Garry Wills: I Am Astounded!Roundup: Talking About History
Garry Wills, in a letter to the NYT (Dec. 27, 2003):
I am astounded that Gordon Wood, reviewing my '' 'Negro President' '' (Dec. 14), can defend slavery -- which is what defending the three-fifths clause in the Constitution amounts to. Wood says that the fact that slaves were counted but could not vote is ''irrelevant'' because free women and children were also counted but could not vote. This is like saying that the fact that trains carried Jews to death camps is irrelevant because trains carried passengers to other destinations as well. The different goals determine our evaluation of the trips.
In the same way, the different aims in counting slaves and in counting white families are the test of their ''relevance.'' In the sexist 18th century, men voted for their wives, but they consulted the interests of their wives. They used the slave count, on the contrary, against slaves in bill after bill. A Northerner had one vote for the House of Representatives, for himself and his family. Pierce Butler in South Carolina had one vote for himself and his family, and added 600 votes to his district because he owned a thousand slaves. Extra votes like his -- giving the South a third more representatives in Congress than its white population merited -- were the margin of difference in passing laws that extended slavery into new districts, in passing the gag laws that prevented Congress from even discussing abolition, and in determining the caucus nomination of candidates friendly to slavery. That was hardly ''irrelevant.''
comments powered by Disqus
Van L. Hayhow - 1/3/2004
I really enjoyed Lincoln at Gettysburg, but this short note by Wills doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I agree he completely mistates Woods position.
Robert Entenmann - 1/3/2004
Although I greatly admire Garry Wills' work, this response disappoints me. Wood understates the importance of the three fifths clause, to be sure, but he certainly doesn't defend it. And it's absolutely absurd to say that he defends slavery. Wills should be more gracious in responding to reviewers, even when they may be wrong.
- Rubio Surges Into Second In New Hampshire
- Branstad Says Cruz Ran ‘Unethical’ Campaign
- Christie Highlights Santorum’s Endorsement of Rubio
- Portman Comes Out Against Trade Deal
- Megyn Kelly Gets a Book Deal
- A Big List of the Bad Things Clinton Has Done
- An Unambiguous Sign Sanders Won Last Night’s Debate
- Still Friends at the End
- Quote of the Day
- Trump Still Leads as Clinton Slips
- Clinton Can’t Shake Image as Wall Street’s Friend
- Maddow Doesn’t See Sanders Winning
- Why Does the Media Still Shield Chelsea Clinton?
- Bush Jokes His Mother May Have Abused Him
- Rubio Closes the Gap in New Hampshire
- Researchers Find More Women Buried At Stonehenge Than Men
- Tourism spot for Colonial Williamsburg shocks some New Yorkers during Super Bowl 50 for use of 9/11 attack footage
- We asked 6 political scientists if Bernie Sanders would have a shot in a general election
- The price of oil has plummeted and with it Russia’s finances
- Legal scholars at Harvard debate Cruz’s eligibility to serve as president
- Princeton U. historian Imani Perry claims mistreatment in parking ticket arrest
- Retired historian George Dennison remains on the payroll at the U. of Montana while faculty are cut
- The Atlantic profiles exciting ways to teach history
- LDS Church has gone from 0 to 4 historians specializing in women’s history
- American Historical Association protests Turkey’s crackdown on historians and other academics who signed a a petition critical of the Turkish government