What Indiana Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith said about the Three-Fifths Compromise, how clergy responded
Show Caption
The Concerned Clergy of Indianapolis, a group founded as part of the Civil Rights Movement, is asking Gov. Mike Braun to condemn Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith 's statement that the Three-fifths Compromise was "a great move" as he argued that it worked against slavery rather than promoting it.
Here's what happened.
What was the Three-Fifths Compromise?
The 18th-century law counted an enslaved person as 60% of a free person. The agreement made during the 1787 Constitutional Convention counted an enslaved person as three-fifths of a person when measuring states' populations for taxation and congressional representation, giving the enslaved labor-reliant southern states more political power and requiring less in taxes of them than if the enslaved population were counted as full citizens.
The measure was rendered unconstitutional in 1868 by the 14th Amendment, which granted equal protection and due process to all American citizens.
What Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith said about the Three-Fifths Compromise
Beckwith posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, what he called a history lesson for Indiana's Senate Democrats.
"I would like to share with you, the Three-Fifths Compromise is not a pro-discrimination compromise. It was not a pro-discrimination or a slave-driving compromise that the founders made. It was actually just the opposite," Beckwith says in a video clip just under four minutes long.
The compromise gave slave states less representation than they would have had if slaves were counted as people, preventing the constitutional enshrinement of slavery, he argues.
He does not address the fact that the law increased slaveholding states' representation in U.S. Congress relative to their number of voters, making it difficult — if not impossible — to pass an amendment abolishing slavery.
Beckwith's statements came after an emotional debate over Senate Bill 289 on April 24. The bill curbs diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, allowing people to sue publicly-funded schools or government entities if they're required to undergo trainings that use a characteristic like race or sex to blame one group of people for actions in the past.
During the debate, opponents said the bill ignores the U.S.'s historical legacy of discrimination, citing examples such as the Three-Fifths Compromise, Jim Crow laws and real estate redlining.
Concerned Clergy of Indianapolis condemns Beckwith's Three-Fifths statement
In their statement condemning Beckwith's interpretation of history, members of the faith coalition demanded Braun publicly denounce the remarks, mandate that Beckwith issue a formal retraction as well as an apology and affirm Indiana's commitment to an accurate education of history.
"This language is not merely insensitive, it is an affront to human dignity and an echo of a racist ideology that sought to legitimize the inhuman treatment of Black people in America," a Friday news release from the Concerned Clergy of Indianapolis reads in part.
A representative for Braun has not responded to a request for comment.
More Beckwith controversy
Beckwith — who is himself a pastor — has landed in hot water over social media activity before.
A Feb. 6 post also about Senate Bill 289, which described "taxpayer-funded race hustling," caused a stir on the Senate floor. In October 2024, during his campaign for the lieutenant governor position, Beckwith called his female election opponent a "Jezebel spirit," while in a livestreamed interview, referring to the Bible's archetypal evil woman.
Senate Bill 289 has passed through both chambers of the Indiana legislature with the House voting 64-26 and the Senate voting 34-16. It now awaits Braun's signature.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
32 minutes ago
- New York Post
‘60 Minutes' correspondent Scott Pelley warns a CBS settlement with Trump would be ‘very damaging'
'60 Minutes' correspondent Scott Pelley spoke out about President Donald Trump's lawsuit against CBS and its parent company on Saturday, arguing that a settlement would be 'very damaging.' 'Well, it'd be very damaging to CBS, to Paramount, to the reputation of those companies,' Pelley said during a conversation with CNN's Anderson Cooper on Saturday, who asked how harmful a settlement and potential apology would be to the network. Trump filed a lawsuit against Paramount Global, CBS News' parent company, over a '60 Minutes' interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris in October 2024. Fox News Digital confirmed that Trump rejected a $15 million offer to settle his lawsuit, according to a source familiar with the matter, as the president's legal team is also demanding at least $25 million and an apology from CBS News. Cooper, who is also a correspondent on '60 Minutes,' also asked Pelley about former show producer Bill Owens resigning from the program in April. 'Bill's decision to resign may not have been much of a decision for him because he was always the first person to defend the independence of '60 minutes.' Bill didn't work for Paramount. Bill worked for our viewers, and he felt very keenly about that. And so I'm not sure Bill had any choice, once the corporation began to meddle in Bill's decisions about the editorial content, or just place pressure in that area, Bill felt that he didn't have the independence that honest journalism requires,' Pelley said. 4 Scott Pelley warned that a settlement between President Trump and CBS would be 'very damaging.' 4 President Trump rejected a $15 million offer to settle his lawsuit, according to Fox News Digital. AP Pelley also said he wished he had the public backing of CBS News, but added that his work was still making it onto the program. 'You really wish the company was behind you 100%, right? You really wish the top echelons of the company would come out publicly and say '60 Minutes', for example, is a crown jewel of American journalism, and we stand behind it 100%. I haven't heard that. On the other hand, my work is getting on the air, and I have not had anyone outside '60 Minutes' put their thumb on the scale and say, 'you can't say that. You should say this. You have to edit the story in this way. You should interview this person.' None of that has happened. So while I would like to have that public backing, maybe the more important thing is the work is still getting on the air,' Pelley said. 4 The Federal Communications Commission accused '60 Minutes' of heavily editing an interview with Kamala Harris in 2024. 60 Minutes / CBS 4 Former show producer Bill Owens resigned from the program in April. The '60 Minutes' correspondent recently went viral for calling out Trump during a commencement address. 'In this moment, this moment, this morning, our sacred rule of law is under attack. Journalism is under attack. Universities are under attack. Freedom of speech is under attack,' Pelley said during his commencement speech at Wake Forest University. 'And insidious fear is reaching through our schools, our businesses, our homes and into our private thoughts, the fear to speak in America. If our government is, in Lincoln's phrase, 'Of the people, by the people, for the people,' then why are we afraid to speak?' Pelley addressed the remarks during the CNN interview and told Cooper that he felt 'strongly' it needed to be said. 'I don't refer to him or the president or the White House or the administration. But I was talking about actions that have been taken by the government over these last many months. But, there was a little bit of hysteria among some about this speech, and I simply ask you, what does it say about our country when there's hysteria about a speech that's about freedom of speech?' the CBS correspondent added.
