The constitutional provision you provided, known as the "Three-Fifths Compromise," was a result of negotiations during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. It established that enslaved people would be counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of representation and taxation. Here's a critique of this provision:
Critique:
-
Moral and Ethical Implications: This provision dehumanizes enslaved individuals by treating them as partial persons for the purpose of political representation and taxation. It reinforces the institution of slavery and perpetuates racial inequality.
-
Political Manipulation: By counting enslaved individuals for representation while denying them the rights of citizenship and a voice in government, the provision was politically advantageous to slaveholding states. It increased their power in Congress disproportionally to their free population, thus entrenching the institution of slavery within the political framework of the United States.
-
Inequality in Taxation: While the intent might seem to be about fair representation, the reality is that it resulted in greater political power for states with large enslaved populations without granting any actual rights or benefits to the enslaved individuals themselves, further entrenching systemic inequalities.
Advantage of the Policy:
Among the options given, the following statement could be seen as an advantage of the provision:
- "Identifying enslaved people as property ensures that Southern slave states remain part of the Union."
This advantage highlights that this compromise was politically expedient for maintaining the Union. By satisfying the demands of slaveholding states, the compromise helped to ensure their continued participation in the new government, thus stabilizing the early United States. It aimed to balance the interests of both Northern and Southern states at a time when the nation was still forming, although at a grave moral cost regarding human rights and justice.