McCain and Whoopi: Ignorant About the Three-Fifths Compromise

Apparently, neither Whoopi Goldberg nor John McCain understand the Three-Fifths Compromise as put forth in the U.S. Constitution.

During the John McCain interview on ABC's "The View," Whoopi Goldberg asked McCain if he supported Supreme Court Justices who would be considered "strict constitutionalists."

"No," McCain responded, "I want people who interpret the Constitution of the United States the way our founding fathers envisioned for them to do."

As Barbara Walters and others looked on, Goldberg rejoined, "Should I be worried about being a slave, about being returned to slavery? Because certain things happened in the Constitution that you had to change."

McCain answered, "I understand your point. I understand that point. That's an excellent point. Thank you." The audience then applauded enthusiastically.

Whoopi was referring to the now infamous canard about the Three-Fifths Compromise of Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which says:

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. [Emphasis added]

It is apparent that Whoopi, the audience, and John McCain have bought into the notion that the authors of the Constitution somehow considered African-Americans not to be whole persons, but only three-fifths of a person. They seem to be ignorant of the historical fact that non-slave African-Americans in the Northern Territory were included among the "free Persons." Furthermore, they seem to be unaware of the fact that the Three-Fifths Compromise was intended for the purpose of making sure the pro-slavery southern states did not have an unfair advantage in Congress, since congressional representation was determined by population. If slaves had been counted as "whole Persons," the pro-slavery southern states would have had more power and influence in the Legislative branch of our national government.

Should we be concerned that the audience, Whoopi and John McCain, a U.S. Senator, are not only ignorant of the real purpose of the Constitutional provision, but are perpetuating their ignorance? Maybe we should give the Senator a pass because that portion of the Article was concerning the House of Representatives and not the Senate. And maybe we should cut Whoopi some slack because her Constitutional education is probably not the result of personal investigation, but rather of what she has heard all of her life from our equally ignorant culture.

But what about Babs? Shouldn't Barbara Walters, an investigative journalist, be fully aware of this widely misunderstood historical fact? Shouldn't a journalist be eager to disabuse the American public of such distortions? No, of course not, because, if the kinds of questions she asked McCain during that interview, and the attitude with which she presented them are any indication, Walters is clearly an Obama supporter, and like all good Community Agitators, it behooves her agenda to piss people off, and to keep them pissed off. Reminding people of the Three-Fifths Distortion will agitate them. Teaching people the truth about Article I of the Constitution will enlighten them. The latter promotes freedom. The former promotes agitation. And it is via agitation that the media's mission is accomplished.