Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, move, protect, rollback
9,147
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 7:
Line 7: − + + + + +
Three-Fifths Compromise (view source)
Revision as of 18:05, December 10, 2021
, 18:05, December 10, 2021→Background: Frederick Douglass had a very unique and notable defense of the 3/5 compromise against people who cast the Constitution incorrectly or deceitfully.
Historians, politicians, and activists have argued endlessly about the Three-Fifths Compromise, what it means, and its impact.
Historians, politicians, and activists have argued endlessly about the Three-Fifths Compromise, what it means, and its impact.
[[Frederick Douglass]] argued that the Constitution is a ''Glorious Liberty Document'', which includes this compromise.<ref>[http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/what-to-the-slave-is-the-fourth-of-july/ What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?], July 5, 1852, "Fellow-citizens! there is no matter in respect to which, the people of the North have allowed themselves to be so ruinously imposed upon, as that of the pro-slavery character of the Constitution. In that instrument I hold there is neither warrant, license, nor sanction of the hateful thing; but, interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT. Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? Is it at the gateway? or is it in the temple? It is neither. While I do not intend to argue this question on the present occasion, let me ask, if it be not somewhat singular that, if the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slave-holding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it."</ref> Abraham Lincoln, likewise, made a defense of the [[Abraham Lincoln#Founding Fathers|Founding Fathers]] on the grounds that the Founders had little choice but compromise, otherwise one or more states could have been lost to the British so shortly after victory in the [[Revolutionary War]].
[[Frederick Douglass]] was known for discussing controversial topics in a very public way, including this portion of the Constitution. In the speech [[The Constitution of the United States: is it pro-slavery or anti-slavery]], Douglass argued:
<blockquote>But giving the provisions the very worse construction, what does it amount to? I answer — It is a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding States; one which deprives those States of two-fifths of their natural basis of representation. A black man in a free State is worth just two-fifths more than a black man in a slave State, as a basis of political power under the Constitution. Therefore, instead of encouraging slavery, the Constitution encourages freedom by giving an increase of “two-fifths” of political power to free over slave States. So much for the three-fifths clause; taking it at is worst, it still leans to freedom, not slavery; for, be it remembered that the Constitution nowhere forbids a coloured man to vote.</blockquote>
Douglass also that the Constitution is a ''Glorious Liberty Document'', which includes this compromise.<ref>[http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/what-to-the-slave-is-the-fourth-of-july/ What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?], July 5, 1852, "Fellow-citizens! there is no matter in respect to which, the people of the North have allowed themselves to be so ruinously imposed upon, as that of the pro-slavery character of the Constitution. In that instrument I hold there is neither warrant, license, nor sanction of the hateful thing; but, interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT. Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? Is it at the gateway? or is it in the temple? It is neither. While I do not intend to argue this question on the present occasion, let me ask, if it be not somewhat singular that, if the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slave-holding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it."</ref> Abraham Lincoln, likewise, made a defense of the [[Abraham Lincoln#Founding Fathers|Founding Fathers]] on the grounds that the Founders had little choice but compromise, otherwise one or more states could have been lost to the British so shortly after victory in the [[Revolutionary War]].
Conversely, [[William Lloyd Garrison]] argued that the Constitution was a "covenant with death" in regard to slavery.<ref>[https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2000/winter/garrisons-constitution-1.html Garrison's Constitution], The Covenant with Death and How It Was Made</ref> Other historians, such as Garry Wills, have argued that the Three-Fifths Compromise increased the power of the slave states.<ref>[http://www.hoover.org/research/slave-system-thomas-jefferson-and-slavery A SLAVE TO THE SYSTEM? Thomas Jefferson and Slavery], [[Hoover Institute]]</ref>
Conversely, [[William Lloyd Garrison]] argued that the Constitution was a "covenant with death" in regard to slavery.<ref>[https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2000/winter/garrisons-constitution-1.html Garrison's Constitution], The Covenant with Death and How It Was Made</ref> Other historians, such as Garry Wills, have argued that the Three-Fifths Compromise increased the power of the slave states.<ref>[http://www.hoover.org/research/slave-system-thomas-jefferson-and-slavery A SLAVE TO THE SYSTEM? Thomas Jefferson and Slavery], [[Hoover Institute]]</ref>