It’s not uncommon to hear liberals ridicule conservatives for wanting a Constitutional government by suggesting that they are seeking to return to a time when blacks were considered 3/5 of a person and that the Constitution is somehow permanently damaged because it did not outlaw slavery. (At the time of the Constitution’s ratification in 1789 slavery was still legal in the British and French Empires – although not in England and France themselves – Spain, Denmark & Norway as well as most of the Middle East, Africa and Asia.)
This liberal narrative suggests that the Founding Fathers had the opportunity to outlaw slavery and simply chose not to do so because they didn’t see blacks as fully human. Nothing could have been farther from the truth. While a majority may have been skeptical of suggestions of equality between races, there were a number of eloquent anti-slavery members of the Constitutional Convention, including one of the most influential, Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania who called slavery: A “nefarious institution, the curse of heaven on the states where it prevailed” as well as Virginian George Mason who said: “Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant…. I hold it essential … that the general government should have the power to prevent the increase of slavery.”
At the end of the day, the liberal notion that the 3/5 Compromise was a mistake is simply wrong. Outlawing slavery or counting slaves as whole persons was never an option.
The 3/5 Compromise was itself the result of another compromise, the Connecticut Compromise, which gave us a Senate with equal representation and a House with proportionate representation. This arrangement provided smaller states like Rhode Island and Delaware with the confidence that they were not going to be steamrolled by the bigger and more populous states like Virginia and Pennsylvania.
It is that proportional representation that begat the 3/5 Compromise. The Constitution apportions taxes and representation by population. As such, there was a dichotomy of opinion on slaves. Northerners wanted slaves counted whole for taxes and not at all for representation. Southerners wanted slaves counted whole for representation purposes, but not for taxes. (Note: Race was not the issue: Free blacks were counted as whole persons…)
The result was the 3/5 Compromise: 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 3/5 Compromise resulted in southern states having a disproportionate representation in the House for the next 70 years. Had slaves been counted as whole persons that imbalance and the Southern power would have been even greater than it was, a situation the North would never have accepted. As difficult as it might be for 21st century liberals to understand, the choice was never between a Constitution that outlawed slavery and one that counted slaves as 3/5 of a free man for representation and taxation purposes, but rather the choice was between a Constitution with a 3/5 Compromise and one that could not gain ratification.
The demonstration of this comes from the words of none other than Gouverneur Morris himself. In noting that the Constitution was to be willingly entered into he said: “But as the Compact was to be voluntary, it is in vain for the Eastern States to insist on what the Southern States will never agree to.” And to see exactly where the Southern states stood on the issue there is North Carolina’s William Davie who said of the representation of slaves: “(He) Was sure North Carolina would never confederate on any terms that did not rate them at least as 3/5. If the Eastern States meant therefore to exclude them altogether the business (Writing of the Constitution) was at an end.
Therefore the question today might be, were slaves and their progeny better off as part of a union that included abolitionists as part of the government and polity who were actively seeking to abolish the practice or would they have been better off as part of a country or countries where slavery was an accepted basic element of the culture and where there was no significant dissent? In addition one might ask the question of whether anyone on the continent would have been better off had the 13 colonies not ratified the Constitution and the continent split into a mosaic of nations resembling Europe and it’s perpetual wars?
To bring this full circle, whether looking back at history or ahead into the future, liberals rarely let the reality of life get in the way of their theories on how the world works. Once again they are proffering a false narrative, only this time they are discussing the future of the country. Paul Ryan has taken the first step in recognizing the unsustainability of America’s entitlement programs as they are currently configured and has laid out a viable solution for addressing the problem. Democrats on the other hand believe that the programs are just fine and the problem is simply that the rich are not paying their fair share in taxes.
Like their take on the 3/5 Compromise, liberals once again have the wrong narrative. The choice facing America’s mushrooming entitlement costs is not between increasing taxes on the rich and throwing grandma off a cliff, but rather it’s between fixing the programs and not fixing them, in which case the federal government would finally implode under the weight of its unsustainable promises.
