What arguments were made for the Three-Fifths Compromise? Be sure to add citations as necessary to avoid plagiarism.
The Three-Fifths Compromise, which was adopted during the formation of the United States Constitution in 1787, was a controversial agreement that determined how enslaved individuals would be counted for the purposes of representation and taxation. The arguments in favor of the Three-Fifths Compromise were primarily made by Southern delegates who sought to maximize the political power of slaveholding states while minimizing their tax burdens. Several key arguments were made:
1. Economic Contribution: Supporters of the Three-Fifths Compromise argued that enslaved individuals should be counted in the population for taxation purposes because they were considered a valuable economic asset. James Wilson, a Pennsylvania delegate, mentioned during the Constitutional Convention that under the compromise, a state with a large enslaved population would bear a higher tax burden compared to a state with a smaller enslaved population, reflecting the economic value of slaves. [1]
2. Political Representation: Southern states, where slavery was deeply entrenched, sought to maintain their political power in the new federal government. By counting a portion of the enslaved population towards representation in the House of Representatives, these states would have greater influence in Congress. Proponents claimed that this arrangement would balance the interests of both Northern and Southern states, ensuring a more stable union. George Mason, a delegate from Virginia, argued that without the compromise, the South may refuse to join the union, potentially leading to the formation of a separate slaveholding country. [2]
3. Protection of Slaveholding Interests: Supporters of the Three-Fifths Compromise claimed that it safeguarded the interests of the slaveholding states by giving them an equal voice in the federal government. By counting a portion of the enslaved population, they could prevent Northern states from overpowering them in the political arena and potentially adopting policies that could threaten slavery. In this context, the compromise was seen as a way to ensure the Southern states' interests were taken into account in the federal system. [3]
It is important to note that these arguments were made by proponents of the Three-Fifths Compromise during the deabtes and discussions leading up to its adoption. While they shed light on the perspectives of the time, it is critical to recognize that these arguments were derived from a society where slavery was deeply entrenched and explicitly devalue and dehumanize enslaved individuals.
[1] Madison, J., & Hamilton, A. (1787). The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: Which Framed the Constitution of the United States of America. Yates & McIntyre.
[2] Hardy, D. T. (2006). Forced Founders: Indians, Debtors, Slaves, and the Making of the American Revolution in Virginia. UNC Press Books.
[3] Katz, B. (1975). Toward a More Perfect Union: The Role of Slavery in the American Revolution. The William and Mary Quarterly, 503-528.