The Constitution's Exclusionary Origins: A Historical Overview

The Constitution of the United States has a long and complex history of excluding large segments of the population, particularly in its early years. The Constitution included several compromises involving population, such as the dispute between large and small states over representation in Congress, which should be based on population or equal state representation. The Three-Fifths Clause, Article I, Sect. II, Cl. 3, was a compromise over the issue of slavery, with Representatives and direct Taxes being apportioned among the states according to their respective numbers of free persons and three-fifths of slaves. This clause was ratified by eleven of the thirteen states and used by Congress to determine federal expenses assigned to each state. The issue of proportional representation was a concern for less populous states, and the delegates agreed to protect the slave trade and slavery by requiring the return of escaped slaves to their owners. The Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964) prohibited the use of poll taxes, literacy tests, and durational residency requirements, which were used to prevent low-income and primarily African American citizens from voting.

Explore related products

The Partisan Republic: Democracy, Exclusion, and the Fall of the Founders' Constitution, 1780s–1830s (New Histories of American Law)

$29.99 $32

U.S. Constitution: a QuickStudy Laminated Reference Guide

$6.46

American by Birth: Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship (Landmark Law Cases and American Society)

$15.77 $29.99

No Women Jump Out!: Gender Exclusion, Labour Organization and Political Leadership in Antigua 1917-1970 (Trade Unions. Past, Present and Future)

$23.38 $75.55

Regime Transition and the Judicial Politics of Enmity: Democratic Inclusion and Exclusion in South Korean Constitutional Justice (The Sciences Po ... Relations and Political Economy)

$54.99 $54.99

Religion and the Constitution, Volume 2: Establishment and Fairness

$47 $47

The Three-Fifths Clause

The Three-Fifths Compromise was an agreement reached during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. It was a compromise between delegates from the Northern and Southern states. The dispute was over the inclusion of slaves in a state's total population. This count would determine the number of seats in the House of Representatives, the number of electoral votes each state would be allocated, and how much money the states would pay in taxes.

Slaveholding states wanted their entire population to be counted to determine the number of Representatives those states could elect and send to Congress. Free states wanted to exclude the counting of slave populations in slave states, since those slaves had no voting rights. The Three-Fifths Compromise counted three-fifths of each state's slave population toward that state's total population for the purpose of apportioning the House of Representatives. This effectively gave the Southern states more power in the House relative to the Northern states.

The Three-Fifths Compromise was part of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution. It stated that "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." The "other Persons" referred to slaves.

The Three-Fifths Compromise was superseded and repealed by Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. This amendment provided that "representatives shall be apportioned... counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."

Counting slaves as part of the population

The issue of counting slaves as part of the population was a contentious topic during the drafting of the US Constitution. The Southern states, where slavery was prevalent, argued that slaves should be considered persons when it came to determining representation in Congress and the Electoral College. On the other hand, the Northern states, which had fewer slaves, did not want slaves to be counted at all. This dispute was eventually resolved through the Three-Fifths Compromise, which counted three-fifths of each state's slave population towards its total population for the purpose of apportioning the House of Representatives. This compromise gave the Southern states more representation in the House relative to the North, and it also gave slaveholders greater power in Southern legislatures.

The Three-Fifths Compromise, also known as the "federal ratio", was included in Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution. It stated that Representatives should be apportioned by adding to the whole number of free persons "three-fifths of all other Persons". While the word "slave" was consciously avoided in the Constitution, this compromise effectively counted slaves as three-fifths of a person for representation purposes. This compromise was proposed by delegate James Wilson and seconded by Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, who suggested including three-fifths of the black population in the apportionment.

The issue of counting slaves in the population was not just about representation but also had economic implications. During the writing of the Articles of Confederation, there was a conflict between Northern and Southern states regarding how to share common expenses. Northerners argued for sharing expenses according to total population, while Southerners, who considered slaves as property, wanted slaves to be excluded from the calculation. A similar dispute arose in 1783 when Congress proposed amending the Articles to share federal expenses according to population. The Three-Fifths Compromise was adopted to settle these disputes, with eleven out of thirteen states ratifying it.

The Three-Fifths Compromise had significant consequences for the political landscape of the time. It gave Southern states, where slavery was widespread, extra representation in the House of Representatives and extra votes in the Electoral College. This compromise also protected slavery by prohibiting Congress from outlawing the Atlantic slave trade for twenty years and requiring the return of escaped slaves to their owners. While the compromise held the Union together and facilitated the ratification of the Constitution, it also perpetuated slavery for six more decades. The compromise was later superseded by amendments to the Constitution, such as the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, which helped eliminate many discriminatory laws left over from slavery.

Proportional representation

The United States Constitution has been amended several times since its inception, with the original text and all prior amendments remaining untouched. One of the key issues addressed in these amendments has been proportional representation, which was a significant concern during the Revolutionary Era and the writing of the Articles of Confederation.

