What arguments were made for the Three-Fifths Compromise? Be sure to add

Question

citations as necessary to avoid plagiarism.

Answer 1

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a controversial agreement reached during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 regarding the counting of slaves for the purpose of representation and taxation. Two main arguments were made in favor of the Three-Fifths Compromise:

1. Representation of the Southern states: Southern states, which heavily relied on slave labor, argued that slaves should be counted as part of their population for the purpose of representation in the House of Representatives. By counting slaves, even at a reduced ratio, the Southern states would gain more seats in Congress, thereby increasing their political power. Representatives from these states believed that this compromise would ensure their voices would be heard at the national level, protecting their interests and maintaining the balance of power between Northern and Southern states.

For example, during the Constitutional Convention, James Wilson of Pennsylvania argued, "If the South was to be represented as three-fifths of a man in the federal Councils, will not the Eastern and Middle States be as much underrepresented by such a rule as the Southern? ...It seemed to be of no importance how the whites, were divided."

2. Economic impact of taxation: Another argument made in favor of the Three-Fifths Compromise was its impact on taxation. Northern states, which predominantly relied on free labor and had a smaller slave population, argued that slaves, being property, should be taxed. However, Southern states disagreed, fearing that this tax burden would disproportionately harm their economic interests. By counting slaves as a fraction of their population, the South could reduce the tax burden on their slaveholding citizens, ensuring their economic stability.

For instance, in Federalist No. 54, James Madison wrote, "It is a matter of mutual convenience that all property in those States should be taxed, the representation being divided among all the Citizens...By such a rule, the [Southern] States would have to pay more than their proportion...for ending the institution."

These arguments reflect the political and economic interests of the time, which sought to reconcile the North-South divide within the newly formed United States. It is important to note that the Three-Fifths Compromise was a product of its time and is now widely seen as a flawed and morally reprehensible compromise that perpetuated the institution of slavery.