During a recent trip to Washington, DC, I went to dinner with several friends and colleagues. We were on the Metro and managed to get into a discussion on the state of affairs. There was a new person in our midst and as inevitably happens during political discussions in the Beltway, the conversation came around to the ol’ political monikers question. Amongst us, we had a liberal, an “uber-liberal”, a conservative – and then there was me. (I will note here that this WAS before I wrote my definitions piece and that I am not a believer in stereotyping). Anyway, I said that I thought I was conservative, but neither a democrat nor a republican. But if we really needed to put a label on me, I would have to say I was a Constitutionalist.
My three companions were silent for a moment as they let that sink in and tried to make some assumptions about my political views so that we could continue the conversation. At that moment, a colleague asked, “So does that mean that you agree with and believe in the language in the Constitution that blacks and other races were only worth 3/5’s of a person?”
Now, several things happened in the blink of an eye – my eye to be exact.
First, I took the question to be very racially motivated.
Second, I was immediately ticked off that someone would ask ME a racially motivated question.
And third, I was even more ticked off that the question was seemingly asked as a conversation stopper made to make me look like an un-informed, uneducated, inferior hick who didn’t have any business talking about politics to begin with.
I looked at my colleague and promptly stated that it wasn’t in the Constitution, to which she promptly assured me it was. I said it wasn’t, she said it was. Repeat. Repeat Again.
Now, I have recently taken to carrying a copy of the Constitution in my bag. I like to carry it with me so I can read through it on planes and silent moments to help balance me from some of the things I see when I visit DC. So, true to form, I whipped out the pocket Constitution and handed it to her, saying as I did so, “Here’s a copy of the Constitution and the Amendments. If you can find that language in there, I’ll be happy to stand corrected.” Oh, the bravado of a good meal and a glass of wine.
I turned back to the incredulous faces of my other colleagues, who immediately expressed amazement that someone actually carried a copy of the Constitution and the Amendments in their purse. That’s me, alright – one thing here does not match the others. We went on and for several minutes talked about carrying the Constitution, tea parties, and other things. Out of the corner of my eye, I watched the person holding my copy of the Constitution.
They were turning the book over and over again in their hands, not opening it. Finally, I reached out my hand, they gave me the book, and I put it back in my bag. I’ve got to say that I feel a bit guilty about it. Under normal circumstances, I would have had a much better interaction with them and not been so confrontational. But sometimes the dragon in me gets loose and flies right straight to the end of its chain. Anyway, the interaction bothered me for the next several days until I had time to re-read the Constitution to assess the existence of the language.
As it turns out, we were both correct. There IS language in the Constitution concerning 3 out of 5, but it ISN’T written in the Constitution the way it was being restated in the question. A bit shocked the language was in there at all, I immediately submitted an apology to all my colleagues who were party to the interaction and began thinking about the inclusion of the language and what it truly meant.
So the question that was actually being posed at the time was, “So does that mean that you agree with and believe in the language in the Constitution that blacks and other races were only worth 3/5’s of a person?”
Before I answer that question, I would like to refine the question into what was actually being asked, “Do I believe the Founding Fathers were racists?” In order to answer this question, and then by extension, the one posed to me, I would like to set the scene as I believe it was way back in 1787. The colonies of America had been independent of English rule for only 12 years. Under British Rule, the colonies had been savagely taxed with no representation. In those days, the men working to create a government and build a new country were not all wealthy or elitists. They struggled and worked hard to acquire property and had recently fought the Revolutionary War to insure they could keep it. Slaves were property. (I don’t suggest this was morally correct by today’s standards, I only state that it was a fact in the reality of 1787.)
Now, the 3 out of 5 language in Article 1, Section 2 is specifically related to determination of representation levels in the House of Representatives for each colony as well as population counts for the levying of direct taxes. The formula was relatively simple and straightforward: The total of all free persons, including indentured servants and excluding Indians, plus (+) 3/5’s of all the other persons.
This formula and its purpose are important to note: it is a counting formula, not a value formula. The formula does not in any way, shape, or form, set parameters around the value of the persons being counted. Given the language in the Declaration of Independence, which was essentially written by the same men who wrote the Constitution and establishes that all men are created equal, it seems unlikely that in the 11 years following that the ideals of equality had changed in their minds. Add to that their insistence that every person in the colonies (excluding Indians) be counted in some manner so as to insure adequate representation brings me to the conclusion that the Founding Fathers were not only NOT racists, but they were indeed the exact opposite – true believers that we are all considered equal.
The question becomes, then, why the language?
