Three-Fifths Compromise

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Three-fifths compromise)
Jump to: navigation, search

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached between delegates from southern states and those from northern states during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. The debate was over if, and if so, how, slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for constitutional purposes. The issue was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years, and to determine what percentage of the nation's direct tax burden the state would have to bear. The compromise was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.

The Convention had unanimously accepted the principle that representation in the House of Representatives would be in proportion to the relative state populations. However, since slaves could not vote, non-slaves in slave states would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. Delegates opposed to slavery proposed that only free inhabitants of each state be counted for apportionment purposes, while delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, opposed the proposal, wanting slaves to count in their actual numbers. A compromise which was finally agreed upon—of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers—reduced the representation of the slave states relative to the original proposals, but improved it over the Northern position.[1] An inducement for slave states to accept the Compromise was its tie to taxation in the same ratio, so that the burden of taxation on the slave states was also reduced.

The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution which reads:

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 ratio 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."[2][3] 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."[4]

After proposed compromises of one-half by Benjamin Harrison of Virginia and three-fourths by several New Englanders failed to gain sufficient support, Congress finally settled on the three-fifths ratio proposed by James Madison.[5] 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).

A contentious issue at the Constitutional Convention was whether slaves would be counted as part of the population in determining representation of the states in the Congress or would instead be considered property and, as such, not be considered for purposes of representation.[6] Delegates from states with a large population of slaves argued that slaves should be considered persons in determining representation, but as property if the new government were to levy taxes on the states on the basis of population.[6] Delegates from states where slavery had become rare argued that slaves should be included in taxation, but not in determining representation.[6]

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.[citation needed]

Much has been said of the impropriety of representing men who have no will of their own. ...They are men, though degraded to the condition of slavery. They are persons known to the municipal laws of the states which they inhabit, as well as to the laws of nature. But representation and taxation go together.... Would it be just to impose a singular burden, without conferring some adequate advantage?

Impact before the Civil War[edit]

The Three-Fifths Compromise gave a disproportionate representation of slave states in the House of Representatives relative to the voters in the North until the Civil War. For example, in 1793 Southern slave states had 47 members but would have had 33, had seats been assigned based on free populations. In 1812, slave states had 76 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 instead of 73. As a result, Southern states had disproportionate influence on the Presidency, the Speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War.[9]

Historian Garry Wills has postulated that without the additional slave state 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...."[9] However, other historians have criticized Wills' analysis as simplistic.[10] For example, while the Three-Fifths Compromise could be seen to favor Southern states because of their large 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.[11]

Repeal and subversion after Reconstruction[edit]

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, as all people were now free. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) later superseded Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. It provides:

"Representatives shall be apportioned ...counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed..."

However, after the Reconstruction era came to an end in 1877, the former slave states subverted the objective of these changes by using various strategies to disfranchise their black citizens, while obtaining the benefit of apportionment of representatives on the basis of the total populations. This inflated the number of Southern Democrats in the House of Representatives as well as the number of votes they could exercise in the Electoral College in the election of the President.

Disfranchisement attracted the attention of Congress, and in 1900 some members proposed stripping the South of seats, related to the number of people who were barred from voting.[12] In the end, Congress did not act to change apportionment, partly because of the power of the Southern bloc. For decades, Southern Democrats, voted into office by white voters, comprised a powerful voting bloc in Congress until the 1960s. Their representatives, re-elected repeatedly by one-party states, controlled numerous chairmanships of important committees in both houses on the basis of seniority, giving them control over rules, budgets and important patronage projects, among other issues. Their power allowed them to defeat federal legislation against racial violence and abuses in the South.[13] It was not until the 1960s that the African-American Civil Rights Movement and its sympathizers challenged the Southern disfranchisement of black citizens, besides other abuses.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Paul Finkelman, "How The Proslavery Constitution Led To The Civil War", Rutgers Law Journal Volume 43 Fall/Winter 2013 Number 3, p405
  2. ^ Wills pg. 51
  3. ^ Hannis Taylor (1911). The Origin and Growth of the American Constitution: An Historical Treatise. Houghton Mifflin Company. p. 131. 
  4. ^ Wills pg. 51-52
  5. ^ Wills pg 53.
  6. ^ a b c Constitutional Rights Foundation. "The Constitution and Slavery". Retrieved November 21, 2007. 
  7. ^ Hamilton pg. 237
  8. ^ Jonathan Elliot, ed. (1866). The Debates In The Several State Conventions On The Adoption Of The Federal Constitution, As Recommended By The General Convention At Philadelphia, In 1787. J.B. Lippincott & Co. Washington: Taylor & Maury. p. 237. 
  9. ^ a b Wills pg. 5-6.
  10. ^ "A SLAVE TO THE SYSTEM? Thomas Jefferson and Slavery". Hoover Institution. January 19, 2004. Retrieved 2008-02-20. 
  11. ^ Banning, Lance (August 31, 2004). "Three-Fifths Historian". The Claremont Institute. Retrieved 2008-01-21. 
  12. ^ Committee At Odds on Reapportionment, The New York Times, 20 Dec 1900, accessed 10 Mar 2008
  13. ^ Richard H. Pildes, "Democracy, Anti-Democracy, and the Canon", Constitutional Commentary, Vol.17, 2000, p.10, Accessed 10 Mar 2008

Bibliography[edit]