The Three-Fifths Compromise

The Three-Fifths Compromise

Slavery was controversial at the Constitutional Convention, not because any of the delegates seriously considered abolishing it in the Constitution- though some vocal opponents saw the institution as aberrant- but rather because northern and southern states had conflicting interests on a variety of issues influenced by their very different levels of investment in the institution of slavery.

Fig. 1 - Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, depicted here, was the delegate who first suggested the 3/5 fraction be used in the Constitution.

In the 1780s, the southern economy was based on producing agricultural staples for export. The south had few manufacturers and imported goods and hired merchants to import and export goods. The agricultural economy made the southern states more inclined toward free trade policies. The north had a diversified economy, with many merchants and manufacturers, making them prone to more restrictive mercantile policies.

Types of States that Benefitted from the Three-Fifths Compromise

Most delegates at the Constitutional Convention thought of the union as consisting of five southern states and eight northern states; the northern border of Maryland was the dividing line. In 1787, those five southern states had almost precisely the same population as the eight northern states- if enslaved peoples were counted. Therefore, if slaves were counted the same as free persons to apportion representation in the House of Representatives, the North and South would have equal power within that branch of the national government. If slaves counted for less, the southern states would be vastly outnumbered in the House- at least for the short term, as southern states wanted to maintain the practice of importing enslaved labor.

Fig. 2 - The Mason-Dixon Line, the northern border of Maryland, is considered the boundary of the Northern and Southern States. Source: Wikimedia Commons (public domain)

The Three-Fifths Debate

Because the southern states would benefit most from allowing slave representation, the northern states and their delegates at the Constitutional Convention began a heated debate over appropriating population and wealth to the issue of representation.

Many northern delegates sympathized with the notion that wealth should play a role in apportioning representation but disagreed that counting slaves should be used as a measure and not be counted at all. Moreover, northern delegates argued that:

• if southern states did not count slaves in apportions representation in their legislatures. Slaves should not be counted as the population for representation in the national congress.

• That counting slaves in representation would only encourage southern states to continue to import enslaved labor.

The Convention rejected the proposal for slaves to count equally in the House, but the debate continued. James Wilson of Pennsylvania proposed a compromise to allow the Convention to move on from the topic: Representation would be based on a free population plus three-fifths of the rest.

Wilson’s proposal for using three-fifths of “all other peoples” passed by nine states to two, but the debate continued over taxation and the importation of new enslaved labor.

There were even divisive opinions among the southern states over this topic:

• Planters from Virginia and Maryland, who had a stable population of slaves, wanted to end the importation of slaves from the Caribbean and Africa.

• Delegates from North and South Carolina wanted to continue to import slaves as their population of enslaved labor was unstable due to relatively more harsh work environments.

Northern delegates, seeing this divide, seized the opportunity for compromise.

• delegates debated and agreed to deny Congress the power to regulate immigration - and thus the slave trade- until 1808. After that date, it would be illegal to import new slaves into the United States.

• To nullify objections by southern delegates, the compromise included the creation of the “fugitive slave clause” that allowed southern enslavers to reclaim enslaved Blacks and even white indentured servants who fled to other states.

The Three-Fifths Compromise Meaning

The outcome of this debate is known as the three-fifths clause, which was written in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution:

Effects of the Three-Fifths Compromise

Over time, the three-fifths compromise became increasingly objectionable to many northerners. After the presidential election of 1800, some Federalists claimed that Jefferson’s narrow victory over John Adams only occurred due to the three-fifths clause. In addition, the expansion of the territory of the United States and the growing abolitionist movement made the three-fifths compromise more aberrant to northerners. Some northern congressmen even moved to have the clause not influence any new states created out of the Northwest Territory or the Louisiana Purchase in 1803.

Fig. 3 -This image shows a chart of the 1790 census. Source: U.S. Library of Congress.

In 1804, there was even a movement for a constitutional amendment to remove the clause, but the motion failed to gain support. The compromise had a lasting impact on the United States. From the 1820s to the 1860s, southern planters dominated national politics through close to 18 additional southern congressional representatives. Their votes influenced key pieces of slavery policy in the United States, such as the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Ultimately led to increased sectional tensions across the nation and the build-up to the outbreak of the American Civil War in 1861.