (even though some did and it was a common opinion and argumentative). Most abolishonist saw how slavery actually hurt the economy in the same way illegal immigrant workers hurt the economy in having essentially cheap jobs and money taken from American citizens

[comesahorseman]

Apologizing for stating facts. Right down the rabbit hole....

[Grendelg]

I don't remember ever having been taught about the 3/5ths compromise. If so, definitely not as eloquently as this.

Thank you very much!

[Paul-prof]

The dangers of flawed argument and not being meticulous with her words.

[mrblexit]

I'm not sure why people are getting mad.. This was taught in our history classes..

[vincentstouter]

Ms . Swain

This presentation was the clearest and the most incisive, concise explanation of the 3/5 ‘s clause I have heard. Having heard a number of long winded, contentious debates on this subject over the years I was confounded because it is difficult to place oneself into the intellectual framework of those who formed this clause 250+ years ago.

Your explanation was so clear and reasoned I feel that I finally have understanding concerning the motivation and intent of this law where I could explain it to a third party. I could not however do it as eloquently as you have so instead I’ll just refer interested parties to your presentation.

Thanks so much for your clarity on this topic.

[Sylvertaco]

If this video emphasizes the act being a political compromise to maintain the union, why have the title call it 'Anti-Slavery'? Where in the video is this point argued? It was more beneficial for the slave states to maintain the connections to the north then be able to count slaves as entire people, so there was no 'abolition' cause being made here...

[pesco]

What an awkward misrepresentation of the compromise.

The southern racist slave owners demanded full counting of slaves for apportionment. The northern states wanted zero counting of slaves for apportionment. They compromised 3/5ths to get past this wedge issue for now.

But the 3/5ths rule certainly incentivized rich southerners to create as many slaves as possible because that was good for their business and good for the representation of the southern states not only in the House of Representatives but also in the election of Presidents through the Electoral College.

Saying the 3/5ths compromise is “anti-slavery” is intellectually dishonest at every level.

[SeasideDetective]

Why is Maryland depicted as a Southern state in 1790 but a Northern state in 1860, while Delaware is painted with the Stars and Stripes rather than the Stars and Bars on both years' maps? Delaware had a fair amount of slavery in 1860 too.