The difference of course is that while we can’t impact history, the actions taken today can impact what happens tomorrow. Liberals could learn much from the Founding Fathers in terms of examining the real choices at hand when it comes to choosing which path to follow. It may not be as much fun as peddling simple minded populist solutions, but it sets a foundation for real progress.
See author page
Thanks for the history lesson.
Now another – related – thing I’m hazy on is this:
Was Indentured Servitude still going on in the North when the Constitution was written and ratified?
I read about those who could not afford passage to the Americas so that they sold themselves for 7 years or so to businessmen who worked off their debt in factories in the North.
I did note you included them in your essay, pointing out they were counted 100% as persons for the sake of taxation AND representation:
I just wondered when this institutionalized practice of Indentured Servitude ended in the US.
In the highly political vote to put all their names with their votes, many, many Democrats in Congress are voting AGAINST raising the debt ceiling as a stand-alone bill.
Almost 1/2 of the Democrats
(For raising it: 97
Against: 82
Voting Present: 7
Not Voting: 6)
are voting with the Republicans.
It needed 2/3rds, so it is not passed.
Great article Vince, thanks!
@Nan G:
Nan, Indentured Servitude was largely gone by the beginning of the 19th century and was outlawed by the end of it. It lost much of it’s allure when slavery and the growth of a native born slave population. As an aside, it is often thought that at the time the Constitution was written that slavery was a black and white issue in terms of the South had it and the North did not. Not so, New Jersey and New York would have it for another decade or more and Pennsylvania, although it freed the future children of slaves in 1780, still had slaves into the 1830’s.
And ultra-conservatives could learn a lot by studying the liberal penchants of some of our greatest figures in history–unlike revisionist right-wingers claims, not all the Founding Fathers were conservatives.
Even Lincoln, the first Republican President, doesn’t fit the mold of today’s hard charging conservatives–who present a better fit with members of the John Birch Society (hence their close alignment with figures like the Koch brothers).
Eisenhower was closer to the ideals of a Lincoln than modern day conservatives. He saw the necessity of increased revenues to build the countries infrastructure. And, at least Nixon–who I hated at the time for his expansion of the Vietnam War– had the clarity of mind to see how a national health care system could be beneficial to the population.
William F. Buckley–who’s railed against the idiocy of ideas proposed by the John Birch Society would most probably be rebuffed by the neo-neo-conservatives, just as Kathleen Parker, David Frum, and Christopher Hitchens are ostracized from that wing of the part; and uneducated theologian Glenn Beck is promoted to head of the class.
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
Maybe instead of making a generalized statement such as that, you could provide us with examples that support your claims. My guess is that you cannot, just as I cannot give you examples to the contrary. How is that so, you ask? Well, simply put, the defining aspects of liberalism and conservatism, as defined during the past century, do not fit with the people we mistakenly refer to in those terms, within today’s political landscape. Liberalism, particularly, has been hijacked by a movement that tends towards authoritarian views, in regards to government. In effect, the modern pol labeled as a ‘liberal’ has become a proponent of statism.
Conservatives, too, have been mislabeled, in an attempt by the far-left progressives to encompass the entire Republican party under a banner of authoritarian ideals. Many of today’s republican pols tend towards statist ideals, rather than a conservation of political thought built upon the ideals of the founding fathers.
Today, the basis that liberals put forth, in order to promote individual liberty and equal rights, is that government must be involved in that promotion. In many ways, this view ends up contradicting itself. For example, in the promotion of Obamacare, the modern liberal claims that healthcare is a ‘right’ by which millions of Americans do not enjoy, and that the bill itself provides the means to secure that ‘right’ for those people. The problem is, that a government in promotion of that ‘right’ to Americans, has limited the actual rights of others in order to provide for it. This is not an idea that can be reconciled with the classic definition of a liberal.
