Indiana's Lieutenant Governor Does Attract Attention

I noted the stink raised by Indiana's Micah Beckwith saying the Three-Fifths Compromise was really an anti-slavery provision, but A 'great move,' or revisionist history? Indiana's Beckwith sparks Three-Fifths Compromise debate (Indiana Capital Chronicle) restates the controversy in full and gives all of us what seems now to be a most-deserved history lesson. I only quote a brief comment from a historian.

Other historians, including, Nicholas Guyatt, argue instead that the compromise strengthened slavery’s hold on national politics from the start and was not a tactical anti-slavery measure, but a structural embedding of racial injustice into the Constitution.

“What I find so ironic or peculiar about this is that the the extreme right-wing is always insistent on original intent of the Constitution. … But here, all of a sudden, when it comes to the three-fifths clause, they don’t seem to care about the original intent. For this, it’s the living document and how it was put to use later on,” Lichtenstein said. “You can’t have it both ways. If you believe in original intent, then you have to believe that the Three-Fifths Compromise was a concession to slavery in the Southern states.”

As for Micah Beckwith, stop embarrassing the State of Indiana and wherever you got your education, read some history books, and read what Proverbs says about the fool being known by how much he talks.

sch