Omission of the Three-Fifths Clause: Wisdom or Folly?

I admire the 112th Congress for their effort to emphasize the importance of our founding document and its limitations on the powers of the federal government.  However, giving into the cries of "racism!" from the Left and omitting the three-fifths clause is a questionable course of action. Yes, the Constitution has been amended to

I think the Three-Fifths Compromise is one of the most misunderstood and misused elements of the original U.S. Constitution.  Liberals use it to discredit the Founding Fathers, erroneously using the 3/5ths clause as evidence of their racism.  Therefore, in the eyes of the Left, there was a racist tinge to the document, and the entire Constitution must then be discarded as outdated and invalid.

Maybe most Americans just aren't taught the true purpose and reasoning behind the Compromise.
In A Patriot's History of the United States, Schweikard and Allen say this about the topic (excerpt):

"The competition posed by slave labor to free labor, combined with the large plantations guaranteed by primogeniture, made it a surety that immigration to southern states would consistently fall behind that of the North. Fewer immigrants meant fewer representatives. So the House was in jeopardy in the foreseeable future. To ensure a continued strong presence in the House, southern delegates proposed to count slaves for the purposes of representation -- a suggestion that outraged anti-slavery New Englanders, who wanted only to count slaves toward national taxes levied on the states by the new government."

... On June 11, 1787, Pennsylvanian James Wilson who personally opposed slavery, introduced a compromise in which, for purposes of establishing apportionment and for taxation, a slave would be counted as three fifths of a free inhabitant. ... At any rate, Wilson's phrase referred obliquely to 'free inhabitants' and all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, and therefore 'slavery' does not appear in the founding document."

...

The likelihood that the southerners would cause the convention to collapse meant that the delegates had to adopt the three-fifths provision and deal with the consequences later.  Realistically, it was the best they could do, although it would take seventy-eight years, a civil war, and three constitutional amendments to reverse the three-fifths compromise."

Abolitionists wanted the slaves not to be counted AT ALL!  Now that's true bigotry right? 
Wrong.  The slave population was not allowed to vote, but the South wanted to use them to gain greater power in Congress for their Pro-Slavery platform.  In order to get the South to ratify the Constitution, they were permitted to partially claim the slaves as population for census purposes.  This left the Abolitionist with the hope of ending slavery in the future.

Unfortunately, I think there will continue to be general misunderstanding about the Three-Fifths Clause and its purpose.  Fredrick Douglass was even duped by the racist label applied to the clause, before he realized its actual virtue.   Is trying to explain merits of the Three-Fifths Clause worth the fight?  I don't know, but I just can't stand by and let revisionist history continue.

Read more:
Article Referencing Fredrick Douglass' view on the Constitution: "A Glorious Liberty Document"
Article in the Baltimore Sun: Cummings Questions House Reading of Constitution