Select Page
 

An Agreement To Count Slaves As Three-Fifths Of A Person Was Related T

After a controversial debate, the compromise that was finally accepted – counting “all other people” as three-fifths of their actual figures – reduced the representation of slave states compared to the original proposals, but improved it in relation to the Nordic position. [16] One of the encouragements for slave states to accept the compromise was its commitment to taxation in the same proportion, thereby reducing the tax burden on slave states. The 13th Amendment of 1865 effectively eliminated the three-fifths compromise by prohibiting the enslavement of blacks. But when the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, the three-fifths compromise was officially repealed. Section 2 of the amendment states that seats in the House of Representatives should be fixed on the basis of “the total number of persons in each state, with the exception of unassured Indians.” According to the logic of the proponents of the “three-fifths one” interpretation, think of the constitutional impact had as predominance the position of the northern states and abolitionists. The three-fifths clause would have been omitted and perhaps replaced with formulations in which “other persons” would not be counted for distribution. The Constitution would therefore declare that slaves are not human at all (zero-fifth). This is an illogical conclusion and certainly has not been the position of delegates and abolitionists in the North. Much has been said about the inadequacy of the representation of men who have no will of their own…. They are men, although they are relegated to the state of slavery. These are people known to the municipal laws of the states in which they live, as well as the laws of nature. But representation and taxation go together…. Is it just a single charge without giving a reasonable advantage? By including three-fifths of slaves (who did not have the right to vote) in the legislative division, the three-fifths compromise created additional representation in the House of Representatives of slave states over free states.

In 1793, for example, the slave states of the South had 47 of the 105 seats, but would have allocated 33 seats on the basis of free populations. In 1812, the slave states had 76 out of 143 instead of the 59 they would have had; 1833 98 seats out of 240 instead of 73. As a result, the southern states had additional influence over the presidency, the spokesman for the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court until the American Civil War. [15] Moreover, the insistence of the Southern States on the same number of slave and free states maintained until 1850 protected the southern bloc of the Senate as well as the votes of the Electoral College. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) later replaced Article 1, Section 2, paragraph 3, and expressly repealed the compromise. It provides that “representatives… census of the total number of people in each country, with the exception of non-taxed Indians. A subsequent provision of the same clause reduced the representation of states in Congress that denied adult men the right to vote, but this provision was never effectively enforced. [19] (The Thirteenth Amendment, passed in 1865, had already excluded almost all persons from the jurisdiction of the original clause by prohibiting slavery; the only remaining persons subject to it were those who were sentenced to a crime, which was excluded from the prohibition by the amendment).) In the end, delegates who opposed slavery as an institution ignored their moral concerns for the unification of states, leading to the creation of the three-fifths compromise.