Founding quibble.(letters to the editor)(Letter to the Editor)

In his review of my book, "Negro President" ("Piling on Jefferson," Dec. 22), Earl M. Maltz proves himself a virtuoso of the quibble.

1. He argues that it is false to say that the Constitution's three-fifths clause gave a man 300 extra votes for owning 500 slaves. It did not give the votes to him directly, but to his district's voting representation. Big difference.

2. He says that Jefferson did not lose the "real vote" because, if a hypothetical system were followed instead of the actual one, Jefferson would have won. By "real votes" I do not mean hypothetical ones, but ballots that were actually cast. The very historians Maltz praises in his review agree with me.

3. He says I repeat what is known, but the response to my book from reputable historians shows that even some of them were unaware of the consequences of the three-fifths vote. The general public was even more surprised by them. The men Maltz says originally documented these consequences have themselves lamented the fact that those results are not generally recognized. Two of the men he pits against me--William Freehling and Leonard Richards--have read and praised my manuscript, saying it was necessary for making these consequences more widely acknowledged.

4. It is absurd to question the anti-slavery credentials of Timothy Pickering, the champion of Toussaint L'Ouverture who was idolized by William Lloyd Garrison. Pickering and Hillhouse were firm allies throughout the Louisiana Purchase period. They were two of only five senators who voted against the purchase treaty as unconstitutional, and they later schemed to have New England withdraw from the Union in protest against the purchase. It is true that in votes over laws implementing the treaty, Pickering voted for some and against ...