3/5 ths of a Person?

I want to open with a couple of brief comments on the SOTU Show, then move on to something far more important, the 3/5 of a person clause in the Constitution.

The President's oratory skills are matched only by those of Shakespeare's Marc Antony at Caesar's funeral. He sounded great but only repeated everything he said last year and clearly isn't serious about any of it. The word "investment" means more spending of money we don't have. The other words that disturbed me were; bi-partisan, cooperation, working together, work with and agree to. All code for "Republicans abandon your principles and do what I say or we will crush you in the media (propaganda machine).
The best part of the speech was not having to watch Pelosi gnawing on her dentures and leaping from her seat every time the man took a breath! That being said, on to something far more important.

Last night Chris Matthews absolutely savaged Michelle Bachman over the 3/5 of a man clause and pulled a beat down on Sal Russo the co-founder of the TEA party.  Matthews asserts Bachman has no knowledge of the Constitution while touting his own expertise on the subject.

Having studied the Constitution extensively along with the Federalist Papers and the writings of Frederick Douglass it is infinitely clear Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution has been misrepresented and bastardized. It is true many of the Founders owned slaves and most were against it but never the less the era was forgiving. More importantly the reasoning behind the Article and what the 3/5 represented. There is no mention anywhere in the Constitution that a slave or black person should be counted as 3/5 of a PERSON!

When the pro-slave southern states realized by counting slaves as residents they could flood the legislature with pro-slavery representatives. The abolitionists said, 'wait, you count slaves as people yet treat them as property, we therefor will count our property as well. All our livestock, chairs, tables etc.'  Well this didn't sit well with the pro-slavery states and a  great debate ensued. The final outcome was the two parties agreed to count all the slaves and divide by 3/5 essentially cutting the number of pro-slavery representatives nearly in half. Don't take my word for it, read the Douglass papers, he explains it much more clearly, and he was a black man and former slave who lectured extensively on the subject. He also goes on to assert that the Constitution is an anti-slavery document at its core. The abolitionist founders had hoped by employing this strategy they could persuade the pro-slavery states to ratify the new Constitution, which they did. They further hoped such a strategy would eventually result in the abolitionism of slavery without serious further conflict. They did not count on lesser men than they would be tasked with the responsibility many generations later resulting in a horrible war and the near demise of our great Republic.