Malcolm Rivera
The Three-Fifths Clause, or Compromise, was a provision in Article I, Section 2 of the US Constitution, which stated that for the purposes of representation in Congress, enslaved Black people would be counted as three-fifths of a person. This clause was part of a series of compromises enacted by the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which also prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territories and ended US participation in the international slave trade in 1807. While some have argued that this clause was not pro-slavery, it is often interpreted as evidence that the Constitution was a pro-slavery document, and it is commonly believed that it relegated Black people to three-fifths of a person. This interpretation has been used to foster disrespect for the Constitution, although historians have recently emphasised its anti-slavery aspects, arguing that it reflected an ambivalence toward slavery among its drafters.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Clause | Three-Fifths Clause |
| Year | 1787 |
| Constitution | U.S. Constitution |
| Article | I |
| Section | 2 |
| Purpose | Determining representation in Congress |
| Compromise | Counting slaves as "three-fifths of a person" benefited Southern states and reinforced slavery |
| Impact | Reduced Southern "population" by about 1.5 million, costing the region 2-3 representatives |
| Amendments | 13th Amendment (1865) freed enslaved people; 14th Amendment granted full citizenship; 15th Amendment gave black men the right to vote |
Explore related products
$9.99 $9.99
What You'll Learn
The Three-Fifths Clause was a compromise
The Three-Fifths Clause is often misinterpreted to mean that African Americans as individuals were considered three-fifths of a person or citizen. However, this is not accurate, as the clause specifically referred to the number of persons in a state for representation in Congress. The actual effects of the Three-Fifths Clause on Southern representation in the House of Representatives were relatively minor. For example, in 1820, even if slaves had been fully counted for representation purposes, Southern delegates would still have been outnumbered in the House of Representatives.
The Three-Fifths Clause remained in force until the post-Civil War amendments, which abolished slavery and granted full citizenship and voting rights to African Americans. While the clause has been traditionally cited as evidence that the Constitution was a pro-slavery document, historians have more recently argued that it reflects an ambivalence or even an anti-slavery sentiment among the drafters. They emphasize that the decision to treat enslaved people differently from others who lacked full citizenship rights disadvantaged states with large slave populations.
Today, the Three-Fifths Compromise is still invoked in political debates, with some arguing that it was a necessary compromise to preserve the union, while others see it as a reminder of the legacy of slavery and racial discrimination in the United States. Despite differing interpretations, the Three-Fifths Clause is a reminder of the complex and often contradictory nature of the American founding and the ongoing struggle for racial equality.
Schenck v US: Freedom of Speech Violation
You may want to see also
It was not a pro-discrimination measure
The Three-Fifths Compromise, or the 3/5 Compromise, was an agreement enacted by the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that counted each Black enslaved person as three-fifths of a human being for the purposes of taxation and representation. It was part of a series of compromises, including the prohibition of slavery in the Northwest Territories and the ending of U.S. participation in the international slave trade in 1807.
While some have argued that the Three-Fifths Compromise was a pro-discrimination measure, others, including Indiana Lieutenant Governor Micah Beckwith, have asserted that it was not. Beckwith claimed that the compromise was a great move that helped to abolish slavery. He argued that it was a strategic decision by the North to limit the power of the South, as it didn't allow Southern states to count enslaved people as whole people, thus reducing the number of pro-slave representatives in Congress. Beckwith and others, such as Tennessee state Rep. Justin Lafferty, claimed that the compromise was made to ensure "justice was equal for all people," and that it set the stage for the abolition of slavery.
The interpretation that the Three-Fifths Compromise was not pro-discrimination is supported by the fact that it was a compromise between conflicting interests. The National Constitution Center described the measure as "a purely mechanical and amoral calculation designed to produce harmony." Additionally, it is important to note that the compromise did not codify slavery into law but instead reflected the already existing disparity between free people and "other Persons."
However, it is essential to acknowledge that the Three-Fifths Compromise preserved disproportionate power for slave-holding states and contributed to the entrenchment of slavery in the national political framework. By granting additional representation in Congress and the Electoral College to states with enslaved people, the compromise inherently advantaged slave-holding states and perpetuated the institution of slavery.