I have chosen to look at this situation from two points of view:
- 1. technical constraints of the time
- 2. political constraints of the time
Utilizing today’s complicated standards for counting persons, there are several constraints on the accurate accounting of populations, which I would suggest not only existed back in 1787, but were probably exponentially bigger barriers than we have today. Among these constraints are:
- The lack of timely communication methods
- The lack of appropriate data gathering processes
- The lack of appropriate mathematical counting methodologies
- The persistence of and lack of documentation of the sale of property
- The lack of ability to sufficiently audit property owners to assure accurate reporting of property
So, while the Founding Fathers were firm in their insistence that all persons (excluding Indians) be counted, they recognized that there was no way to accurately count all the persons on colonial soil. While “free” persons might be able to be counted relatively easily, it stands to reason that the lack of good documentation, regulation, and the persistence of turnover and rapid population growths of owned persons, it was going to be impossible to get an accurate count.
Now, property owners would have another reason to under-report the number of persons that they owned. Having only been 12 years out from under the heavy taxation imposed by England, it stands to reason that they would be resistant to taxation on the full extent of property (any property) owned. If you can for a moment envision the momentous work required to develop a definition of homelessness, and equate that process to the development of a definition of “property” for taxation purposes, and mix in a healthy respect for the complexity of our current tax system, and the political influence of wealth…I’m sure you can picture the heated debates that must have occurred back in 1787, regardless of a common equality ideology.
So we know that there were at least two influences back in 1787 that impacted the counting formula for representation and taxation: significant counting constraints and financial influences.
Which brings us to an interesting realization – even though there must have been significant opposition to the inclusion of non-free persons in a count for taxation purposes, there was significant support for governmental representation of all persons, regardless of status.
So my answer is “No” – and “Yes”. If you take the question originally posed to me at face value, as an accusation that the language of 3 out of 5 was written as a sign of value of owned persons and therefore racist, then no, I do not agree with it. But do I believe that the Founding Fathers were racist? No. If anything, I believe their actions of inclusion spoke volumes about their belief in equality. Do I believe that the 3 out of 5 language is simply a counting methodology? Yes. And “Yes”, I can agree with the counting methodology and constraints that produced the 3 out of 5 counting language. It represents a reasonable balance between the desire for a government for and by the people and the financial realities of 1787.
If I recall my history correctly (and I may well not) – there was another issue being considered, also.
There was debate about whether slaves should be counted at all and the forces of inclusion won that debate.
But part of the fear of counting non-free persons was that it would allocate too much power to the southern, slave owning states.
Counting 3 for 5 was a way of including ALL people (except for natives, as noted) but was a compromise to ensure a geographic dispersion of power.
One might ask why people would worry about concentrating representation (and thus power) in a few states…but these people were trying to form a political union. Hard to accomplish if it is clear going in that certain areas will have significantly less power than other areas.
Ah yes, Balance of power – I hadn’t even thought of that (and I’m a bit chagrined that I didn’t). Bob, you make a good point and it supports the effectiveness of the counting methodology.
It’s also interesting when you take your point into consideration regarding the upcoming 2010 census, its certain resultant realignment of representative districts, and the Census Bureau’s transition from being an independent entity to being directly under the immediate control and supervision of the White House under the current Administration. One has to ask themselves why the White House feels they need to control the process of counting people – unless it is about controlling the balance of power. It raises a lot of questions about what they are going to change for definitions and methodologies and how that will impact the balance of power within states and in the nation as a whole – particularly as our political system makes a sharp left towards a socialistic state.
I want to provide a lengthy response but I am on my way to VA for Thanksgiving and my in-laws do not have internet access. As an aside, however, I am surprised to hear/read about the work “hick.” As someone from West Virginia, it just struck me as we are constantly berated for being rednecks, hillbillies and hicks (including the commonly referenced inbreeding comment). Just thought that was interesting from a New England perspective.
What about the infallibility of the Constitution? Is it a working, living document? What about interpretation? For example, in the current health care debate many arguments for universal care are made with a reference to “provide for the general welfare.” Others argue from the perspective of limited congressional powers as outlined specifically.
In response to Cara – on New England “hicks”…
Maine people don’t get stuck with the “hillbilly” label, but hick and redneck are commonly used to describe some of us.
Some of it comes because all of Maine is much more rural than Boston, Hartford and NY city – and people from many of those places just think we (all Mainers) are a bit backward.
And some of it comes from those Mainers who live in our cities, in the Southern tip of Maine and along the coast. Many of these people don’t have a long Maine family history and relate more to the tourists from Boston that the farmers from Presque Isle, the fishermen from Machias or the pulp cutters from Millinocket.
And some of it – especially the redneck part – comes from us. Some of feel that we actually have more in common with people who grew up in rural West Virginia, Texas, Kentucky or Tennessee than we have with people who have lived their whole lives in Portland and who have never been further north in Maine than Augusta.
In Maine – we have what we call the Two Maine’s. And the Two Maine’s are significantly different – socially, politically, etc.
Those with a more rural background tend to be older more politically to the right, and those with the more urban background don’t.
Myself – I grew up in northern Maine but have lived in Maryland and in west Texas. Believe me when I say – some of us are a bit redneck…and damned proud of it!