Don't Count On It

James Wagner, President of Emory College, has gotten himself into a bit of hot water.  In a column praising political compromise, he gave as his example the "three-fifths" clause of the Constitution.  A typical response in Salon states "under Wagner’s formulation, one of the basest and demeaning political deals of American history, if not the basest, is an example of working toward a 'highest aspiration.'"

But such complaints seem to be missing the point.  What was base and demeaning was slavery itself.  The clause was not about the worth of slaves as people--that issue was decided when their rights were taken away through their enslavement.  The political compromise dealt with an ugly subject, but had nothing to do with the personhood of anyone--it was about how to count the population to figure out states' representation in Congress. (In the same sentence non-tax paying Indians don't get counted at all.)

Slaveholders would have preferred slaves count as full persons, not because they thought slaves were their equal, but because it gave them more power. Those against slavery would have preferred they not be counted. So they compromised.  Compromise can be ugly, and is almost by definition unprincipled (at least in some ways), but out of it can come good.  In this case, while neither side got what they wanted, the "base and demeaning deal" allowed the Constitution to be ratified.  I consider that a good thing, and if writers at Salon or elsewhere don't agree, they should state it clearly.