What??? Indiana lieutenant governor calls Three-Fifths Compromise ‘a great move’

[FreeinChrist]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/04/26/beckwith-indiana-three-fifths-compromise/

Indiana’s lieutenant governor is facing backlash from some of the state’s religious and civil rights leaders after he called the Three-Fifths Compromise, which counted each Black enslaved person as three-fifths of a human being for the purposes of taxation and representation, “a great move” that led to the abolishment of slavery.​

​

Democrats in the Indiana Senate had on Thursday argued against a bill that curbed diversity, equity and inclusion programs by comparing it to the Three-Fifths Compromise. The debate prompted Indiana Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith (R) to take to X to rebuke the Democrats for thinking the agreement made at the 1787 Constitutional Convention “was some sort of terrible thing in our past.”.....​

​

The comments drew condemnations from the Concerned Clergy of Indianapolis, the Indiana Chapter of the National Action Network and the Alliance of Baptists. In a joint statement Friday, the groups said Beckwith’s take on the compromise was itself “historical revisionism,” and asked Indiana Gov. Mike Braun (R) to publicly denounce Beckwith’s comments.​

​

“Let us be clear: the Three-Fifths Compromise was never about compromise; it was about control,” the groups said. “It was about counting enslaved African bodies for political power while denying them humanity, freedom, and rights. To call this a ‘great move’ is not only historically inaccurate but morally repugnant.”​

​

That Lt. Governor is trying to change historical facts. To consider a person who be only 3/5ths of a human person is disgusting, and it did not work against slavery. He needs to eat his words.

​

​

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Isn't that what is meant when Republicans say they want to go back to what the founders intended?

 

[rjs330]

Isn't that what is meant when Republicans say they want to go back to what the founders intended?

Absolutely. We desperately want to bring slavery back. The worst part of our history was not slavery, it was when we set them free. Good grief.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Absolutely. We desperately want to bring slavery back. The worst part of our history was not slavery, it was when we set them free. Good grief.

While I will agree that the end of slavery was a tragedy for the economy of the United States , I don't think I have heard anything about bringing back Chattel Slavery. Why go through the problem of reintroduceing slavery when you already have a thriving and profitable prison industrial complex that accomplishes the same goals without the baggage of the term slavery. No, that sacred cow must never be touched. What I was referring to was the quite obvious and blatant attempts to limit the non incarcerated Black population from voting in elections. Closing polling stations in Black majority areas and gerrymandering districts to ensure Republicans win sometimes attract negative attention to our lofty plans. It would be easier to just have their vote only count as 66.67% of a white vote. That, in addition to poll tax, proof of a family with two parents in the home, strict voter ID laws, redrawn districts that don't look suspicious, and running tokens in areas that can't be fully controlled gerrymandering with vetted and loyal "light skined" politicians. That Republican plan.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Actually, the compromise was a "necessary evil" strategic move for the North.

Keeping in mind that without some sort of compromise, the constitution would've never been ratified and there'd be no USA, it would've been a bunch of disjointed loose regional confederacies, which wouldn't been the breeding ground for non-stop wars and increased likelihood for European entanglements.

Three-Fifths Compromise Was an Understandable Deal on Slavery - NYTimes.com

www.nytimes.com

 

[rjs330]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/04/26/beckwith-indiana-three-fifths-compromise/

Indiana’s lieutenant governor is facing backlash from some of the state’s religious and civil rights leaders after he called the Three-Fifths Compromise, which counted each Black enslaved person as three-fifths of a human being for the purposes of taxation and representation, “a great move” that led to the abolishment of slavery.​

​

Democrats in the Indiana Senate had on Thursday argued against a bill that curbed diversity, equity and inclusion programs by comparing it to the Three-Fifths Compromise. The debate prompted Indiana Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith (R) to take to X to rebuke the Democrats for thinking the agreement made at the 1787 Constitutional Convention “was some sort of terrible thing in our past.”.....​

