[[18th Century]] | [[James Wilson]] | [[Charles Pinckney]] | [[United States of America|USA]] | [[Emancipation Proclamation]] | [[Constitutional Convention]] | [[Articles of Confederation]] ## **April 18, 1783:** Continental Congress proposed counting only three-fifths of slave population for taxation purposes when revising Articles of Confederation. Resolution failed—states could not agree. ## **May 25, 1787:** Constitutional Convention convened in Philadelphia. Virginia Plan proposed bicameral legislature with representation based on population. New Jersey Plan proposed equal representation. Connecticut Compromise resolved deadlock: proportional representation in House, equal representation in Senate. This created new problem: how to count population for House apportionment. ## **The Slavery Question:** Southern states wanted entire slave population counted for Representatives. Northern states wanted to exclude slaves since they had no voting rights. William Paterson of New Jersey: why count slaves toward federal representation when "they are not represented in the States to which they belong?" Slave states held nearly half nation's population—but one-third comprised slaves. Without counting slaves, Southern population would drop from 49 percent to 39 percent. Southern delegates threatened to abandon Convention. ## **June 11, 1787:** James Wilson of Pennsylvania and Roger Sherman of Connecticut proposed compromise recalling 1783 resolution. Charles Pinckney seconded. Compromise: count three-fifths of slave population toward state's total population for House apportionment. James Wilson per Madison's notes: "Mr. Wilson did not well see on what principle the admission of blacks in the proportion of three-fifths could be explained. Are they admitted as Citizens? Then why are they not on an equality with White Citizens? Are they admitted as property? Then why is no other property admitted into the computation? These were the difficulties however which he thought must be overruled by necessity of compromise." ## **Final Text:** Article I, Section 2, Clause 3: "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." Neither "slave" nor "slavery" appears in Constitution. Framers used euphemism "all other Persons." ## **Immediate Impact:** Compromise increased Southern House representation by 42 percent. With 93 percent of slaves in five Southern states, that region was undoubted beneficiary. First Congress 1789: Southern states apportioned 30 of 65 seats (46 percent). Without three-fifths clause, South would have received only 18 seats in 44-seat House (41 percent). Twelve additional seats granted through counting enslaved people who could not vote. Compromise also tied to taxation in same ratio—inducing slave states to accept since tax burden reduced. ## **Electoral College and Presidential Power:** Electoral votes equaled congressional delegation—House seats plus two Senate seats. Three-fifths compromise inflated Southern Electoral College power. After 1800 Census, Pennsylvania's free population was 10 percent larger than Virginia's but received 20 percent fewer electoral votes due to Virginia's slave population. Virginia with 200,000 disenfranchised slaves controlled one-quarter of electoral votes needed to win presidency. 1803: Representative Thatcher noted compromise added thirteen House members and eighteen electors from slave states. Without slave state votes, Jefferson would have lost 1800 election to Adams. Jefferson owned over one hundred slaves; Adams opposed slavery. Southern advantage enabled presidential wins by slaveholders and sympathizers through first half of nineteenth century. Without three-fifths clause: slavery excluded from Missouri, Jackson's Indian removal failed, Wilmot Proviso banned slavery in Mexican territories, Kansas-Nebraska bill failed. ## **Post-Civil War:** December 6, 1865: Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. July 9, 1868: Fourteenth Amendment Section 2 repealed three-fifths clause: "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed." After Reconstruction ended 1877, former slave states disenfranchised Black citizens through terrorism and illegal tactics while obtaining apportionment benefit based on total populations. This gave white Southerners greater voting power than during antebellum era. 1900: Some members proposed stripping South of seats proportional to number barred from voting. Congress did not act due to Southern bloc power. Voting Rights Act of 1965 deemed restrictions targeting Black Americans illegal. Key provisions rolled back in 2013 Shelby v. Holder. ## **Geopolitical Implications:** Three-fifths compromise subordinated human rights to political expediency—framers chose Union over abolishing slavery. Compromise mathematically embedded slavery into Constitution, granting slave states artificial majority. Southern states with 39 percent of free population controlled 46 percent of House seats and disproportionate Electoral College votes. This artificial majority preserved and expanded slavery against majority will. Compromise enabled minority slaveholding interest to dominate national politics seven decades. Every sectional crisis—Missouri, Mexican territories, Kansas-Nebraska, Compromise of 1850—represented free states forced to negotiate with slave states holding disproportionate power. Compromise made Civil War inevitable by entrenching slaveholding power so deeply only violence could dislodge it. Post-Reconstruction disenfranchisement demonstrated compromise's logic persisting: counting entire Black population while denying voting gave white Southerners more power than during slavery. Electoral College—built on three-fifths foundation—continues weighting votes by state rather than individual equality. Popular vote losers winning Electoral College in 1876, 2000, 2016 trace lineage to compromise privileging political power over democratic representation. Three-fifths compromise established precedent that political stability justifies sacrificing minority rights—template replicated in Jim Crow, voter suppression, ongoing debates over representation. 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_