Three-fifths Compromise: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-The '''Three-Fifths compromise''' was a compromise between [[Old South|Southern]] and [[Northeastern United States|Northern states]] reached during the [[Philadelphia Convention]] of 1787 in which three-fifths of the population of [[slavery|slave]]s would be counted for [[United States Census|enumeration]] purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the [[Apportionment (politics)|apportionment]] of the members of the [[United States House of Representatives]]. It was proposed by delegates [[James Wilson]] and [[Roger Sherman]].
-Delegates opposed to [[History of slavery in the United States|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 in their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the [[United States House of Representatives|House]] and the [[Electoral College (United States)|Electoral College]]. 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 increased it over the northern position.
-The three-fifths compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the [[United States Constitution]]:
-{{cquote|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 [[Indentured servant#North America|those bound to Service for a Term of Years]], and excluding [[Native Americans in the United States|Indians]] not taxed, '''three fifths of all other Persons.}}
-==Background==
-The three-fifths ratio was not 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."<ref>Wills pg. 51</ref><ref>{{cite book
-   |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=_-U9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=%22shall+be+supplied+by+the+several+colonies+in+proportion+to+the+number+of+inhabitants+of+every+age%22&source=web&ots=mFdnHnbE5D&sig=KNxPmpQE4yeWrTKWXBfSH8b3YFY
-   |title=The Origin and Growth of the American Constitution: An Historical Treatise
-   |author=Hannis Taylor
-   |publisher=Houghton Mifflin Company
-   |date=1911
-   |pages=131
-}}</ref>
-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."<ref>Wills pg. 51-52</ref>
-After proposed compromises of {{frac|1|2}} by Benjamin Harrison of Virginia and {{frac|3|4}} by several New Englanders failed to gain sufficient support, Congress finally settled on the {{frac|3|5}} ratio proposed by [[James Madison]].<ref>Wills pg 53.</ref> 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.{{Fact|date=March 2009}}
-==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 would have had; in 1833, 98 instead of 73. As a result, southerners dominated the [[The President of the United States of America|Presidency]], the [[Speaker of the United States House of Representatives|Speakership of the House]], and the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] in the period prior to the [[American Civil War|Civil War]].<ref name="Wills1">Wills p.5</ref>
-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...."<ref name="Wills1"/>  However, other historians have criticized Wills's analysis as simplistic.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uk/2993311.html |title=A SLAVE TO THE SYSTEM? Thomas Jefferson and Slavery |publisher=[[Hoover Institution]] |date=January 19, 2004 |accessdate=2008-02-20}}</ref>  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.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.821/article_detail.asp |title=Three-Fifths Historian |last=Banning |first=Lance |publisher=[[The Claremont Institute]] |date=August 31, 2004 |accessdate=2008-01-21}}</ref>
-==Superseded==
-Following the [[American Civil War|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..."''
-==References==
-{{reflist|2}}
-==Bibliography==
-*{{cite book |title=“Negro President”: Jefferson and the Slave Power |last=Wills |first=Garry |authorlink=Garry Wills |coauthors= |year=2003 |publisher=Houghton Mifflin |location=Boston |isbn=0618343989 |pages= }}
-*{{cite book |title=American Politics and the African American Quest for Universal Freedom |last=Walton |first=Hanes, Jr. |authorlink= |coauthors=Smith, Robert C. |year=2006 |edition=3rd Edition |publisher=Pearson Longman |location=New York |isbn=0321292375 |pages= }}
-*{{cite book |title=An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America |last=Wiencek |first=Henry |authorlink=Henry Wiencek |coauthors= |year=2004 |publisher=Farrar, Straus, and Giroux |location=New York |isbn=0374529515 |pages= }}
-*[http://www.brown.edu/Research/Slavery_Justice/documents/SlaveryAndJustice.pdf Report of the Brown University Steering Committee on Slavery and Justice]
-{{US Constitution}}
-[[Category:United States Constitution]]
-[[Category:United States federal law]]
-[[Category:Slavery in the United States]]
-[[Category:History of African-American civil rights]]
-[[Category:African American history]]
-[[Category:History of the United States (1776–1789)]]
-[[Category:1787 in the United States]]
-[[da:Trefemtedelsklausulen]]
-[[de:Drei-Fünftel-Klausel]]
-[[fr:Compromis des trois-cinquièmes]]
-[[pt:Compromisso dos Três Quintos]]

Revision as of 21:25, 9 December 2010