Editing Three-fifths Compromise (section)

==Drafting and ratification in the Constitution==
===Confederation Congress===
The three-fifths [[ratio]] originated with an amendment proposed to the [[Articles of Confederation]] on April 18, 1783.<ref>{{Harvnb|Story|1833|page=112}}</ref>{{rp|112}}<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FgtAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA205 |title=American Politics: The American Republic and Its Government|last=Woodburn|first=James Albert|edition=2nd|publisher=[[G. P. Putnam's Sons]]|date=1916|page=190}}</ref> The amendment was to have changed the basis for determining the wealth of each state, and hence its tax obligations, from real estate to population, as a measure of ability to produce wealth. The proposal by a committee of the Congress had suggested that taxes "shall be supplied by the several colonies in proportion to the number of inhabitants of every age, sex, and quality, except Indians not paying taxes".<ref name="wills">{{cite book |title="Negro President": Jefferson and the Slave Power |last=Wills |first=Garry |author-link=Garry Wills |date=2003 |publisher=[[Houghton Mifflin]] |isbn=978-0-618-34398-0 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YZRPxR4hBdoC}}</ref>{{rp|51}}<ref>{{cite book |url=https://archive.org/details/originandgrowth02taylgoog/page/n183|quote=shall be supplied by the several colonies in proportion to the number of inhabitants of every age.|title=The Origin and Growth of the American Constitution: An Historical Treatise|last=Taylor |first=Hannis|publisher=[[Houghton Mifflin]] |date=1911 |page=131 |location=Boston and New York }}</ref> The South immediately objected to this formula since it would include slaves, who were viewed primarily as property, in calculating the amount of taxes to be paid. As [[Thomas Jefferson]] wrote in his notes on the debates, the Southern states would be taxed "according to their numbers and their wealth conjunctly, while the northern would be taxed on numbers only".<ref name="wills"/>{{rp|51–52}}

After proposed compromises of one-half by [[Benjamin Harrison V|Benjamin Harrison]] of [[Virginia]] and three-fourths by several [[New England]]ers failed to gain sufficient support, Congress finally settled on the three-fifths ratio proposed by [[James Madison]].<ref name="wills"/>{{rp|53}} But this amendment ultimately failed, falling two states short of the unanimous approval required to amend the Articles of Confederation ([[New Hampshire]] and [[New York (state)|New York]] opposed it).

===Federalist Papers 54–55===
Madison explained the reasoning for the 3/5 in [[Federalist No. 54]] "The Apportionment of Members Among the States" (February 12, 1788)<ref name="Federalist 51-60">{{cite web |last1=Madison |first1=James |last2=Hamilton |first2=Alexander |title=Federalist Nos. 51-60 |url=https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-51-60 |website=Library of Congress |access-date=12 February 2023}}</ref> as:

<blockquote>"We subscribe to the doctrine," might one of our Southern brethren observe, "that representation relates more immediately to persons, and taxation more immediately to property, and we join in the application of this distinction to the case of our slaves. But we must deny the fact, that slaves are considered merely as property, and in no respect whatever as persons. The true state of the case is, that they partake of both these qualities: being considered by our laws, in some respects, as persons, and in other respects as property...Let the case of the slaves be considered, as it is in truth, a peculiar one. Let the compromising expedient of the Constitution be mutually adopted, which regards them as inhabitants, but as debased by servitude below the equal level of free inhabitants, which regards the SLAVE as divested of two fifths of the MAN...The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of persons and of property. This is in fact their true character. It is the character bestowed on them by the laws under which they live; and it will not be denied, that these are the proper criterion; because it is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed the negroes into subjects of property, that a place is disputed them in the computation of numbers; and it is admitted, that if the laws were to restore the rights which have been taken away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal share of representation with the other inhabitants.</blockquote>

Madison later expanded further in [[Federalist No. 55]] "The Total Number of the House of Representatives" (February 15, 1788) as explaining that the 3/5 had to do with estimating the population size of slaves at the time as well:<ref name="Federalist 51-60" />