The Constitution included several compromises involving population. Each state was given two senators, regardless of population or area. This was a compromise between small states and large states, with the former insisting on the independence and equality of the states, and the latter demanding representation by population. The Connecticut Compromise proposed a Congress with proportional representation in the lower house and equal representation in the upper house, or the Senate.

The issue of slavery also played a significant role in the debate over proportional representation. The Three-Fifths Clause, Article I, Sect. II, Cl. 3, stated that "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States...according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons...and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons." This clause was a compromise to protect slaveholders and satisfy interests in the South, particularly in Georgia and South Carolina. It allowed states to count three-fifths of their slave population as part of their total population for representation in the federal government.

The Constitution also addressed the issue of popular vote versus electoral vote. While election by popular vote was proposed by Wilson, some framers opposed this idea due to elitism or concerns over the size of the country and the ability of voters to be informed about out-of-state candidates. The Constitution stipulates that senators are to be elected by popular vote, with each state given a number of electors equal to its congressional delegation. However, the popular vote does not directly determine the outcome of the election, as electors meet to cast their votes for president and vice president, and this has sometimes resulted in a candidate winning despite losing the popular vote.

The Supreme Court has played a role in interpreting and enforcing proportional representation, ruling on cases such as Kirkpatrick v. Preisler and Wesberry v. Sanders. In Wesberry v. Sanders, the Court interpreted the Constitution as requiring that "one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's." This ruling helped to abolish "at-large" elections, except in less populous states entitled to only one representative.

Explore related products

Settler Colonialism, Race, and the Law: Why Structural Racism Persists (Citizenship and Migration in the Americas, 2)

$60 $63

Think Again: Contrarian Reflections on Life, Culture, Politics, Religion, Law, and Education

$7.2 $19.95

Italy's Margins: Social Exclusion and Nation Formation since 1861 (Cambridge Social and Cultural Histories, Series Number 20)

$45 $45

Systemic Corruption: Constitutional Ideas for an Anti-Oligarchic Republic

$25.18 $45

The Birth of Politics: Eight Greek and Roman Political Ideas and Why They Matter

$13.77 $22.95

The Citizen and the Alien: Dilemmas of Contemporary Membership

$19.99 $37

Voting by popular sovereignty

The Constitution of the United States originally provided for indirect elections, where the people elected a group of electors who then chose the president and vice president. This is known as the Electoral College system. While this system has evolved over time, the Electoral College still plays a role in presidential elections today.

The Constitution also included several compromises involving population and representation. One of the most notable was the Three-Fifths Clause, where three-fifths of the slave population was counted as part of the total population for representation purposes. This clause was a compromise between Southern and Northern states, as Southerners considered slaves as property and wanted them to be excluded from population calculations.

Another compromise was the Connecticut Compromise, which proposed a Congress with proportional representation in the lower house (the House of Representatives) and equal representation in the upper house (the Senate), with each state having two senators regardless of population. This compromise aimed to balance the interests of large and small states.

Despite these compromises, the Constitution did not initially grant voting rights to all citizens equally. It took several amendments, such as the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Twenty-Fourth Amendments, to remove discriminatory laws and expand voting rights to citizens regardless of race, age, or poll tax payment.

State representation

The representation of states in the US Congress was a highly contested issue during the drafting of the US Constitution in 1787. The delegates debated whether voting in Congress should be based on equal state representation or apportioned by population. The larger states, contributing more in terms of financial and defensive resources, argued for greater representation in the central government. On the other hand, smaller states pushed for equal representation in the Senate, threatening to unravel the proceedings if not conceded.

The "Great Compromise" or the "Connecticut Compromise" resolved this conflict by establishing equal representation in the Senate and proportional representation in the House of Representatives. This bicameral national legislature, proposed by James Madison in the Virginia Plan, was introduced to the Constitutional Convention by Edmund Randolph. The plan suggested that the "rights of suffrage" in both houses would be proportional to the size of the state. However, the small-state delegates continued to protest, leading to the appointment of a Grand Committee to reach a resolution.

The compromise over representation in the House of Representatives was formalised in Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution. It provided for proportional representation based on 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," referring to enslaved African Americans. This compromise was also reflected in the determination of the number of representatives, with each state guaranteed at least one representative.

The dispute over representation had been ongoing since the First Continental Congress in 1774, with larger states demanding votes proportional to their population. The issue resurfaced during the drafting of the Articles of Confederation, where the three largest states, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, were again defeated in their push for population-based voting. The conflict between Northern and Southern states persisted, with Northerners advocating for sharing expenses based on total population, while Southerners considered slaves as property and resisted their inclusion.

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention agreed on equal state representation in the Senate on July 16, 1787. They decided that each state would have two senators, and the number of senators per state was a subject of fierce debate. James Madison of Virginia argued for a smaller Senate, emphasising its role in proceeding with "more coolness, more system, and wisdom." The delegates also agreed that one senator per state would not suffice, as it could leave states unrepresented in the event of illness or death.

Frequently asked questions