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.” (1 point) Responses The national government assesses taxation on an equal basis, regardless of state population size. 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. Identifying enslaved people as property ensures that Southern slave states remain part of the Union. States retain the power to decide what taxes will be paid to the federal government, thus increasing state autonomy. States retain the power to decide what taxes will be paid to the federal government, thus increasing state autonomy. Taxes are divided on an equal basis regardless of race, ensuring taxation is fair.
The advantage of the constitutional provision protecting the property of slave owners is that it identified enslaved people as property, ensuring that Southern slave states remained part of the Union. This provision helped maintain the unity of the country by placating the interests of slave-holding states.
The critique of this constitutional provision protecting the property of slave owners is that it perpetuates the institution of slavery and treats enslaved people as property rather than human beings. It is fundamentally unjust and violates the principles of equality and human rights.
An advantage of this policy, as suggested in the given response, is that it ensures Southern slave states remain part of the Union. The inclusion of the three-fifths clause in the apportionment of representatives and direct taxes helped to balance power between the North and the South in the early years of the United States, as the Southern states had a larger enslaved population. This compromise was crucial in maintaining unity among the states during the formation of the Union.
However, it is important to note that while this provision helped maintain political harmony between the states, it also perpetuated the institution of slavery and allowed for the unequal representation of enslaved people. It is a stark reminder of the compromises made by the framers of the Constitution, who prioritized maintaining the Union over addressing the fundamental injustice of slavery.
The constitutional provision you have mentioned is commonly referred to as the Three-Fifths Compromise, which was included in the United States Constitution in 1787. It stated that for the purposes of apportioning seats in the House of Representatives and determining direct taxes, enslaved individuals would be counted as three-fifths of a person.
Now, let's evaluate the potential advantage mentioned in the provided responses:
1. "Identifying enslaved people as property ensures that Southern slave states remain part of the Union."
This statement suggests that by recognizing enslaved people as property, it helped maintain the unity of the Southern slave states with the rest of the Union. This was indeed one of the advantages for slaveholding states. By counting enslaved individuals as part of the population, it increased their political representation and influence in the House of Representatives. This allowed Southern states to have a greater say in national decision-making, including matters related to slavery.
However, it is important to note that while this advantage may have benefited the Southern slave states, it was based on the morally reprehensible institution of slavery. By treating enslaved individuals as property, it perpetuated the dehumanization and oppression of millions of people.
It's important to emphasize that this explanation is only discussing the advantages mentioned. The Three-Fifths Compromise is widely criticized today for its support of slavery and its inherent injustice.