Edicts and directives which are said to promote ‘equality’ amongst the populace, that in fact, limit, or remove, personal freedoms and liberties of any portion of the populace, should be shunned by people who consider themselves a liberal, after the classical definition of the term. What has happened, for roughly around a century or so, is that the term, liberal, has been used to apply to various forms of political theory that promote the encroachment of the central government on citizens’ personal liberty, in opposition to the term’s original meaning of political thought and theory. The modern liberal receives support from those groups supporting movement away from personal liberty and equal rights.
And what of the modern day conservatives? Well, the conservative label has been misapplied to politicians on the right, particularly within the GOP, that act in concert(in reality) with the democrats in the promotion of progressive ideals in a movement towards statist philosophy. The somewhat amusing part of it all is that the democrats rail against these proposals when they aren’t the originators of them, but embrace them wholeheartedly when in power of the government. The Patriot Act is one such example of this.
A conservative, in today’s world, can best be described as a mix of the classical liberal combined with the view that constitutionally limited government is the ideal to strive for, as we believe in personal liberty and equal rights for all, and believe that the way to achieve this ideal is a movement towards smaller, limited government involvement. A government should be present, within the lives of individual citizens, merely to protect against encroachment upon an individual’s rights by any entity, whether it be another individual citizen, corporation or business, or government, or other such entity.
Come on John, you know if they have to get into specifics they cannot defend their point….You know it is not fair when you ask a liberal for proof: proof of the ice age coming, proof of AGW, proof that Conservatives want to kill old people. To a liberal, asking for proof is just another form of “RACISM” and I for one sir, will not stand by and let that go… un-applauded! 😉
@Liberal1 (objectivity): Please define:
* ultra-conservatives –
* neo-neo-conservatives –
Please provide examples of:
* hard charging conservatives –
And lastly, please explain how the Koch brothers are a “better fit” with the John Birch Society?
————————
I look forward to your answers, sir.
I say that if the Liberals/Progressives/Democrats can raise a Billion dollars [or even millions of dollars] to run an election campaign and Unions can Raise Millions for Politicians and President elects(s), then they should have no problem raising money to support their Liberal/Progressive/Democrat – Social Justice liberal policies. Then they can implement them on their own dime… let their own ‘end justify their means’…and leave the rest of us alone to live according to our Republic, Our Smaller Government and Constitutional Values…
@johngault #6 hit the nail on the head…” The problem is, that a government in promotion of that ‘right’ to Americans, has limited the actual rights of others in order to provide for it. This is not an idea that can be reconciled with the classic definition of a liberal.”
Why do we have to give up our [right to keep our hard earned property] because of a [liberal] policy [policies] we do not agree with or even want to be a part of? Isn’t this a form of [slavery ] in it’s own right? People [working] to tow the line of those who do not tow the line, forced to give up property? And the Liberals [claim] that conservatives want to [go back in the time of Slavery]? What??? Aren’t they asking for the same thing???? Just in a different form??? Listen, no matter how you say it 2+2 will always = 4.
The Liberals/Progressives/Democrats want to demonize the Right and Lecture to the Republicans and everyone else about Liberal policies… Liberal policies as johngalt puts it, encroaches on those [Rights, Liberty, Freedoms of others]. This is not Ok, should never be OK… The Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence lays out the plan that [everyone] IS EQUAL and has EQUAL OPPORTUNITY in this country…it is the [ Liberals ] that [ lay claim ] that everyone IS NOT EQUAL and that [select groups? ] everyone does not have the same opportunity??? In this day and age??
Really?? Hmmmm… Sounds like a worn out story from a worn out book…
WOW, THIS HERE is better than what you learn in school
Political Science 101 refresher for Liberal1
Traditional definintion of Liberal from 1500’s to 1970’s:
Force the Insitution to the will of the people.
