1. Unequal Representation: Southern delegates may have opposed the Three-Fifths Compromise because it allocated greater political power to the northern states. By counting three-fifths of the enslaved population towards representation, it gave more weight to the free population in the North, potentially disadvantaging the South in terms of their influence in Congress and the Electoral College.
2. Economic Interests: Southern delegates relied heavily on the institution of slavery for their economic prosperity. By counting enslaved individuals towards representation, it could potentially undermine the economic interests of the South by reducing their overall political power and potentially leading to legislation that could threaten or curtail slavery.
3. Moral Justification: Some southern delegates may have opposed the Three-Fifths Compromise on moral grounds. They may have argued that enslaved individuals should not be considered property or a fraction of a person, but rather recognized as full citizens deserving of equal political representation.
4. Perception of Inferiority: Opponents of the Three-Fifths Compromise may have believed that it perpetuated the idea that enslaved individuals were lesser in value or importance compared to free citizens. By counting them as three-fifths of a person, it could perpetuate a perception of their inferiority and subjugation within the political system.
5. Concerns about Future Legislation: Southern delegates may have been wary that the Three-Fifths Compromise would set a precedent that could be used to restrict or abolish slavery in the future. They may have been concerned that the representation granted to the South could be reduced further, eventually leading to the erosion of their economic and social system based on slavery.
Why would southern delegates to the Constitutional Convention have opposed the Three-Fifths Compromise?
Responses
1 answer