Malcolm Rivera
The Three-Fifths Compromise, or the Three-Fifths Clause, is part of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. It states that for representation in the House of Representatives, African-American slaves were to be considered three-fifths of a person. This was proposed by delegate James Wilson and seconded by Charles Pinckney. The reasoning behind this was that slaves were considered debased by servitude below the equal level of free inhabitants, and thus were divested of two-fifths of the [rights of a] man. The Three-Fifths Compromise has been a subject of debate, with some arguing that it supported the notion that slaves were three-fifths of a person, while others claim that it was purely a statistical designation.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| What is it called? | Three-fifths Compromise |
| Where is it found? | Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution |
| What does it state? | "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." |
| Who are the "other Persons"? | Slaves |
| What was the purpose of the clause? | To determine how many representatives each state would have in Congress based on its population. |
| What was the impact of the clause? | It reduced the population of the South by about 1.5 million people, but only cost the region two or three representatives. |
| Was it pro-slavery or anti-slavery? | There is debate among historians, legal scholars, and political scientists. Some argue that it was pro-slavery because it counted slaves as part of the population, while others argue that it was ambivalent or anti-slavery because it reduced the political power of slave-holding states. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Three-Fifths Compromise
> 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 inclusion of the Three-Fifths Compromise in the Constitution gave slave states more power in Congress. Without this clause, slave states would have had less representation and power. However, it is important to note that the slaves themselves gained nothing from this compromise, as they remained in slavery with no rights or freedoms. The Three-Fifths Compromise was later superseded by Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, which explicitly repealed the compromise.
Breast Cancer: Understanding Your Family History
You may want to see also
The 1783 amendment
The Three-Fifths Compromise was an agreement between the North and the South during the Constitutional Convention. The Compromise is part of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which states:
> 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 Three-Fifths Compromise was proposed as an amendment to the Articles of Confederation on April 18, 1783, by a committee of the Congress. The amendment aimed to change the basis for determining each state's wealth, and consequently, its tax obligations, from real estate to population. The proposal 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 Three-Fifths Compromise was also a result of the debate over whether slaves were considered persons or property. James Madison, in Federalist No. 54, explained that slaves were neither simply property nor solely persons, but rather a peculiar case of both. He argued that the Three-Fifths Compromise regarded slaves as "divested of two-fifths of the man".
The Compromise gave slave states more power in Congress, as slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person for representation purposes. This additional representation translated to more political power for the slave states. However, it is important to note that slaves themselves gained nothing from this compromise, as they remained without rights or freedoms.
The Three-Fifths Compromise was later repealed in 1868 by Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which stated that representatives shall be apportioned by counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding untaxed Native Americans.
Swiss Federalism vs. US Constitutional Republic: What's the Difference?
You may want to see also
The pro-slavery argument
The Three-Fifths Compromise, part of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, has been interpreted by some as a pro-slavery argument. This interpretation holds that the compromise gave slave states additional power and representation in Congress. Here are some key points that support this view:
Firstly, the Three-Fifths Compromise provided slave states with increased representation in the House of Representatives compared to if only free persons had been counted. During the Constitutional Convention, delegates supportive of slavery wanted slaves to be included in their actual numbers for representation purposes. The compromise, which counted "all other persons" as three-fifths of their total numbers, was seen as a concession to these delegates. This interpretation suggests that the compromise gave slaveholding states more power in Congress than they would have had otherwise.
Secondly, the compromise played a role in the outcome of early presidential elections. According to Yale Law School professor Akhil Reed Amar, eight of the first nine presidential elections were won by slave-owning Virginians. Amar argues that without the Three-Fifths Compromise, the 1800 election would have been won by John Adams instead of Thomas Jefferson due to the extra electoral votes held by Southern states based on their slave populations. This interpretation highlights how the compromise contributed to the political influence of slaveholding states.
Additionally, some scholars argue that the Three-Fifths Compromise was not intended to end slavery but rather to limit the power of slave-holding states. They contend that by counting slaves as three-fifths of a person, the compromise restricted the number of representatives available to these states. This interpretation positions the compromise as a strategic move to curb the influence of slavery rather than as a direct step towards abolition.