<blockquote>Within three years a census is to be taken, when the number may be augmented to one for every thirty thousand inhabitants; and within every successive period of ten years the census is to be renewed, and augmentations may continue to be made under the above limitation. It will not be thought an extravagant conjecture that the first census will, at the rate of one for every thirty thousand, raise the number of representatives to at least one hundred. Estimating the negroes in the proportion of three fifths, it can scarcely be doubted that the population of the United States will by that time, if it does not already, amount to three millions.</blockquote>

===Constitutional Convention===
During the Constitutional Convention, the compromise was proposed by delegate [[James Wilson (Founding Father)|James Wilson]] and seconded by [[Charles Pinckney (governor)|Charles Pinckney]].<ref name="mad">{{cite book|last=Madison|first=James|author-link=James Madison|date=1787|publication-date=1902|title=1787: The Journal of the Constitutional Convention, Part I|url=https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/madison-the-writings-vol-3-1787|volume=3|series=The Writings of James Madison|editor-last=Hunt|editor-first=Gaillard|publisher=[[G. P. Putnam's Sons]]|via=oll.libertyfund.org}}</ref>{{rp|143}}

When he presented his plan for the frame of government to the Convention on its first day, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina proposed that for the purposes of apportionment, a "House of Delegates" be determined through the apportionment of "one Member for every thousand Inhabitants 3/5 of Blacks included."<ref>{{Harvnb|Williams|1978|page=222}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pinckney.asp|title=The Plan of Charles Pinckney (South Carolina), Presented to the Federal Convention|last=Pinckney|first=Charles|author-link=Charles Pinckney (governor)|date=1787|department=[[Avalon Project]]|publisher=[[Yale University]]|publication-date=2008|access-date=2 April 2020}}</ref> The Convention unanimously accepted the principle that representation in the House of Representatives would be in proportion to the relative state populations, but it initially rejected his proposal regarding apportionment of the black population along with the rest of his plan. Delegates opposed to [[History of slavery in the United States|slavery]] proposed that only free inhabitants of each state be counted for apportionment purposes, while delegates supportive of slavery opposed the proposal, wanting slaves to count in their actual numbers.

The proposal to count slaves by a three-fifths ratio was first presented on June 11, and agreed to by nine states to two with only a brief debate.<ref name="mad"/>{{rp|143–4}} It was debated at length between July 9 and 13 (inclusive) when it was initially voted down by the members present at the Convention six to four.<ref>{{Harvnb|Feldman|2017}}{{page number needed|date=August 2021}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_711.asp|title=Madison Debates, July 11|date=July 11, 1787|department=[[Avalon Project]]|publisher=[[Yale University]]|work=[[Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787|Madison's Notes on Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787]]|publication-date=2008|access-date=2 April 2020|last=Madison|first=James|author-link=James Madison}}</ref> A few Southern delegates, seeing an opportunity, then proposed full representation for their slave population; most states voted no.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_712.asp|title=Madison Debates, July 12|date=July 12, 1787|department=[[Avalon Project]]|publication-date=2008|publisher=[[Yale University]]|work=[[Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787|Madison's Notes on Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787]]|access-date=2 April 2020|last=Madison|first=James|author-link=James Madison}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/slaveryfoundersr0000fink/page/14/mode/2up|title=Slavery and the Founders: Race and Liberty in the Age of Jefferson|date=1996|publisher=[[M. E. Sharpe]]|location=[[Armonk, New York|Armonk]], New York|url-access=registration|last=Finkelman|first=Paul|author-link=Paul Finkelman|pages=14–15|isbn=978-1-56324-590-9}}</ref> Seeing that the states could not remain united about counting the slaves as five-fifths<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-new-york-review-of-books/20190606/281616716809672|title=No Property in Man: Slavery and Antislavery at the Nation's Founding by Sean Wilentz|via=[[PressReader]]|publisher=[[The New York Review of Books]]|last=Guyatt|first=Nicholas|date=6 June 2019}}</ref> without some sort of compromise measure, the ratio of three-fifths was brought back to the table and agreed to by eight states to two.<ref name="mad"/>{{rp|416}}

