Research and compare the arguments delegates proposed for and against the Three-Fifths Compromise.
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a controversial legislative agreement reached during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, in which enslaved individuals within a state would be counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of apportioning representation and taxation. This compromise led to heated debates among the delegates, with both proponents and opponents putting forth their arguments. Here, we'll examine some of the main arguments proposed for and against the Three-Fifths Compromise:
Arguments for the Three-Fifths Compromise:
1. Ensuring fair representation: Supporters of the compromise argued that counting enslaved individuals as a fraction of a person was a necessary compromise to ensure fair representation for both northern and southern states. Southern states, where slavery was more prevalent, wanted enslaved individuals to be counted fully for representation purposes, while northern states generally opposed this. The compromise allowed for a middle ground that balanced the interests of both sides.
2. Preserving the Union: Proponents of the Three-Fifths Compromise emphasized the need to maintain unity among the states. They believed that without this compromise, southern states might refuse to join the Union or secede, leading to a weaker and divided nation. By including enslaved individuals in the population count, the compromise was seen as an effort to keep the southern states actively involved in the new federal government.
Arguments against the Three-Fifths Compromise:
1. Denial of humanity and equality: Opponents of the compromise argued that considering enslaved individuals as three-fifths of a person perpetuated their dehumanization and denied them their basic rights and equality. They believed that all individuals should be counted as a whole, regardless of their status as free or enslaved, in order to truly reflect the principles of a democratic society.
2. Unfair political advantage to slaveholding states: Critics of the Three-Fifths Compromise contended that counting enslaved individuals as part of the population gave disproportionate political power to slaveholding states. Since enslaved individuals had no political rights or freedoms, counting them for representation meant southern states would have an inflated number of representatives in Congress, allowing them to shape legislation in favor of slavery and against the interests of free states.
3. A contradiction of moral principles: Those against the compromise argued that it contradicted the principles of liberty and equality upon which the American Revolution had been fought. Many delegates opposed to slavery believed that counting enslaved individuals as less than a whole person for political purposes only perpetuated the injustice and inherent cruelty of the institution.
Overall, the Three-Fifths Compromise was a deeply divisive issue among the delegates, with arguments focusing on fair representation, preservation of the Union, denial of humanity and equality, political advantage, and moral principles. It remains a significant aspect of America's complex history and the ongoing discussions around issues of race, representation, and justice.