Traditional definintion of Conservative from 1500’s to 1970’s:
Force the will of the people to the power of the Insitution.
For the longest time, and still to the technical sense of the word, Democrats are the Conservative party. They have backed and mandated various laws in history that limited or denied people of their freedoms and levied series of penalities (including the prospects of jail time, or death penalty for abolishmentists) on all peoples who resisted their legal insitutions in the South. After 1860’s the Democrats were bloodied and beaten physically, and relocated their war against the North and Republicans to a political gruellia war that has lead to the deaths of innocent people by the hands of KKK in it’s orginal and re-born forms of the modern era.
Republicans from this time frame was the Liberal party, if you wish to keep up using that namesake. Republicans did not want the USA involved with Slavery and its practices, and was the major political point that lead to the Republican Party formation splinter group from the Whiggs who were apathetic towards slavery. Republicans did not want to go into World War I, even given the fact British Navy vessels were known to be having their guns directed at our Merchant Marine vessels and trade routes in hopes of forcing us to their side. Republicans did not want to involve the USA with foreign policy with China, and not to emplace an embargo onto the Empire of Japan. Republicans did not want to enter the theater of war between Axis powers versus the Allied European Forces prior to Peral Harbor and warned against the idea after Peral Harbor. It was a Eisnhower, not Johnson, who promoted the first major 19th Century Civil Rights bill that would start the process of ending various Southern Jim Crow Laws emplaced by Democrats and as such the bill was killed by Democrat majority Congress. It was a series of liberal Republicans who broke up the 1960’s filibusters by Democrats to prevent the final verison Civil Rights bill to hit Johnson’s desk to be signed.
Modern Day liberals:
Force the will of the people to the Insitution, where as the person must buy Government sanctioned Health Care. Must meet EPA regultions that are so draconic that few within the EPA can even understand. State regulations on food consumption with bans of salt, sugar, and even wheat products being considered. Promotion of strict FCC regulations that will silence political speech of a person if such speech conflicts with Modern Liberal agenda in printed, broadcasted or digitally transfered formats.
Modern Day Conservatives:
Demand that current form of Consitutional law is enforced, seeking to limit what the Federal Government can do and how they can do what they do. Demand that money spent does not exceed revenue collected. Demand that all old debts be paid off before occuring new ones, (a Ben Franklin and James Madison concept right there…). Demand the insitutions that grant many Citizens their freedoms are unchanged. Demand that Legal Citizens be the core focus of the United States of America politics and law and the creation to promote legal immigration into the United States with a hard focus on English langauge taught to new Immigrants (a job market solution to boot.)
For having the root word Liberty in it, modern day liberals sound more like pyschophant tyrants than modern day Conservatives.
@Liberal1 (UNobjectivity): Lib? Lib? Where aaarrreeee you?
anticsrocks, I see that you have a ferocious appetite for a libe soup
@ilovebeeswarzone: Yes Ma’am! I enjoy engaging the moonbats and hitting them over the head with facts and figures. One can almost see their blood boil when I do.
I guess I love a good fight.
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
Wrong!!! It was President Lyndon Baines Johnson (D) who accelerated and expanded the Vietnam War, and who relied on the draft to man his very unpopular war. Protests against the war started during Johnson’s administration, and he even told the Selective Service to reclassify protesting college kids as eligible at the highest draft level and to ship them out ASAP.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Lyndon_B._Johnson
Even before the 1968 elections Nixon was intent on getting the US out of the the Vietnam War. As President he began to withdraw American troops from Vietnam in June 1969 and replaced the military draft with a lottery in December of that year. July 8, 1969 – The very first U.S. troop withdrawal occurs as 800 men from the 9th Infantry Division are sent home. The phased troop withdrawal will occur in 14 stages from July 1969 through November 1972. It took much longer than Nixon and Kissinger anticipated to fully withdraw American forces (5-years).
@Ditto: Kudos, Ditto!