Changes

[[Image:Constitution.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Coming out of the Convention, the Constitution counted slaves as 3/5s for the purpose of representation.]]

[[Image:Constitution.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Coming out of the Convention, the Constitution counted slaves as 3/5s for the purpose of representation.]]

At the [[Constitutional Convention]], there was some debate over whether slaves should be counted as part of the population determining the number of seats in the [[House of Representative]] granted to each state.  The '''Three-Fifths Compromise''' was the solution to this problem.  It determined that five [[slave]]s would count as three people in determining the [[population]] for [[tax]]ing and [[representation]]. <ref>U.S Government and Politics</ref>

At the [[Constitutional Convention]], there was some debate over whether slaves should be counted as part of the population determining the number of seats in the [[House of Representative]] granted to each state.  The '''Three-Fifths Compromise''' was the solution to this problem.  It determined that five [[slave]]s would count as three people in determining the [[population]] for [[tax]]ing and [[representation]].<ref>U.S Government and Politics</ref>

It was proposed in 1787 by [[James Wilson]] at the [[Constitutional Convention]]. The Compromise was introduced as a solution between the Southern and Northern States as a way to keep the union from splintering.

It was proposed in 1787 by [[James Wilson]] at the [[Constitutional Convention]]. The Compromise was introduced as a solution between the Southern and Northern States as a way to keep the union from splintering.

Historians, politicians, and activists have argued endlessly about the Three-Fifths Compromise, what it means, and its impact.

Historians, politicians, and activists have argued endlessly about the Three-Fifths Compromise, what it means, and its impact.

[[Frederick Douglass]] argued that the Constitution is a ''Glorious Liberty Document'', which includes this compromise.<ref>[http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/what-to-the-slave-is-the-fourth-of-july/ What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?], July 5, 1852, "Fellow-citizens! there is no matter in respect to which, the people of the North have allowed themselves to be so ruinously imposed upon, as that of the pro-slavery character of the Constitution. In that instrument I hold there is neither warrant, license, nor sanction of the hateful thing; but, interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT. Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? Is it at the gateway? or is it in the temple? It is neither. While I do not intend to argue this question on the present occasion, let me ask, if it be not somewhat singular that, if the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slave-holding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it."</ref>  Abraham Lincoln, likewise, made a defense of the [[Abraham_Lincoln#Founding_Fathers|Founding Fathers]] on the grounds that the Founders had little choice but compromise, otherwise one or more states could have been lost to the British so shortly after victory in the [[Revolutionary War]].

[[Frederick Douglass]] argued that the Constitution is a ''Glorious Liberty Document'', which includes this compromise.<ref>[http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/what-to-the-slave-is-the-fourth-of-july/ What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?], July 5, 1852, "Fellow-citizens! there is no matter in respect to which, the people of the North have allowed themselves to be so ruinously imposed upon, as that of the pro-slavery character of the Constitution. In that instrument I hold there is neither warrant, license, nor sanction of the hateful thing; but, interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT. Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? Is it at the gateway? or is it in the temple? It is neither. While I do not intend to argue this question on the present occasion, let me ask, if it be not somewhat singular that, if the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slave-holding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it."</ref>  Abraham Lincoln, likewise, made a defense of the [[Abraham Lincoln#Founding Fathers|Founding Fathers]] on the grounds that the Founders had little choice but compromise, otherwise one or more states could have been lost to the British so shortly after victory in the [[Revolutionary War]].

Conversely, [[William Lloyd Garrison]] argued that the Constitution was a "covenant with death" in regard to slavery.<ref>[http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2000/winter/garrisons-constitution-1.html Garrison's Constitution], The Covenant with Death and How It Was Made</ref>  Other historians, such as Garry Wills, have argued that the Three-Fifths Compromise increased the power of the slave states.<ref>[http://www.hoover.org/research/slave-system-thomas-jefferson-and-slavery A SLAVE TO THE SYSTEM? Thomas Jefferson and Slavery], [[Hoover Institute]]</ref>

Conversely, [[William Lloyd Garrison]] argued that the Constitution was a "covenant with death" in regard to slavery.<ref>[http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2000/winter/garrisons-constitution-1.html Garrison's Constitution], The Covenant with Death and How It Was Made</ref>  Other historians, such as Garry Wills, have argued that the Three-Fifths Compromise increased the power of the slave states.<ref>[http://www.hoover.org/research/slave-system-thomas-jefferson-and-slavery A SLAVE TO THE SYSTEM? Thomas Jefferson and Slavery], [[Hoover Institute]]</ref>

