At the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, it is important to remember that none of the delegates called for an actual the end of slavery.  While some of them expressed their discomfort with it — George Mason of Virginia called for anti-slave trade laws and Gouverneur Morris of New York called slavery “a nefarious institution – they all accepted it as a political and economic reality.  It was, however, hotly debated and many clearly saw the hypocrisy of claiming to be a free republic and yet permitting chattel slavery.

When the delegates eventually agreed that the representation each state received in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College, they decided that it would be based on population but defining the population remained a thorny issue.  If the population of Southern states was allowed to include enslaved people, these states would be given seats in the House of Representatives for residents who could not vote, own property, or take advantage of the privileges that free men enjoyed.  This effectively grants disproportionate political power to a very few elite southerners as they would get more representation in Congress than the votes they cast.  The 3/5^th Compromise was a political expediency, expected to be reversed in the near future, which would allow states with slave populations to ratify the new Constitution without allowing them excessive benefits from their slave populations.

Obviously, since the apportionment in the House of Representatives and the number of electoral votes each state would have in presidential elections was based on a state’s population, the Southern states wanted to count the entire slave population. The argument being that these states had to provide for the defense, justice, and welfare of all people (free and enslaved).  Northern delegates and others opposed to slavery wanted to count only free persons (including free black men) but still restricted who was allowed to vote and own property (a right often denied blacks even in Pennsylvania).  The ultimate compromise was to count people within a state who were not entitled to full citizenship (slaves, indigenous peoples, and resident aliens) the status of “three-fifths of a person” with respect to the census (and hence computation of representation). 

First introduced by James Wilson and Roger Sherman on June 11, 1787, the three-fifths compromise counted enslaved people as three-fifths of a person. This agreement meant that the Southern states got more electoral votes than if the enslaved population hadn’t been counted at all, but fewer votes than if the enslaved population had been fully counted.  The compromise acknowledged that slavery was a reality.  In fact, the delegates went on to strengthen the legal basis for slavery by including a constitutional clause that allowed enslavers to “reclaim” enslaved people who sought freedom.

“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.”

Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution

Although the three-fifths compromise and others regarding slavery helped hold this new fragile union of states together, many on both sides of the issue were opposed. James Madison and Edmund Randolph of Virginia used the phrase “Quotas of contribution” to argue that slaves should be fully counted, one for one, and opposed the compromise.  This discontent with the compromise on slavery lead to notable other clauses that prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territories and ended U.S. participation in the international slave trade in 1807, but the southern states got their power. They were able to employ slavery and the population of slaves to ensure that during the entire period before the Civil War slaveholding states had disproportionate influence on the Presidency, the Speakership of the House of Representatives, and the U.S. Supreme Court because of the compromise.  The allowed for the perpetuation of slavery in America long past its abolishment in the British Empire.

The three-fifths compromise ensured that the country had a roughly equal number House Representatives that opposed and favored enslavement. Resulting in the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which allowed Missouri to enter the Union as a pro-slavery state; the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which forcibly removed Indigenous peoples from their land; and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which allowed residents to determine for themselves whether they wanted to allow the enslavement of Black people in their territories.

It is important to remember that although the 13th Amendment (1865) outlawed the enslavement of Black people, it did not change the situation for other peoples (Indians and Aliens).  Furthermore, politicians in the south were able to perpetuate their disproportionate political power by disenfranchising Black people, through “Jim Crow” laws.  Southern states continued to wield a disproportionate amount of power in Congress long into the early 1970’s. This power was based in part on the Black residents, who were counted for the purposes of representation but who were prevented from voting until 1964, and through the continued counting of prisoner, aliens, and Indians as 3/5ths persons in the census. 

Had the delegates not agreed to the 3/5ths Compromise in 1787, the Constitution may not have been ratified but by agreeing to it, they guaranteed the longevity of chattel slavery in America long beyond its abolition in most of the western world.

---

Want to have the
Regimental Brewmeister
at your site or event?

You can hire me.

https://colonialbrewer.com/yes-you-can-hire-me-for-your-event-or-site/