Header Image


Bad Eagle Journal

Constitution Says Negroes 3/5 Human? NOT.

by David Yeagley · January 7, 2011 · 15 Comments ·

The United States Constitution never said the imported African slave was only three-fifths human. That’s only what oedipal white liberals and hysterical blacks want everyone to think.

The issue in 1787 was about demographics, population numbers, and political representation in Congress. It had nothing to do with the personal human qualities of any individual Negro, or of his race in general.

The convention, in Philadelphia from May 25 to September 17, 1787, met to revise the Articles of Confederation, and to insure equal representation in Congress for each state. Larger states (with larger population) had more representation. The compromise reached pertained to the needs of smaller states (with smaller populations): each state would send two representatives, Senators, to the upper house, and the number of members sent to the lower House of Representatives would be based on population.

Ironically, those opposed to counting slaves were the northern states, or, the liberals. Slave states had larger populations, and thus a great political advantage. Therefore, the north insisted a different reckoning of numbering the population. On the other hand, the South would be taxed more according to its states with large slave populations, if slaves were counted. Both sides had reason to advocate an adjusted basis for the census.

Article 1. Sec. 2, par.3 of the Constitution reads:

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.

Say your state had 100,000 people, and 25,000 of them were Negro slaves. Seventy-five thousand was one number, but, the other quarter of the population would still be counted, for the sake of Congressional representation. Three-fifths of that quarter would count as population, so that the Represenation and Taxes would be evenly apportioned to the state. In other words, that state would still have a legitimate expectation for more representation, but not fear an unfair taxation.

This issue had absolutely nothing to do with the “human” estimate of the Negro, or of women. (Indians, of course, were not citizens of America, not until 1924, when the government declared us so, without asking.)

When the Constitution was read, Negro Jessie Jackson, Jr. wished to dramatize the false interpretation of the 3/5 clause, and insisted that it be read aloud, not eliminated, edited, or left out. Apparently he was not happy with the idea that Negroes should be less than dominant. America is Negro land, and he determined to make it so, in the name of “equality,” no doubt. So, in cooperation with oedipal white liberals like Jay Inslee (D-Wa.) setting the stage for him, Jessie Jackson, Jr. was able to take the center stage, and make the whole affair another Negro day for America.

Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr., representing hysteria, false pretenses, false history, ignorance, and racism, taking center stage on the historical moment in U.S. history, when the House of Representatives desired to remind the capital what they were there fore.

Thus, ignorance and hysteria, fraud and false pretenses reigned, and the Negro race in America, through its pathetic mis-leaders, continues to invoke opprobrium and disdain upon itself, and oedipal white liberals are pleased to use the self-serving deluded slaves to wreak their own treason and destruction of American society.

We call attention to this outrage, simply to remind the people of America that fraud yet reigns in our national capital, in our Congress, and in our White House. Emotionalism, which is a kind of Freudian sexual displacement, continues to rule the Negro race, and it is continually taken advantage of by oedipal white liberals intent on destroying the country. “Change,” Barry Soetoro called it.

People like Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Jay Inslee want everyone to think the Constitution says Negroes are less than human. They don’t want to “change” that! They’re making their living off that. Slaves of distortion, they are. Apparently they don’t want to change that, either.

Three-fifths human? If they like. Sounds about right to me.

Posted by David Yeagley · January 7, 2011 · 11:53 am CT · ·

Tags: American Patriotism · American South · Bad Eagle Journal · Liberalism · Negro Race · Politics · Race · White Race

Read More Journal Posts »

15 responses so far ↓

  • 1 REG // Jan 7, 2011 at 1:07 pm   

    Please correct, “Say your state had 100,000 people, and 25,000 of them were Negroes. Seventy-five thousand was one number, but, the other quarter of the population would still be counted, for the sake of Congressional representation. Three-fifths of that quarter would count as population,” to 25,000 were slaves. There were many black people that were free and therefore vote and tax as individuals. Only slaves hit the three/fifths count. I think, Pam K, provided a list of free blacks in the south on this blog once. This country was not racial until the Liberals made it so after the war.

