Unintended Consequences: The 3/5th Compromise

Article 1 Section 2 clause 3 of the United States Consitution 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.” To be clear all other persons are slaves, in case that wasn’t made clear.

During the US Constitutional Convention of 1787, the topic of slavery and how to deal with slaves was one of many issues to be discussed. Those who are students of history know that the issue of slavery would not be dealt with till many decades later but what was of concern was how to count slaves for political purposes. The Convention had already decided that representation in the House of Representatives would be based on a States total population count (i.e., California has the highest number of representatives in our current Congress due to it being the most populous state). The northern or free states wanted only free inhabitants of a state to only count for census purposes. The northern states also wanted slaves to count as property so the southern states would incur more of a tax burden. The southern states or slavery holding states, wanted slaves to be counted in total along the free inhabitants for census purposes (with no rights of course) so that they could have a higher number of seats in the House of Representatives. Southern states also didn’t want the slaves to count as property so that their tax burden would be reduced. After numerous debates on the issue with no traction being gained from either side, a “compromise” was proposed. The proposed compromise solution was to count 3 out of every five slaves as a person for taxation and representation purposes. The Northern States agreed to the compromise because it increased the tax burden that the Southern states would carry and only slightly (in their eyes anyways ) increase their representation numbers. The southern states liked that the compromise decreased its tax numbers from the norths original proposal (remember only 3 out of every 5) is counted but more importantly increase its representation numbers in the House of Representatives.

To give this some more perspective another compromise came out of the convention, the Connecticut Compromise. Under the Connecticut Compromise, one house of Congress (The Senate) would have an equal number of members regardless of population size, while the other (House of Representatives) Would be based on population size. At the time of the convention, northern states tended to be smaller, so the Connecticut Compromise was a massive win for them With the Connecticut compromise in mind, perhaps the North didn’t want to press their luck with the 3/5th compromise? On its face the 3/5th compromise was a huge win for the southern states, Maybe the northern states didn’t think they could get the Connecticut compromise and more equal terms on the 3/5th compromise and had to “compromise” on one?

Mistakes Were Made:

The 3/5th Compromise was a massive win for southern states. In 1793, southern states held 47 of the 105 seats in the House, but without the count of slaves, they would have only held 33 seats. In 1812 they held 76 out of 143 but without slaves would have just held only 59, in 1833, they held 98 out of 240 instead of the 73 they would have held without slaves. Because of the inflated representation numbers, the  Southern states had a significant influence on the presidency, the speakership position in the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court. The 3/5th compromise also had an effect on the number of slave vs. free states in the union and an impact on the electoral college votes. Historian Gary Willia has stated that without the additional slave state votes, Thomas Jefferson would have lost the Election of 1800. Slavery would have been excluded from Missouri and slavery would have been banned in territory won from Mexico.

Imagine a world where the northern states rejected the 3/5th compromise? Would the Civil War have happened a lot sooner (probably)? Would it have forced our Founding Fathers to have a more in-depth discussion about slavery instead of punting on the issue? Think about the Supreme Court case of Dred Scott v. Sanford and its effect on slavery (the case ruled that slaves were not US citizens), would this case have ended up differently if the south didn’t have such influence over the supreme court nominees? The northern states basically placated the South on the issue of slavery and representation because it was scared the south wouldn’t agree to the bigger goal of ratifying the US Consitution. This placating ended up biting the North in the butt because of the representation advantage in politics it gave the Southern States. This representation advantage would not disappear until the Civil War.  In fact, Abraham Lincoln campaigned on this representative disadvantage the North had during his run for President. The North “couldn’t see the forest from the trees” when it came to the issue of slavery. Slavery was not an issue that would just go away, it had to be dealt with head-on as we would later see with the Civil War.

 

8 Replies to “Unintended Consequences: The 3/5th Compromise”

  1. The beautiful thing about life is karma will always get us all when the justice system doesn’t. These articles are very enlightening to see the connection in history of how we keep repeating the same mistakes! Thank you for these bundles of clarity!

  2. Very well worded!

  3. The South would not have joined the Union without the compromise. No Civil War would exist. Slavery would have lasted past the 1860’s. The compromise kept the Country together and freed the slaves sooner. It would have been an empty gesture to allow the South to leave the Country and blacks would have suffered longer. The compromise was pushed by the abolitionists in the North. Read a little on the topic.

    1. MARLON MOSLEY says: Reply

      3/5 compromise delayed the inevitable… as long as slavery was allowed and African Americans were considered second-class citizen… the issue was always going to be a ticking time bomb that would have to be dealt with eventually as we saw with the civil war. The abolitionists only pushed it to get the Southern states to agree to the Constitution .. in the misguided thinking that we could handle the issue later… which we did…with the Civil War…. we are still feeling the repercussions from the 3/5th compromise today…. now all of my facts are verifiable…. your theories however… show me the materials you got this from and I will happily read up on it.

  4. I agree it was delayed. The point was to keep the Union together. The Southern States would not have signed the Constitution if slavery was abolished. They stated that during the convention. Therefore, the alternative was to form two separate countries and let slavery thrive in the South or keep them part of the one United States and deal with the issue directly. That was an awesome decision to make. The Constitution made the slave trade illegal(article I Section 9) after 20 years; the South would never agree to that on their own. Slavery was made illegal in the NW territories also. This boxed in the South within a generation of the signing of the Constitution and it did make the Civil War predictable. The alternative was a nation that condoned slavery well into the 20th century. It would have been very easy for the North to separate and point to the South as being immoral from their high horse. The 3/5 compromise made it everyone’s problem to solve. Another example for me is abortion. I am 100% against it. I would gladly take a 3/5 compromise today and save those unborn children. I know the others will die but I have a foothold that I can build on. That is exactly how the abolitionists thought about it.

    1. MARLON MOSLEY says: Reply

      I agree, The South would have never agreed to anything that would have eliminated or put any restrictions on Slavery. Under the circumstances, they made the decision they felt was right, but as someone who is a descendent of slaves, I think of the many people who suffered until the 13th amendment was established. The northerners were boxed in under the circumstances, but I also wonder if things would have been different if any of the people making the decision were slaves or had legitmiate family who were slaves. Very tough situation to be in for sure.

  5. […] The building is better known as the building where the Declaration of Independence and Consitution was debated and signed at. Under the Articles of Confederation, which was the supreme law at the […]

Leave a Reply