Furthermore, the Three-Fifths Compromise has been criticised for its failure to grant slaves any rights or freedoms. Despite being included in the legislative apportionment, slaves had no voting rights or political power. This perspective views the compromise as a concession to slaveholding states that maintained the status quo of slavery without offering any tangible benefits to the enslaved.
Finally, the Three-Fifths Compromise was part of a broader political context that included the Southern bloc, comprising Southern Democrats who controlled important committees in Congress. This bloc had the power to defeat federal legislation against racial violence and abuses in the South. From this perspective, the Three-Fifths Compromise can be seen as one element in a larger system that supported and perpetuated slavery.
Understanding the US Constitution: Examining the Clauses' Inclusion
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The anti-slavery argument
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise agreement between delegates from the Northern and Southern states at the United States Constitutional Convention in 1787. 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 reduced the representation of slave states
The compromise that was agreed upon—counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers—reduced the representation of the slave states relative to the original proposals. Northern delegates argued that only voters should be accounted for, while Southern delegates countered that slaves counted just as much as voters. The compromise was seen as a defeat for the Southern bloc, as it deprived them of two-fifths of their natural basis of representation. This gave free states more political power than slave states, thus encouraging freedom over slavery.
The Three-Fifths Compromise was necessary to build support for the Constitution
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a contentious issue, with some arguing that it was necessary to gain support for the ratification of the Constitution in 1789. Without this compromise, Southerners may never have supported a document that gave no weight to slave populations, and Northerners may have opposed ratification if slaves were fully counted for representation. The compromise, therefore, helped to maintain unity and defuse sectional tensions over slavery.
The Three-Fifths Compromise was not pro-slavery
While the Three-Fifths Compromise gave Southern states more power in Congress due to their large slave populations, it is important to note that it was not a pro-slavery measure. The Founding Fathers acknowledged that slavery violated the ideal of liberty central to the American Revolution. The compromise was a pragmatic solution to a complex issue, reflecting the difficulty of taking bold action against slavery at the time.
The Three-Fifths Compromise was not a statement on the humanity of enslaved people
There is debate over whether the Three-Fifths Compromise should be interpreted as a statement on the humanity of enslaved people, with some arguing that it supported the notion that slaves were ontologically three-fifths of a person. However, others argue that the three-fifths designation was purely a statistical designation used to determine representation in Congress. The compromise did not forbid a coloured man to vote, and it is important to note that other groups, such as women, also lacked political rights at the time.
Confederate Constitution: A Study in Contrasts and Similarities
You may want to see also
The Thirteenth Amendment
The Three-Fifths Compromise, part of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, states that "three-fifths of all other Persons" should be counted when determining the wealth of each state, and hence its tax obligations. This was based on the view that slaves were "'divested of two-fifths of the MAN' and were therefore debased by servitude below the equal level of free inhabitants". This compromise gave slave states additional power and representation in Congress.
President Abraham Lincoln played a crucial role in ensuring the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. In 1863, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, declaring that "all persons held as slaves [...] shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free." However, Lincoln recognized that this proclamation was not sufficient to end slavery, and a constitutional amendment was necessary. Lincoln made the Thirteenth Amendment his top legislative priority after winning reelection in 1864, and urged Congress to pass the bill.
When to Include a Reference Page
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Three-Fifths Compromise was part of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which 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...three fifths of all other Persons."
The Three-Fifths Compromise was included in the Constitution as a compromise between the Southern and Northern states regarding the representation of slaves in the population for taxation and representation purposes.
The Three-Fifths Compromise gave additional political power to the slaveholding Southern states, as it increased their representation in Congress relative to the free Northern states.
There is debate among scholars regarding whether the Three-Fifths Compromise was pro-slavery or anti-slavery. Some argue that it was pro-slavery as it gave more power to the Southern states and did not grant any rights or freedoms to slaves. Others argue that it was anti-slavery because it encouraged freedom by giving an increase in political power to free over slave states.