​

The comments drew condemnations from the Concerned Clergy of Indianapolis, the Indiana Chapter of the National Action Network and the Alliance of Baptists. In a joint statement Friday, the groups said Beckwith’s take on the compromise was itself “historical revisionism,” and asked Indiana Gov. Mike Braun (R) to publicly denounce Beckwith’s comments.​

​

“Let us be clear: the Three-Fifths Compromise was never about compromise; it was about control,” the groups said. “It was about counting enslaved African bodies for political power while denying them humanity, freedom, and rights. To call this a ‘great move’ is not only historically inaccurate but morally repugnant.”​

​

That Lt. Governor is trying to change historical facts. To consider a person who be only 3/5ths of a human person is disgusting, and it did not work against slavery. He needs to eat his words.

​

​

The 3/5ths compromise was a great strategic move. The northern states were already moving against slavery. The southern states wanted slaves counted as 1 which would not have given slaves any rights but would have given the slave states more power.

The compromise was a great move to keep the slave states from having too much power.

Both sides of this debate are partially correct and partially wrong. The debate was about power and how it would be determined in the new government for the House. It was not a debate regarding the rights of slaves. It wasn't about keeping people enslaved or freeing them. There were those though that saw this as a chance to lessen slave states power. The actual compromise was suggested by an anti-slaver. And no one said slaves counted as 3/5 of a person. It was 3 out of 5 slaves counted as population for determining representation for the state. It wasn't done to keep slavery and wasn't done to say that slaves were only 3/5 of a person. Why would an anti-slaver, who believed slaves should be freed say that? He obviously thought slaves were people and needed to be set free.

The choices of the time were:

1. Slaves counted 1 for 1 BAD because it gave slave states too much power.
2. Slaves counted as 0 also BAD, it limited slave states power, but it most likely would have sunk the convention and the formation of our constitution and country.
3. Counting 3 out of 5 slaves best because it limited slave states power AND kept the convention going and continued to move our country forward.
Of course we could say the best option would have been to abolish slavery. And there were those that supported that. But that wasnt possible because we were trying to create a new country which wouldn't have happened due to the slave states. The best we could have had was two countries.

Slavery was a world wide institution including the African nations. It was a part of humanity throughout recorded history. America is not bad because of it anymore than the world is bad because of it. America isn't worse than anyone else because of it.

The 3 out of 5 compromise was a step forward toward the removal of slavery whether or not that was the specific intent. It is interesting that it was proposed by someone who was against slavery.

 

[rjs330]

While I will agree that the end of slavery was a tragedy for the economy of the United States , I don't think I have heard anything about bringing back Chattel Slavery. Why go through the problem of reintroduceing slavery when you already have a thriving and profitable prison industrial complex that accomplishes the same goals without the baggage of the term slavery. No, that sacred cow must never be touched. What I was referring to was the quite obvious and blatant attempts to limit the non incarcerated Black population from voting in elections. Closing polling stations in Black majority areas and gerrymandering districts to ensure Republicans win sometimes attract negative attention to our lofty plans. It would be easier to just have their vote only count as 66.67% of a white vote. That, in addition to poll tax, proof of a family with two parents in the home, strict voter ID laws, redrawn districts that don't look suspicious, and running tokens in areas that can't be fully controlled gerrymandering with vetted and loyal "light skined" politicians. That Republican plan.

It's already been proven that Democrats gerrymander. I guess they are racists too. It's all about the skin color right? Yeah we want all the black men in prison. I wonder why we want black families to be strong? We want two parent strong black families and want all the black men in prison. Got it.

And voter ID? You know we also don't want black people in our airplanes either. Why the new laws governing Real ID was just a racist move to keep blacks off airplanes. And forget getting a passport. Far too difficult for those black folks. Yes yes, our evil plane is coming together just fine. Well until you exposed it that is. Darn.

