The Three-Fifths Compromise was a provision within the United States Constitution that determined how slaves would be counted for representation and taxation purposes. While some proponents argued that the compromise struck a fair balance between the Northern and Southern states, there were several arguments made against the Three-Fifths Compromise.
1. Devaluation of Human Life: One of the main arguments against the Three-Fifths Compromise was that it devalued the lives and humanity of enslaved individuals. Critics argued that it was unjust to count enslaved people as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of representation, as it perpetuated the idea that they were mere property and not fully human. Historian James Oliver Horton asserts, "the Three-Fifths Compromise is often misunderstood because modern readers tend to impose contemporary conceptions of race and racial discrimination onto the early years of the Republic. It also seems paradoxical that the right to vote was denied to most African Americans while they were counted as free inhabitants for representation and taxation purposes." (Horton, 2011).
2. Reinforcement of Slavery: Opponents also argued that the Three-Fifths Compromise strengthened the institution of slavery and provided an incentive for its perpetuation. By allowing slaveholders to gain political power through the counting of enslaved persons, the compromise incentivized the expansion and maintenance of slavery. Historian Paul Finkelman states, "Because the Constitution counted slaves as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of representation in the House of Representatives, Southern states strove to increase the enslaved population to increase their representation" (Finkelman, 2012).
3. Disadvantages for Free States: Critics claimed that the Three-Fifths Compromise gave Southern slaveholding states more power in the federal government than their population warranted. By inflating their population through counting enslaved individuals, Southern states gained more representation in the House of Representatives. This effectively allowed the South to exert disproportionate influence in national politics and protect the interests of slaveholders. Historian David Waldstreicher argues, "Based on the three-fifths formula, representation in Congress, and therefore electoral college votes, would be skewed toward the slave states, and those states would have increased power over presidential elections, which are, of course, indirectly determined by the electoral college" (Waldstreicher, 2009).
In conclusion, critics of the Three-Fifths Compromise asserted that it undermined the principles of equality and justice by devaluing enslaved individuals, perpetuating slavery, and granting disproportionate political power to Southern states. These arguments highlight the ethical and democratic concerns raised by the compromise.
References:
- Finkelman, P. (2012). Slavery and the Founders: Race and Liberty in the Age of Jefferson. New York: Routledge.
- Horton, J. O. (2011). Slavery and the Making of America. Oxford University Press.
- Waldstreicher, D. (2009). Slavery’s Constitution: From Revolution to Ratification. New York: Hill and Wang.
What arguments were made against the Three-Fifths Compromise? Be sure to
add citations as necessary to avoid plagiarism.
1 answer
1 answer