Editing Three-fifths Compromise (section)

==Historical interpretation==
There is a persistent and sometimes contentious debate among historians, legal scholars, and political scientists over whether the Three-fifths Compromise should be construed to support the notion that slaves were conceived of not only [[Demography|demographically]], but also [[Ontology|ontologically]], three-fifths of a person or whether the three-fifths was purely a statistical designation used to determine how many representatives Southern states would have in Congress.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2021-05-06 |title=EXPLAINER: No evidence '3/5 compromise' aimed to end slavery |url=https://apnews.com/article/electoral-college-slavery-election-2020-race-and-ethnicity-government-and-politics-0ef97970a86255bf89c897838fcdb335 |access-date=2023-08-10 |website=AP News |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Masur |first=Kate |date=2021-05-08 |title=Lawmaker's ridiculous explanation for the three-fifths compromise on slavery |url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/07/opinions/tennessee-lawmaker-lafferty-bogus-interpretation-on-slavery-masur/index.html |access-date=2023-08-10 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref> A frequent claim made in favor of the former argument is that previous electoral precedent held that one man was equivalent to one vote, and the fact that the compromise explicitly tied personhood to votes provides a basis for an ontological reading of the compromise as implying that enslaved people lacked full personhood.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Maltz |first=Earl M. |date=1997 |title=The Idea of the Proslavery Constitution |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3124642 |journal=Journal of the Early Republic |volume=17 |issue=1 |pages=37–59 |doi=10.2307/3124642 |jstor=3124642 |issn=0275-1275|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Nguyen |first=Phung |date=2004 |title=Some Notes on Biased Statistics and African Americans |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3180893 |journal=Journal of Black Studies |volume=34 |issue=4 |pages=514–531 |doi=10.1177/0021934703258992 |jstor=3180893 |issn=0021-9347|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Locke |first=Mamie E. |date=1990-03-21 |title=From Three-Fifths to Zero:: Implications of the Constitution for African-American Women, 1787-1870 |url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J014v10n02_04 |journal=Women & Politics |language=en |volume=10 |issue=2 |pages=33–46 |doi=10.1300/J014v10n02_04 |issn=0195-7732|url-access=subscription }}</ref> Supporters of the statistical argument dispute that ontological considerations were present in the mind of Congress at the time or that the Three-fifths Compromise had any regard for such notions in its purpose and function.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Understanding the three-fifths compromise |url=https://www.theusconstitution.org/news/understanding-the-three-fifths-compromise/ |access-date=2023-08-10 |website=Constitutional Accountability Center |language=en}}</ref> However, it is generally agreed upon and historiographically reflected that enslaved people had no legal recourse or standing to challenge or participate in any kind of electoral legislation or activities of their own accord, which was confirmed 70 years later by the Supreme Court in ''[[Dred Scott v. Sandford]]''. This inequality in electoral rights did not substantively change until after the passage of the [[Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Thirteenth]], [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth]], [[Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifteenth]], and [[Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Nineteenth Amendments]] as well as the [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]].