San Francisco Chronicle
36 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump's new travel ban takes effect as tensions escalate over immigration enforcement
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's new ban on travel to the U.S. by citizens from 12 mainly African and Middle Eastern countries took effect Monday amid rising tension over the president's escalating campaign of immigration enforcement. The new proclamation, which Trump signed last week, applies to citizens of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It also imposes heightened restrictions on people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela who are outside the U.S. and don't hold a valid visa. The new ban does not revoke visas previously issued to people from countries on the list, according to guidance issued Friday to all U.S. diplomatic missions. However, unless an applicant meets narrow criteria for an exemption to the ban, his or her application will be rejected starting Monday. Travelers with previously issued visas should still be able to enter the U.S. even after the ban takes effect. While many of the listed countries send few people to the United States, Haiti, Cuba and Venezuela had been major sources of immigration in recent years. Haitian-American Elvanise Louis-Juste, who was at the airport Sunday in Newark, New Jersey, awaiting a flight to her home state of Florida, said many Haitians wanting to come to the U.S. are simply seeking to escape violence and unrest. Haitians continue to flee poverty and hunger while police and a U.N.-backed mission fight a surge in gang violence, with armed men controlling at least 85% of its capital, Port-au-Prince. 'I have family in Haiti, so it's pretty upsetting to see and hear,' Louis-Juste, 23, said of the travel ban. 'I don't think it's a good thing. I think it's very upsetting.' Many immigration experts say the new ban is designed to beat court challenges by focusing on the visa application process and appears more carefully crafted than a hastily written executive order during Trump's first term that denied entry to citizens of mainly Muslim countries. Trump said this time that some countries had 'deficient' screening for passports and other public documents or have historically refused to take back their own citizens. He relied extensively on an annual Homeland Security report of people who remain in the U.S. after their visas expired. Measuring overstay rates has challenged experts for decades, but the government has made a limited attempt annually since 2016. Trump's proclamation cites overstay rates for eight of the 12 banned countries. Trump also tied the new ban to a terrorist attack in Boulder, Colorado, saying it underscored the dangers posed by some visitors who overstay visas. U.S. officials say the man charged in the attack overstayed a tourist visa. He is from Egypt, a country that is not on Trump's restricted list. The ban was quickly denounced by groups that provide aid and resettlement help to refugees. 'This policy is not about national security — it is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States,' said Abby Maxman, president of Oxfam America, a nonprofit international relief organization. The inclusion of Afghanistan angered some supporters who have worked to resettle its people. The ban does make exceptions for Afghans on Special Immigrant Visas, generally people who worked most closely with the U.S. government during the two-decade-long war there. Afghanistan had been one of the largest sources of resettled refugees, with about 14,000 arrivals in a 12-month period through September 2024. Trump suspended refugee resettlement his first day in office.
CNBC
3 hours ago
- CNBC
China exports growth misses expectations despite tariff truce; imports plunge amid weak consumption
China's exports growth missed expectations in May, despite a temporary trade truce with the U.S. that prompted businesses to frontload shipments and capitalize on the 90-day pause on steep duties. Exports rose 4.8% last month in U.S. dollar terms from a year earlier, customs data showed Monday, shy of Reuters' poll estimates of a 5% jump. Imports plunged 3.4% in May from a year earlier, a drastic drop compared to economists' expectations of a 0.9% fall. Imports had been declining this year, largely owed to sluggish domestic demand. Exports had surged 8.1% in April as a jump in shipment to Southeast Asian countries offset a sharp drop in outbound goods to the U.S. Chinese shipment to the U.S. plunged over 21% in April, as prohibitive tariffs kicked in. U.S. President Donald Trump's prohibitive 145% tariffs on Chinese goods took effect in April, with Beijing retaliating with triple-digit duties and other restrictive measures, such as export controls on critical minerals. U.S. and China struck a preliminary deal in Geneva, Switzerland, last month that led both sides to drop a majority of tariffs. Washington's levies on Chinese goods now stand at 51.1% while Beijing's duties on American imports are at 32.6%, according to think tank Peterson Institute for International Economics. The temporary tariff ceasefire is expected to have triggered a renewed surge in trade as exporters and importers alike in China and the U.S. seek to frontload shipments, sending shipping costs soaring. Chinese Vice Premier and lead trade representative He Lifeng is expected to meet with the U.S. trade negotiation team led by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in London later in the day for renewed trade talks. The second-round of meetings come after tensions flared up again between the two sides, as they accused each other of violating the Geneva trade agreement. Washington had blamed Beijing for slow-walking its pledge to approve the export of additional critical minerals to the U.S., while China criticized the U.S. decision to impose new restrictions on Chinese student visas and additional export restrictions on chips. China's Ministry of Commerce said on Saturday that it would continue to review and approve applications for export of rare earths, citing growing demand for the minerals in robotics and new energy vehicle sectors.
