Not really, RichieLion.
 

The 3/5 clause helped the South have quite a lot of political clout before the Civil War. Three-Fifths Compromise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The three-fifths ratio, or 'Federal ratio', had a major effect on pre-Civil War political affairs due to the disproportionate representation of slaveholding states relative to voters. For example, in 1793 slave states would have been apportioned 33 seats in the House of Representatives had the seats been assigned based on the free population; instead they were apportioned 47. In 1812, slaveholding states had 76 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 instead of 73. As a result, southerners dominated the Presidency, the Speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War." from the above Wikipedia article on the Three-Fifths Compromise.

Yes, but the point is the slave states wanted the slave counted as "whole people", and that would have had a more disproportionate effect.

The measure was passed with a compromise to count the slaves as "3/5ths a person".

My point is that liberals in order to paint a picture of racism in the retelling of this moment in history point erroneously to the "3/5th's Clause" as an example of racism. When, in reality, it was the real racists who wanted the slaves counted as "whole people" in census terms.

You can see now that the "3/5th Compromise" was done in 1787 which was way before the Civil War. Why not just admit that it was racist to have slaves? Most Southern farms had slaves and some Northern farms and families had slaves but the main population of slaves was in the South.

Your faulty reasoning as I understand it is: Al Sharpton says slaves were counted only as 3/5 of a person and therefore the South is racist. You say that is not true because the South wanted to count slaves as a whole person - but still keep them as slaves. Ergo, the South was not racist because they wanted to count slaves as whole people. That really does not make sense.

NO; Sharpton says the clause meant the country was/is racist. I don't think he differentiates between north and south on this subject.

Wanting the slaves counted as whole people in the census while denying them rights was racist and unconstitutional. You're backward as usual.

You've misinterpreted everything else I've said also, but if you don't get it now, I'll leave you to it.