  • 2 Pamela K. // Jan 7, 2011 at 1:23 pm   

    I believe Jackson’s argument has less to do with the Constitution, which he obviously has not read, and more to do with the fact that his distinguished colleague from Virginia, Rep. Bob Goodlatte,(R-VA) was chiefly responsible for organizing the reading of the Constitution at the opening of the Senate.

    The Commonwealth of Virginia once enacted a law on it’s books not only to prohibit interracial marriages, but to define who is considered white or “colored”.

    The Racial Integrity Act required that a racial description of every person be recorded at birth and divided society into only two classifications: white and colored.. It defined race by the “one-drop rule”, defining as colored persons with any African ancestry. It also expanded the scope of Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage (anti-miscegenation law) by criminalizing all marriages between white persons and non-white persons. In 1967 the law was overturned by the United States Supreme Court in its ruling on Loving vs. Virginia.

    This may be just a coincidence, but I am sure Jackson is not only aware of this old, now defunct law, but also the fact that the “One Drop Ruling” only applied to black people in America. Although neither it is no longer viable, he was using his stupid argument as an excuse to stir the racial pot, given the fact that Goodlatte is from Virginia.

  • 3 David Yeagley // Jan 7, 2011 at 1:35 pm   

    Reg., correction made. Negro “slaves,” as opposed to simply “Negroes.” You know what I was thinking, obviously, but, I certainly need to be more careful myself. I react sometimes as forcefully and aberrantly as the people I oppose! Thanks.

  • 4 Following Him // Jan 7, 2011 at 2:36 pm   

    Dr. Yeagley … thanks for giving a clear understanding of the three-fifths rule. Now I fully understand the mindset behind it.

    As far as your last line … “Three-fifths human? If they like. Sounds about right to me.”

    This is why I love your writing. I also like to leave a sharp jab in closing.

    Blessing my friend … continue to stand tall.

  • 5 zephyr // Jan 7, 2011 at 5:14 pm   

    You would think that, at some point, blacks and liberals would realize how much the whining and complaining is going to backfire on them eventually. They aren’t winning any friends with their constant ranting and eternal “victim” status–and they certainly aren’t helping themselves.

  • 6 David Yeagley // Jan 7, 2011 at 5:30 pm   

    Well, they’ve done all right, for a good while. I agree, though, times running out on them. A tired pitch is all they have to offer. Hackneyed self pity lines. Beastly bore.

    But, I think it is substitute, pseudo-righteousness. It appeals to some deep instinct, and therefore, will always appeal to those who need it–which is everyone who doesn’t really know a different way.

  • 7 Pamela K. // Jan 7, 2011 at 6:05 pm   

    Medal of Honor Presentation
    This is a terrible injustice, yet, this is what is wrong with America today.

  • 8 Asaph // Jan 9, 2011 at 7:54 am   

    I have always wondered why, when this race card is played, there are no voices who simply state what the issue in the Constitution WAS, and instantly discard what race baiters try to get away with. Why weren’t any voices raised right away when Jackson pulled the race card the other day? Are people in Congress ignorant of the facts? Once again, they read the doc and have no understanding of its information, or seeming desire to truly defend it.

  • 9 REG // Jan 9, 2011 at 9:48 am   

    Asaph: “Are people in Congress ignorant of the facts? Once again, they read the doc and have no understanding of its information, or seeming desire to truly defend it.” An electrician needs to know why electric current exists, a businessman needs to know expense/vs profit/loss. An elected official only needs to know how to convince the public to vote for him/her. Economics, History and the foundational guidelines are unnecessary and most times only get in the way.

  • 10 Pamela K. // Jan 9, 2011 at 10:39 am   

    That’s true. An elected official only needs to know how to convince the public to vote for him or her. And the promise of more financial aid for their voting district is always a big motivational factor. That, and the sleazy allure of an adept politician himself, which is sort of like the barker at the sideshow in the circus, or like the old-fashioned rainmakers, conniving hucksters who duped gullible and desperate farmers into believing they had the power to command the elements and get rain to fall out from the sky.
    It should always raise a red flag in the mind of a discerning voter when someone promises an agenda of “hope and change.” Change doesn’t happen overnight and as we all know it is not always for the better. The American people who voted to elect Barack Obama are like the farmers of the Great Depression, so “desperate” for change in their lives they eagerly signed on the dotted line without first reading the fine print.

