Image via WikipediaPosted by Brian
The New York Slimes Perpetuates The Lie Again
The liberals are having a hissy fit of over the reading of the Constitution on the floor of the House yesterday. The New York Times has even said that Republicans may be "racist" for the reading because of the "three-fifths clause". The fact that this clause was not even read, as the 13th Amendment supersedes it (which I completely disagree with. Read the whole thing, warts and all), was lost on the Times. This could have been a teachable moment. But it wasn't to be. Both Parties are cowardly, and that part was apparently too uncomfortable to read. What a bunch of gutless wonders! But I digress. This clause has, over time, been completely twisted by liberals to infer something that the Founders never intended. The three-fifths clause states:
Art. 1 Sec. 2 Clause 3 - 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. (See Note 2) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
Liberals have twisted this clause, for as long as I can remember, as being racist. In school, we were incorrectly taught that the Founders looked upon Blacks as being only three-fifths of a person and that the Founders were nothing but a bunch of racists. It was not until later, after going back to read about our founding, that I learned that what I had been taught in school was a bunch of hooey.
At the time of the founding, many of the the founders had a big problem with slavery. They found it immoral. Most of the slaves were in what were to become the southern States. Though there were also slaves in the North, they were far fewer. the Founders knew that the abolition of slavery at the founding would have sunk the process - the slave states would never go along with it. The Country would be torn apart before it was even established. Thus the Founders, in their wisdom, sought to weaken the Representation of the slave states in Congress through the census. Knowing that the Representatives of these states would not be representing the best interests of the slaves, but of the white slave owners, blacks were counted, for census purposes, as 3/5 in order to reduce the number of Representatives to Congress for these states. Thus their legislative power was weakened. The Founders had set in motion what would eventually be the abolition of slavery in the United States.
The New York Times is either ignorant of this (which I doubt), or is willfully misleading people, to continue the narrative that America is at it's very core, a racist Country. I would counter that the Times and its ilk are racist for perpetuating the lies, and hiding the true contributions of Blacks during the Revolution, the Founding, and even during the Civil War. Americans, and Blacks in particular, have been robbed of the wonderful history and beginnings of our Nation, our Founders, and of the historic contributions Blacks have endowed on our Nation's heritage. The New York Times should be ashamed.