What arguments were made for the Three-Fifths Compromise? Be sure to add
citations as necessary to avoid plagiarism.
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a controversial agreement reached during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 regarding the counting of slaves for the purpose of representation and taxation. Two main arguments were made in favor of the Three-Fifths Compromise:
1. Representation of the Southern states: Southern states, which heavily relied on slave labor, argued that slaves should be counted as part of their population for the purpose of representation in the House of Representatives. By counting slaves, even at a reduced ratio, the Southern states would gain more seats in Congress, thereby increasing their political power. Representatives from these states believed that this compromise would ensure their voices would be heard at the national level, protecting their interests and maintaining the balance of power between Northern and Southern states.
For example, during the Constitutional Convention, James Wilson of Pennsylvania argued, "If the South was to be represented as three-fifths of a man in the federal Councils, will not the Eastern and Middle States be as much underrepresented by such a rule as the Southern? ...It seemed to be of no importance how the whites, were divided."
2. Economic impact of taxation: Another argument made in favor of the Three-Fifths Compromise was its impact on taxation. Northern states, which predominantly relied on free labor and had a smaller slave population, argued that slaves, being property, should be taxed. However, Southern states disagreed, fearing that this tax burden would disproportionately harm their economic interests. By counting slaves as a fraction of their population, the South could reduce the tax burden on their slaveholding citizens, ensuring their economic stability.
For instance, in Federalist No. 54, James Madison wrote, "It is a matter of mutual convenience that all property in those States should be taxed, the representation being divided among all the Citizens...By such a rule, the [Southern] States would have to pay more than their proportion...for ending the institution."
These arguments reflect the political and economic interests of the time, which sought to reconcile the North-South divide within the newly formed United States. It is important to note that the Three-Fifths Compromise was a product of its time and is now widely seen as a flawed and morally reprehensible compromise that perpetuated the institution of slavery.
The Three-Fifths Compromise, reached during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, was a controversial agreement regarding how enslaved individuals would be counted for the purposes of determining representation in the House of Representatives and direct taxes. This compromise emerged from debates between Northern and Southern states over the issue of slavery. While some arguments made in support of the compromise centered around political and economic considerations, it is important to note that this compromise was inherently unjust as it dehumanized enslaved individuals.
One argument made in favor of the Three-Fifths Compromise was that it provided Southern states with a greater share of political power in the federal government, thus ensuring their continued participation in the new union. According to historian Michael Vorenberg, the compromise "guaranteed that the South would prevail in the struggle for control over the federal government, and ... won the full cooperation of the slaveholders." [1] This argument posited that by counting enslaved individuals as three-fifths of a person, Southern states with a substantial enslaved population could gain more representatives in Congress, which would give them greater influence over legislation and policy-making.
Another argument for the Three-Fifths Compromise was the economic benefit it offered Southern states. The Southern economy was heavily dependent on the institution of slavery, and counting enslaved individuals as a fraction of the population allowed the South to maintain their economic interests and preserve the institution of slavery. As historian George William Van Cleve suggests, this compromise allowed the South to "maintain parity with the North" in terms of political representation, thus ensuring their ability to protect their economic and social structure. [2]
Nevertheless, it is crucial to acknowledge that the Three-Fifths Compromise perpetuated and reinforced the dehumanization and oppression of enslaved individuals. By considering them solely as a means to political power or economic advantage, this compromise further marginalized and denied the basic rights of enslaved people. As such, it is important to critically evaluate the arguments made in support of the Three-Fifths Compromise in the context of the time and place they were made, given the deeply flawed and inhumane nature of this compromise.
[1] Michael Vorenberg, "The Compromise of 1787: Constructing the Fourteenth Amendment," Yale Law Journal 112, no. 8 (2003): 2039.
[2] George William Van Cleve, "The Three-Fifths Compromise in History and Historiography," The Journal of the Civil War Era 5, no. 1 (2015): 59.
The Three-Fifths Compromise, formulated during the Constitutional Convention in 1787, involved the issue of how enslaved people should be counted when determining a state's population for the purpose of taxation and representation in the House of Representatives. The arguments made in favor of the Three-Fifths Compromise can be understood by examining the historical context and the perspectives of the delegates involved.
1. Preserve Union and Secure Ratification: One of the primary arguments in support of the Three-Fifths Compromise was the need to maintain the unity of the newly formed United States and secure the ratification of the Constitution. The framers recognized the deep divide between northern states, which sought to exclude enslaved individuals from the population count, and southern states, which sought to include them. By compromising and counting enslaved individuals as three-fifths of a person, it allowed for a middle ground and avoided a potential breakdown of negotiations.
2. Balance Political Power: Another important argument was the aim to balance political power between the northern and southern states. Southern states had large populations of enslaved individuals, and if they were fully counted, it would have significantly increased the southern states' representation in the House of Representatives. This compromise prevented disproportionate political power from being concentrated in only a few states.
3. Economic Considerations: Southern states relied heavily on their agricultural economy, which was heavily dependent on slave labor. Thus, they argued that the inclusion of enslaved individuals in the population count was necessary to protect their economic interests. By securing more representation in the House through the counting of enslaved individuals, southern states believed they would have a stronger voice in shaping economic and taxation policies.
It is important to note that the Three-Fifths Compromise is widely criticized today as a dehumanizing and unjust compromise that perpetuated the institution of slavery. However, understanding the historical context helps to contextualize the arguments made at the time.
For further research and avoidance of plagiarism, it is recommended to consult primary sources from the Constitutional Convention, such as the recorded debates and writings of the Framers involved in the formulation of the Three-Fifths Compromise. Additionally, scholarly articles, history textbooks, and reputable online resources can provide additional insights into the arguments presented during that period. Remember to cite all sources used to attribute credit correctly.