Critique the following constitutional provision protecting the
property of slave owners. What would be an advantage of
this policy?
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned
among the several States which may be included within this
Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall
be determined by adding to the whole Number of free
Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of
Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all
other Persons.”
The national government assesses taxation on an equal
basis, regardless of state population size.
Identifying enslaved people as property ensures that
Southern slave states remain part of the Union.
Taxes are divided on an equal basis regardless of race,
ensuring taxation is fair.
States retain the power to decide what taxes will be paid
to the federal government, thus increasing state
The quoted constitutional provision is known as the Three-Fifths Compromise, which was included in Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution in 1787. This provision determined how enslaved individuals would be counted for the purpose of apportioning federal representation and taxation among the states.
One potential advantage of this policy is that it ensured the Southern slave states would remain part of the Union. At the time of the Constitutional Convention, there was a significant divide between the Northern states, where slavery was either abolished or in the process of being abolished, and the Southern states, where it was heavily relied upon as an economic and social system. Including this provision appeased the Southern states by acknowledging the value of enslaved individuals and giving them increased political representation in Congress. By doing so, it helped to maintain a fragile unity between the North and South in the early years of the United States.
It is important to note that this provision was highly controversial and widely criticized throughout history. It explicitly treated enslaved individuals as property, denying them the rights and freedoms afforded to free persons. Additionally, it perpetuated and legitimized the institution of slavery, placing a higher value on enslaved individuals for political purposes rather than recognizing their humanity.
In terms of taxation, the provision did not distribute taxes on an equal basis among states regardless of population size. Instead, it considered the total number of free persons (including indentured servants) and three-fifths of the enslaved population. This resulted in an unequal distribution of taxation and political representation, favoring the Southern slave states with larger enslaved populations.
Overall, while the Three-Fifths Compromise had the advantage of maintaining the Union and appeasing Southern states in the short term, it was fundamentally flawed and morally reprehensible due to its perpetuation of slavery and the dehumanization of enslaved individuals.
The given constitutional provision, known as the 3/5 Compromise, protected the property of slave owners by counting three-fifths of the enslaved population towards the state's population for the purposes of determining representation in the federal government and apportioning direct taxes among the states.
Now, let's analyze the advantage of this policy:
The advantage of this provision is that it ensured the Southern slave states would remain part of the Union. At the time of the constitutional convention, there was a divide between the Northern and Southern states, particularly regarding the issue of slavery. The Southern states heavily relied on the institution of slavery for their economic and social systems. If the enslaved population was not counted at all for representation and taxation purposes, the Southern states would have had significantly less influence in the federal government and would have been disadvantaged economically. By agreeing to count three-fifths of the enslaved population, it provided some level of political power and influence to the Southern states. This compromise played a crucial role in preventing a complete breakdown of the constitutional convention and allowed the Union to be formed.
To reach this conclusion, one needs to understand the historical context surrounding the debate over slavery during the constitutional convention and the motivations of the delegates from the different states. By considering the economic and political factors at play, we can appreciate the advantage of this policy for the Southern slave states and the Union as a whole.