Editing Three-fifths Compromise (section)

===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>}}