 

[durangodawood]

Theres an assumption in the various calculi above that the formation of the USA as we know it was such a terrific and lofty goal that it trumps whatever moral atrocity might have been on the table.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Theres an assumption in the various calculi above that the formation of the USA as we know it was such a terrific and lofty goal that it trumps whatever moral atrocity might have been on the table.

I would say it was a lofty goal. Keeping in mind, there were a lot of novel concepts in the US constitution that ended up being adopted/embraced by European countries later.


And it's not as if the US is the only country that had to make slavery-related concessions in the name of "stability of the country"

The Brits had to walk around on eggshells in order to eventually abolish it after several failed attempts (and the ultimate compromise ended up being that they had to compensate wealthy slave owners for their supposed "undue financial hardship")

France abolished it, brought it back 20 years later because they were losing economic power, and then abolished it against 40 years after that.

Spain's huge reliance on sugar and tobacco products made them one of the last modern powers to actually abolish it in 1890's I believe.

Brazil's compromise on that was even more unique. In order to gradually phase it out, they did what they called the "law of free wombs" which meant that to phase out slavery slowly (to not swiftly disrupt economic interests), children born to slaves were considered "free".

 

[durangodawood]

I would say it was a lofty goal. Keeping in mind, there were a lot of novel concepts in the US constitution that ended up being adopted/embraced by European countries later.


And it's not as if the US is the only country that had to make slavery-related concessions in the name of "stability of the country"

The Brits had to walk around on eggshells in order to eventually abolish it after several failed attempts (and the ultimate compromise ended up being that they had to compensate wealthy slave owners for their supposed "undue financial hardship")

France abolished it, brought it back 20 years later because they were losing economic power, and then abolished it against 40 years after that.

Spain's huge reliance on sugar and tobacco products made them one of the last modern powers to actually abolish it in 1890's I believe.

Brazil's compromise on that was even more unique. In order to gradually phase it out, they did what they called the "law of free wombs" which meant that to phase out slavery slowly (to not swiftly disrupt economic interests), children born to slaves were considered "free".

Other countries did bad things too is certainly interesting. Its good to keep in mind that the USA and the colonies preceding it werent uniquely wicked.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The worst part of our history was not slavery, it was when we set them free.

Don't forget changing the constitution to allow women to vote.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Other countries did bad things too is certainly interesting. Its good to keep in mind that the USA and the colonies preceding it werent uniquely wicked.

It's an acknowledgement of the way things were...

People often want to run down the US or negate any of the positive changes or accomplishments based on the fact that they weren't perfect at the formation.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

It's already been proven that Democrats gerrymander. I guess they are racists too. It's all about the skin color right? Yeah we want all the black men in prison. I wonder why we want black families to be strong? We want two parent strong black families and want all the black men in prison. Got it.

And voter ID? You know we also don't want black people in our airplanes either. Why the new laws governing Real ID was just a racist move to keep blacks off airplanes. And forget getting a passport. Far too difficult for those black folks. Yes yes, our evil plane is coming together just fine. Well until you exposed it that is. Darn.

The great State of Alabama is hardly a Democrat stronghold any more.

But yes, our plan is in motion. Just because I don't support the Democrat Donald J. Trump doesn't mean I'm not a Republican and have been so since 1990.

 

[durangodawood]

It's an acknowledgement of the way things were...

People often want to run down the US or negate any of the positive changes or accomplishments based on the fact that they weren't perfect at the formation.

I dont negate the many positives that came from the formation of the USA. But its hard to know what the long term alternatives would have looked like. Worse? Better? So when we say this wicked act was necessary for the emergence of certain good things, we cant know that - because we cant properly evaluate the counterfactuals.

What we can examine is the wickedness of the act in the context of the times. And I really think that for the most part principled men knew better but were clinging to wickedness because the money was good. But this is hardly a scientific inquiry. Its a lot of conjuring up old zeitgeists.

