If I owe you a dollar, giving you 60 cents just won’t do. 60 cents is three-fifths of a dollar. It’s more than half; what’s so wrong with that?
Please raise your hand if you would like to be counted as 60% of a human being. I’ll wait. No takers?
The Three-Fifths Compromise of 1787 was a means of counting the population in southern slave-holding states, for the purposes of taxation and determining the number of seats those states would hold in Congress. Only three-fifths of the total population of enslaved people would count. This compromise allowed these states to increase the number of people that would factor into their political power, without actually considering them as equal citizens.
Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith posted a video on X last week in response to Senate Democrats who likened Senate Bill 289 to the Three-Fifths Compromise because they said it encourages discrimination.
Beckwith said today’s Democratic representatives have it all wrong.
“It was not a pro-discrimination or a slave-driving compromise that the founders made. In fact, it was just the opposite,” Beckwith said.
Beckwith said the move by the North countered the South’s push for more political power by limiting the number of pro-slave representatives in Congress by 40%.
According to Beckwith, DEI and “woke” educators are responsible for misunderstanding the intentions of the Three-Fifths Compromise. Beckwith argues that the compromise was a “great move” toward eventually eradicating slavery in America and creating equality.
In Beckwith’s statement, he mentioned that slave-owners considered enslaved people as “property.” That in itself should be considered a violation of human rights — enough to bring any subsequent decision-making into question.
Anything short of denouncing such an idea full stop is just not enough.
Even with what some may consider the best intentions, stopping short of equality is insufficient. 60% of anything is still less than the whole.
For a country that was founded on the principles of liberty and justice for all, the notion of any group of humans not living in full freedom already undermines this principle.
When the Three-Fifths Compromise is reframed as a good step toward politicians working together, we forget the real, living human beings whose very humanity was sacrificed.
In 2025, saying the Three-Fifths Compromise was a “great move” undermines the ideals of what American could be. America was established with some people — namely women, indigenous people, the enslaved and non-landowners — not having full rights of citizenship. They were not included in the “all.”
That people are working now to rewrite that inconvenient truth does not make it less true.
Because history has not been taught accurately, many people who were finally confronted with the truth of what happened in the early years of America experienced an uncomfortable awakening. So much so that it was easier not to think about it, believe it or accept it. When you learn your heroes are not so heroic, it stings.
We can acknowledge the missteps of the past and choose to do something different now and in the future. We can say that the founders from the South and the North who denied the humanity of enslaved people were in error, and we can choose to acknowledge the full humanity of people now.
Either you believe that every person is a full human being and should be seen as such under the law or you don’t. For that, there can be no compromise.
We can recognize the missteps of past leaders without blaming people in the present for their choices. But let’s be clear, denying someone’s history is denying their full humanity.
I agree that people who are alive today ought not to carry the burden of centuries-old choices made by someone who happens to look like them. But this does not mean we need to bury that history. In fact, the opposite is true. We should uncover it, learn from it and do better.
If we welcome revised history based on false ideas, where does it end? If the Three-Fifths Compromise was a “great move,” then what sort of great moves are coming next?
Contact Editor-in-Chief Camike Jones at 317-762-7850 or camikej@indyrecorder.com.
Camike Jones is the Editor-in-Chief of the Indianapolis Recorder. Born and raised in Indianapolis, Jones has a lifelong commitment to advocacy and telling stories that represent the community.