In conclusion, while the Three-Fifths Compromise has been interpreted by some as a strategic move to limit the power of slave-holding states and set the stage for abolition, it simultaneously reinforced the power of these states and perpetuated the political influence of slavery. The interpretation of the compromise as non-pro-discrimination is complex and subject to ongoing debate among historians and political commentators.
Judiciary's Role: Exploring Boundaries and Responsibilities
You may want to see also
It was about representation in Congress
The Three-Fifths Clause, or the Three-Fifths Compromise, was a provision in Article I, Section 2 of the US Constitution of 1787. It stated that for the purposes of representation in Congress, enslaved Black people in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants of that state.
The Compromise was a result of the disagreement between the Northern and Southern states. The Southern states wanted to count the entire slave population, which would increase their number of members of Congress. The Northern states, on the other hand, wanted to count only free persons, including free Blacks in the North and South. The Three-Fifths Compromise was an attempt to resolve this issue and preserve the union of the nascent United States.
The Compromise was not a pro-slavery measure, as some have argued. Instead, it reflected an ambivalence towards slavery among the drafters of the Constitution. The decision to treat enslaved people differently from others who lacked full citizenship rights was clearly to the disadvantage of those who lived in states with large slave populations. In fact, the actual effects of the Three-Fifths Compromise on Southern representation in Congress were relatively minor. For example, in 1820, 47% of the US population lived in Southern states. If slaves had been fully counted for representation purposes, Southern delegates in the 1820s would have been outnumbered in the House of Representatives by a margin of 113-99 or 112-100, instead of the actual margin of 123-89.
The Three-Fifths Compromise remained in force until the post-Civil War amendments. The 13th Amendment, ratified in December 1865, freed all enslaved people in the United States. The 14th Amendment granted them full citizenship, and the 15th Amendment gave Black men the right to vote.
Members Across Branches: Understanding the Numbers
You may want to see also
Explore related products
It was not about the humanity of slaves
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between delegates from the Northern and Southern states at the United States Constitutional Convention in 1787. It was proposed by delegate James Wilson and seconded by Charles Pinckney. The agreement stated that three-fifths of the enslaved population would be considered when determining direct taxation and representation in the House of Representatives.
The Three-Fifths Compromise was not about the humanity of slaves. It was about taxation and political representation. The Southern states wanted their entire population to be counted, including slaves, to determine the number of Representatives they could elect and send to Congress. This was because they wanted to increase their political power. On the other hand, the Northern states wanted to exclude the slave population from the count as slaves had no voting rights. The compromise was a way to resolve this issue and maintain unity in the country.
The taxation that would have been a financial blow to slave owners never came into effect. Kevin R.C. Gutzman, a history professor at Western Connecticut State University, explains that there was never a direct tax under the US Constitution that needed to be apportioned by population. Instead, the Three-Fifths Compromise helped build support for the ratification of the Constitution in 1789 by addressing the concerns of both the Northern and Southern states.
The Three-Fifths Compromise was not a pro-discrimination or slave-driving agreement, as some have argued. It was a compromise made to balance the interests of the North and the South and to maintain unity in the country. It was a "purely mechanical and amoral calculation designed to produce harmony among conflicting interests," according to the National Constitution Center.
The Constitution's Complicity: Slavery's Continued Existence
You may want to see also
It was about preserving the union
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a critical component of the United States Constitution, which was drafted during the Constitutional Convention in 1787. This compromise was not solely about the enslavement of Black people, but it was also about
The Supreme Court: Constitution's Lone Judicial Mention
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a constitutional "compromise" that counted enslaved black people as three-fifths of a person for congressional representation. This was part of a series of compromises enacted by the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
The Southern states wanted to count their entire slave population to increase their number of members of Congress. The Northern delegates and abolitionists opposed to slavery wanted to count only free persons, including free blacks in the North and South. The Three-Fifths Compromise was an imperfect agreement that allowed for the preservation of the republic while also confronting the moral and systemic evils of slavery.
The Three-Fifths Compromise ended in 1865 when the 13th Amendment was ratified, freeing all enslaved people in the United States. The 14th Amendment granted them full citizenship, and the 15th Amendment gave black men the right to vote.