 

[rjs330]

Theres an assumption in the various calculi above that the formation of the USA as we know it was such a terrific and lofty goal that it trumps whatever moral atrocity might have been on the table.

It did have a lofty goal. And expecting perfection during the process is a fools errand.

I honestly will never understand the concept that America was a terrible nation because it had slavery with zero consideration as to the mindset of the time. When slavery was a world wide acceptance. America want unique in its use of slaves, but it was unique in its Constitution.

Anyway, we don't have slavery anymore and no one wants the return. Thats the good news.

America has overcome.

 

[rjs330]

Other countries did bad things too is certainly interesting. Its good to keep in mind that the USA and the colonies preceding it werent uniquely wicked.

Yes that's true. America couldn't be perfect. Sorry if you thought that was possible at the time.

 

[rjs330]

Don't forget changing the constitution to allow women to vote.

Nope, that was the second worst Ammendment.

 

[rjs330]

The great State of Alabama is hardly a Democrat stronghold any more.

But yes, our plan is in motion. Just because I don't support the Democrat Donald J. Trump doesn't mean I'm not a Republican and have been so since 1990.

Then you understand perfectly. Our evil plan is to ultimately bring real slavery back.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Nope, that was the second worst Ammendment.

The worst was #18 right?

 

[RDKirk]

The 3/5ths compromise was a great strategic move. The northern states were already moving against slavery. The southern states wanted slaves counted as 1 which would not have given slaves any rights but would have given the slave states more power.

The compromise was a great move to keep the slave states from having too much power.

Both sides of this debate are partially correct and partially wrong. The debate was about power and how it would be determined in the new government for the House. It was not a debate regarding the rights of slaves. It wasn't about keeping people enslaved or freeing them. There were those though that saw this as a chance to lessen slave states power. The actual compromise was suggested by an anti-slaver. And no one said slaves counted as 3/5 of a person. It was 3 out of 5 slaves counted as population for determining representation for the state. It wasn't done to keep slavery and wasn't done to say that slaves were only 3/5 of a person. Why would an anti-slaver, who believed slaves should be freed say that? He obviously thought slaves were people and needed to be set free.

The choices of the time were:

1. Slaves counted 1 for 1 BAD because it gave slave states too much power.
2. Slaves counted as 0 also BAD, it limited slave states power, but it most likely would have sunk the convention and the formation of our constitution and country.
3. Counting 3 out of 5 slaves best because it limited slave states power AND kept the convention going and continued to move our country forward.
Of course we could say the best option would have been to abolish slavery. And there were those that supported that. But that wasnt possible because we were trying to create a new country which wouldn't have happened due to the slave states. The best we could have had was two countries.

Slavery was a world wide institution including the African nations. It was a part of humanity throughout recorded history. America is not bad because of it anymore than the world is bad because of it. America isn't worse than anyone else because of it.

The 3 out of 5 compromise was a step forward toward the removal of slavery whether or not that was the specific intent. It is interesting that it was proposed by someone who was against slavery.

A United States of some sort was going to happen...there were too many security and economic benefits to prevent some sort of union stronger than the previous confederacy, not a question of human rights for Africans in America.

The issue of counting slaves or not counting slaves was a matter of state power in the legislature. That figure of 3/5ths didn't come from nowhere. Given the population of the time, in my estimation, by counting 3/5ths of the slaves for representation, it brought the south's representation in the House to 47 of 105 seats, whereas if slaves were not counted at all, they would have had only 35 seats. And you can doggone well betcha they did the math.

Let's not kid ourselves...abolition was not such a strong motivator of the northern states that they'd let the economic benefits of a stronger union slip through their fingers. Allowing the south to retain slaves was not a dealbreaker for the north. Remember, even by 1860, limiting slavery to the current slave states was still on the table instead of universal abolition. "Abolition or bust" was not their political position; they'd have accepted fully counting the slaves (just as they accepted fully counting free women, also not voters) if it had come down to that.