  • 11 Shalimar // Mar 15, 2011 at 4:39 pm   


    I listened to what Rep Jackson said in the video, but despite your claim,I did not hear him say anything close to claiming that the Constitution says that anyone is 3/5th human.
    Did I miss something?

  • 12 wwyatt // Mar 22, 2012 at 12:26 pm   

    The political affiliation or political ideology one subscribed to is irrelevant to the fact that slaves were counted or referred to as 3/5 a person. This compromise was reached in order for southern slave states to vote in favor of ratifying the constitution. I believe the good professor is mistaken in his interpretation.

  • 13 RONGIL // Oct 2, 2012 at 10:26 am   

    I had never heard of this false teaching until I recently read an article on Yahoo! that was about what the Supreme Court would look like under Romney if he were to be elected. I was reading one of the comments under someone’s blog and came upon this person stating that blacks were described in the Constitution as “3/5ths of a human being”. Upon asking where this was stated, I had several people tell me where I could find this and upon reading it I was completely dumbfounded as to how they came to the conclusion that it stated that blacks were less than 100% human. I tried to explain to these unreasonable people that 3/5ths refered to the number of the people, not that they were 3/5ths of a person. Only 1 of the several people actually understood this. The rest of them kept hurling insults telling me that I had no clue of what I was speaking. I then Googled this false teaching and came upon your site. After having read that it was from the teachings of the Jesse Jackson Jr. (It does not surpise me that it came from this given what his father represents. God tells us to make ourselves least amongst men while Jackson tells blacks to stand up and be counted. God tells us that pride is a bad thing while Jackson tells blacks to be proud of who they are. God tells us to turn the other cheek while Jackson tells blacks to fight for their rights. Christians gave up their rights when they accepted Christ as Savior. All of which flies in the face of God and yet Jackson, and Sharpton, would maintain that they are men of God. Which god remains to be seen, but it is not the God of Abraham also known as the “I Am” or “Yahweh”.) I now understand why it is that so many racists have latched onto this false teaching.

    I do see that someone refutes that it Jackson actually stated this so I Googled that as well. This information can be found quite easily. He does make comments that he believes the Constitution does say the blacks are equated to 3/5ths of a human being (this is for those that say that he never said that. you are wrong). In another interview, he goes so far as to actually state that Obama has the power to override the Constitution in order to get things done if it is for the betterment of the country. He calls the refusal of acceptance of Obama’s jobs bill as outright disobedience. Really? Who are we supposed to obey again? The government? NOPE! It is they that are to do what we tell them as a people, not the other way around. The Constitution was enacted to LIMIT the power of the government, not give it the power to contol the people. Doing away with the Constitution is something that Obama has stated (not in those exact words). He has stated publicly that this document is not necessary in todays society. It is at that time when it becomes most necessary. When someone in governmental authority tries to take away our only contract with the government, that person is in direct opposition to the will of the people. It is at that time when treason comes into question ( I say treason due to their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution upon taking office). I for one, will not vote for this man, ever. I for one, stand in direct opposition to the will of the government. They are not for the people being free, they are for the people being controlled. Slavery is still a major problem within our society. Either you do as THEY say, or you are made out to be a terrorist or something that is socially unacceptable. Character destruction is their main weapon. Keep vigilant.

  • 14 mattrock // May 14, 2013 at 5:44 am   

    Slavery, too, had nothing to do with the “estimation” of a human being? I believe you miss the forest for the trees on this one.

  • 15 Thought Criminal | Andelino's Weblog // Sep 25, 2015 at 11:01 pm   

    […] This is not a “racist” principle. It is the exact “opposite” of racism, and is the first real “victory” in the struggle against “slavery and indentured servitude,” and a vital part of the “first document in human history based on the idea of equality under the law.” […]

You must log in to post a comment.