===Debate===
{{expand section|date=February 2021}}
[[Gouverneur Morris]] from New York doubted that a [[direct tax]], whose burden on Southern states would be increased by the Three-fifths Compromise, could be effectively leveled on the vast United States. The primary ways of generating federal revenue, he said, would be [[excise tax]]es and [[import duties]], which would tax the North more than the South; therefore, the taxation provision was irrelevant, and the compromise would only increase the number of pro-slavery legislators.<ref name="slavepower"/>

Northern delegates argued only voters should be accounted for. Southern delegates countered, claiming slaves counted just as much as voters, despite Northerners questioning why slaves should be held by Southerners.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Three-fifths compromise {{!}} Definition, Date, History, Significance, & Facts {{!}} Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/three-fifths-compromise |access-date=2022-10-30 |website=www.britannica.com |language=en}}</ref>{{fv|date=October 2022|reason=does not support assertions in para citing it.<!-- perhaps rewrite para based on questioning why slaves should be held by Southerners. cite that -->}}

===Compromise and enactment===
After a contentious debate, the compromise that was finally agreed upon—of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers—reduced the representation of the slave states relative to the original proposals, but improved it over the Northern position.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Finkelman |first1=Paul|author-link=Paul Finkelman|date=2013|title=How The Proslavery Constitution Led To The Civil War |journal= [[Rutgers Law Journal]]|volume= 43|issue= 3|pages= 405|ssrn=2243060}}</ref> An inducement for slave states to accept the Compromise was its tie to taxation in the same ratio, so that the burden of taxation on the slave states was also reduced.

A contentious issue at the 1787 Constitutional Convention was whether slaves would be counted as part of the population or would instead be considered property and, as such, not be considered in determining representation of the states in the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] and the [[Electoral College]]. The Southern states wanted each slave to count as a full person, whereas the Northern states did not want them to count at all. [[Elbridge Gerry]] asked, why should "blacks, who were property in the South", count toward representation "any more than the Cattle & horses of the North"?<ref>[https://www.aaihs.org/a-compact-for-the-good-of-america-slavery-and-the-three-fifths-compromise/ Black Perspectives: A Compact for the Good of America? Slavery and the Three-Fifths Compromise]</ref>

Although slave states argued that slaves should be considered persons in determining representation, they wanted them considered property if the new government were to levy taxes on the states on the basis of population. Delegates from states where slavery had become rare argued that slaves should be included in taxation, but not in determining representation.

The proposed ratio was a ready solution to the impasse that arose during the Constitutional Convention. In that situation, the alignment of the contending forces was the reverse of what had been obtained under the Articles of Confederation in 1783. In amending the Articles, the North wanted slaves to count for more than the South did because the objective was to determine taxes paid by the states to the federal government. In the Constitutional Convention, the more important issue was representation in Congress, so the South wanted slaves to count for more than the North did.<ref name="mad"/>{{rp|397}}

{{Quote|text=Much has been said of the impropriety of representing men who have no will of their own.... They are men, though degraded to the condition of slavery. They are persons known to the municipal laws of the states which they inhabit, as well as to the laws of nature. But [[no taxation without representation|representation and taxation go together]].... Would it be just to impose a singular burden, without conferring some adequate advantage?|sign=[[Alexander Hamilton]]<ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OS4MAQAAMAAJ
|title=The Debates In The Several State Conventions On The Adoption Of The Federal Constitution, As Recommended By The General Convention At Philadelphia, In 1787|volume=2
|editor-last=Elliot | editor-first=John|editor-link=Jonathan Elliot (historian)|publisher=[[J.B. Lippincott & Co.]]; Taylor & Maury | location=Philadelphia and Washington, D.C.|date=1866 | page=237 }}</ref>}}