Everything about The Three-fifths Compromise totally explained
The
three-fifths compromise was a compromise between
Southern and
Northern states reached during the
Philadelphia Convention of
1787 in which three-fifths of the population of
slaves would be counted for
enumeration purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the
apportionment of the members of the
United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegates
James Wilson and
Roger Sherman.
Delegates opposed to
slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves at their actual numbers. Since slaves couldn't vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the
House and the
Electoral College; taxation was only a secondary issue. The final compromise of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but is still generally credited with giving the pro-slavery forces disproportionate political power in the U.S. government from the establishment of the Constitution until the Civil War. For example, in the period prior to 1850, southerners held the Presidency for 50 of 62 years, and 18 of the 31 Supreme Court Justices were southerners despite the north having nearly twice the population by 1850.
The three-fifths compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the
United States Constitution:
» "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including
those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding
Indians not taxed,
three fifths of all other Persons."
Background
The three-fifths ratio wasn't a new concept. It originated with a 1783 amendment proposed to the
Articles of Confederation. The amendment was to have changed the basis for determining the wealth of each state, and hence its tax obligations, from real estate to population, as a measure of ability to produce wealth. The proposal by a committee of the Congress had suggested that taxes "shall be supplied by the several colonies in proportion to the number of inhabitants of every age, sex, and quality, except Indians not paying taxes."
The South immediately objected to this formula since it would include slaves, who were viewed primarily as property, in calculating the amount of taxes to be paid. As
Thomas Jefferson wrote in his notes on the debates, the southern states would be taxed "according to their numbers and their wealth conjunctly, while the northern would be taxed on numbers only."
After proposed compromises of 1/2 by Benjamin Harrison of Virginia and 3/4 by several New Englanders failed to gain sufficient support, Congress finally settled on the three-fifths ratio proposed by
James Madison. But this amendment ultimately failed, falling two states short of the unanimous approval required for amending the Articles of Confederation (only New Hampshire and New York were opposed).
The proposed ratio was, however, a ready solution to the impasse that arose during the Constitutional Convention. In that situation, the alignment of the contending forces was the reverse of what had obtained under the Articles of Confederation. In amending the Articles, the North wanted slaves to count for more than the South did, because the objective was to determine taxes paid by the states to the federal government. In the Constitutional Convention, the more important issue was representation in Congress, so the South wanted slaves to count for more than the North did.
Effects
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. 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'd 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.
Historian Garry Wills has postulated that without the additional "slave" votes, Jefferson would have lost the presidential election of 1800. Also, "...slavery would have been excluded from
Missouri...Jackson's Indian removal policy would have failed...the
Wilmot Proviso would have banned slavery in territories won from
Mexico....the Kansas-Nebraska bill would have failed...." However, other historians have criticized Wills's analysis as simplistic. For example, while the three-fifths compromise could be seen to favor Southern states (which generally had larger slave populations), the
Connecticut compromise tended to favor the Northern states (which were generally smaller). Support for the new Constitution rested on the balance of these sectional interests.
Superseded
Following the
Civil War and the abolition of slavery by the
Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (
1865), the three-fifths clause was rendered moot. Section 2 of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (
1868) later superseded Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. It specifically states that
"Representatives shall be apportioned ...counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed..."Further Information
Get more info on 'Three-fifths Compromise'.
|
External Link Exchanges
Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:
<a href="http://three-fifths_compromise.totallyexplained.com">Three-fifths compromise Totally Explained</a>
Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned. |