Disregarding Facts Of History To Advance Divide

I would hate to consider that a sitting congressman might consider inciting racial division. Whatever the motives to Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr.'s statement about the 3/5th clause, one has to question that if a sitting congressman is so uneducated to such an extent that we are truly in trouble with those we elect to office. The media on the left have been getting this issue wrong for some time now and it is imperative that the truth about this clause in the original version of the Constitution be understood.

---

The 3/5th's clause was not written under the precept that a person was 3/5th's human as some are attempting to make it out to be. It was a compromise to how the population of a state would be recorded for voting and representative seats in congress. If you truly examine it, you can say in the long run it favored African Americans. I understand that might not be a popular view as we are all supposed to be politically correct and think of the founding fathers as racists and bigots, and old white guys that had no regard for the black man. This is one of the dangers of revision history that continues to be used as a means of divide, instead of a means to see that there is more to the story than what is allowed to be taught. Slave States in the south wanted slaves to be counted as one person in the census so that they could have a higher amount of representatives in the house. We have to remember in that time Virginia had the highest population both slave and free. If a slave was counted equally at the time the house would have been stacked against those who opposed slavery. One of the things that is left untold of the time is that there was heated debate over slavery at the founding of this country. We have allowed for these facts to be hidden so that we can better feel the guilt of the practice of slavery. The founding fathers of our country in the north opposed slavery, but they also knew that if we were going to form a union of states that some compromise had to occur. In the original debate at the constitutional convention northern representatives did not want slaves to be counted at all because they did not want slave states to become too powerful. Just think if a one for one head count did get instituted at the time, would we have ever had a chance to right the wrongs of the institution of slavery in this country? Would the north have been able to become a safe zone for runaway slaves in the near future after the founding of this country? And would the abolition movement been allowed a chance to openly exist or would a heavily stacked congress in favor of slavery been allowed to pass laws outlawing such an organization? By not understanding the debate raged over this issue we have allowed for those who for their own motives to twist it for their own gain. Recently I have heard that Americans understand the constitution and that revisiting it from time to time is of no importance. Those statements are the farthest from the truth because Americans do not fully understand all that makes up how and why that the constitution was written. On average if questioned an American might understand the 1st amendment and maybe can cite some other amendments but ask them if they understand the Federalist Papers or if they ever read them for that matter. Those who have read the Federalist papers would know the mindset of the founding fathers were not in favor of the continuation of Slavery! In Federalist #42 James Madison wrote:

"It were doubtless to be wished, that the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves had not been postponed until the year 1808, or rather that it had been suffered to have immediate operation. But it is not difficult to account, either for this restriction on the general government, or for the manner in which the whole clause is expressed. It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate forever, within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy; that within that period, it will receive a considerable discouragement from the federal government, and may be totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue the unnatural traffic, in the prohibitory example which has been given by so great a majority of the Union. Happy would it be for the unfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them of being redeemed from the oppressions of their European brethren! Attempts have been made to pervert this clause into an objection against the Constitution, by representing it on one side as a criminal toleration of an illicit practice, and on another as calculated to prevent voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America. I mention these misconstructions, not with a view to give them an answer, for they deserve none, but as specimens of the manner and spirit in which some have thought fit to conduct their opposition to the proposed government."

Benjamin Franklin freed his slaves and was a key founder in the anti-slavery society of Pennsylvania. Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and many other founding fathers were vehement anti slavery advocates. One thing they did understand thought was that no matter how atrocious enslavement of another human being is and was, that if the Republic was to be formed they would have to put in place a means of amendment so that at a later date some of the original text could have a means of rectification. The 3/5th's clause was one of those that they understood that could be rectified at a time when the country was more established. Fredrick Douglas recognized that the clause was not a measurement of human worth; but was an attempt to reduce pro slavery proponents in Congress. It is obvious that Congressman Jesse Jackson Junior and many others that continue to cite this clause truly do not understand what was involved and why it was inserted in the constitution in the first place. Once again it brings to question was he attempting to incite racial division? All too often these days factual history is left untold over the desire for some to twist it to their own desire and this is bordering on a dangerous path that we cannot allow to continue. In Fredrick Douglas's own words he stated that the Constitution was a, "Great Anti-Slavery document, including all clauses in it!". This spoken from a former slave who took the time to actually read the document, not a person that relied on second hand information or preconceived notions regarding it. We have been conditioned not to fully understand our own history and have allowed for those that would not like for us to examine and present the many discretions to what is being taught today to override the truths hidden in that history. We cannot change the fact that slavery existed in this country as it did in all countries of the world over the course of time, what we can recognize is the fact that our founding fathers did recognize the fact that it was wrong and set up a means to right that wrong. We should be proud of those who actually fought for the 3/5ths clause just as Fredrick Douglas was, because it allowed for those in favor of slavery less of an opportunity to gain more power and control in the long term. And it is long overdue that we stop playing the race card at every opportunity just because you might want to advance a political ideology while disregarding the factual history that got us to this point.