As Abraham Lincoln noted, dis-union was not an option for the Founders.  Had any one of the states left the union, it would have been courted by a foreign power leading to another war.  Even as a united nation of 13 colonies, the US faced war with Britian a second time in the [[War of 1812]].<ref>By the time of the War of 1812, 5 additional states had been added, with the result that Britain was still an extremely formidable adversary.  Those states were: [[Vermont]], [[Kentucky]], [[Tennessee]], [[Ohio]], and [[Louisiana]].</ref>

As Abraham Lincoln noted, dis-union was not an option for the Founders.  Had any one of the states left the union, it would have been courted by a foreign power leading to another war.  Even as a united nation of 13 colonies, the US faced war with Britian a second time in the [[War of 1812]].<ref>By the time of the War of 1812, 5 additional states had been added, with the result that Britain was still an extremely formidable adversary.  Those states were: [[Vermont]], [[Kentucky]], [[Tennessee]], [[Ohio]], and [[Louisiana]].</ref>

3: Partial recognition of slaves for the purpose of representation.  [[Rufus King]], a Delegate from Massachusetts to the [[Constitutional Convention]], noted that counting slaves on an equality with free citizens would "excite great discontents among the states having no slaves".<ref>[http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_711.asp Madison Debates], July 11 1787</ref>  James Wilson agreed, stating that it would "give disgust to the people of Pennsylvania".<ref>July 11th</ref>  [[Gouverneur Morris]] stated that given the choice of doing injustice to the southern states or to human nature, he would "do it to the former".  Under no circumstances would he ever "agree to give such encouragement to the slave trade as would be given by allowing them a representation for their negroes".<ref>July 11th</ref>

3: Partial recognition of slaves for the purpose of representation.  [[Rufus King]], a Delegate from Massachusetts to the [[Constitutional Convention]], noted that counting slaves on an equality with free citizens would "excite great discontents among the states having no slaves".<ref>[http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_711.asp Madison Debates], July 11, 1787</ref>  James Wilson agreed, stating that it would "give disgust to the people of Pennsylvania".<ref>July 11th</ref>  [[Gouverneur Morris]] stated that given the choice of doing injustice to the southern states or to human nature, he would "do it to the former".  Under no circumstances would he ever "agree to give such encouragement to the slave trade as would be given by allowing them a representation for their negroes".<ref>July 11th</ref>

Ultimately, the Three-Fifths Compromise was approved on July 12th, 1787, by a vote of 6 to 2.  Previously, on July 11th, the Three-Fifths Compromise failed to be approved by a vote of 4 to 6.  What changed?

Ultimately, the Three-Fifths Compromise was approved on July 12, 1787, by a vote of 6 to 2.  Previously, on July 11, the Three-Fifths Compromise failed to be approved by a vote of 4 to 6.  What changed?

On July 12th, [[Governor Charles Pinckney]] proposed a motion for "rating blacks as equal to Whites instead of as 3/5".<ref>[http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_712.asp Madison Debates],

On July 12, [[Governor Charles Pinckney]] proposed a motion for "rating blacks as equal to Whites instead of as 3/5".<ref>[http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_712.asp Madison Debates],

July 12, 1787</ref>  Fully counting slaves would have given the slave states immense power, and the Founders knew it.  The final vote was 2 to 8 against.  The only two states voting yes were Georgia and South Carolina.  After Pinkney's motion for full representation, the states agreed to partial representation.<ref>July 12th</ref>

July 12, 1787</ref>  Fully counting slaves would have given the slave states immense power, and the Founders knew it.  The final vote was 2 to 8 against.  The only two states voting yes were Georgia and South Carolina.  After Pinkney's motion for full representation, the states agreed to partial representation.<ref>July 12th</ref>

{{reflist|3}}

{{reflist|3}}

==External Links==

==External links==

* [http://tfdf.org/blog/2012/02/21/three-fifths-clause-did-it-institutionalize-the-notion-that-slaves-were-less-than-fully-human-2/ Three-Fifths Clause–Did it institutionalize the notion that slaves were less than fully human?], The Frederick Douglass Foundation

* [http://tfdf.org/blog/2012/02/21/three-fifths-clause-did-it-institutionalize-the-notion-that-slaves-were-less-than-fully-human-2/ Three-Fifths Clause–Did it institutionalize the notion that slaves were less than fully human?], The Frederick Douglass Foundation

[[Category:United States Constitution]]

[[Category:United States Constitution]]

[[Category:United States Government]]

[[Category:United States Government]]