Christine Morley
Political Science 1100
Signature Assignment
THE 3/5th COMPROMISE
During the Second Continental Congress, also known as the Philadelphia Convention, the
Thirteen Colonies joined together to revise and amend the Articles of Confederation. However,
this convention would take on a much bigger case as the delegates abolished the Articles and
then drafted and composed the Constitution of the United States. However, before the glorious
celebration of the Constitution’s signing, months of grueling debate, discussion, and intense
dialogue between the delegates of the states took place. Of the many things discussed, from the
type of government the Colonies would have to the details on what the future President could do,
there were three compromises that have stood out over the course of history. One of these three
was the infamous 3/5ths Compromise.
While it has been famously quoted through the Virginia Plan and the Connecticut
Compromise that the biggest problem was representation between the larger and smaller states,
the 3/5ths compromise dealt with the moral division between the North and the South. The
Northern States of Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
and Vermont had already abolished slavery by that time – almost half the states. However, the
Southern States, such as Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia, depended greatly on the Slave
Trade. While the North focused more on industrialization (due to the poor growing seasons and
weather), the South was blessed with rich land and the ideal climate for growing cotton, tobacco,
rice, and indigo. Due to their agriculture, the South, through trading, brought great wealth to the
new nation. However, despite the prosperity brought to the Colonies because of the slaves, the
North still fought bitterly over the morality of the Slave Trade.
Christine Morley
Political Science 1100
Signature Assignment
Gouverneur Morris, a delegate of Pennsylvania and a strong opponent against slavery said:
“The Admission of slaves into the representation, when fairly explained, comes to this:
that the inhabitant of Georgia and South Carolina who goes to the coast of Africa and, in
defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity, tears away his fellow creatures from their
dearest connections and dams them to the most cruel bondage, shall have more votes in a
government instituted for protection of the rights of mankind that the citizen of
Pennsylvania or New Jersey who views with a laudable horror so nefarious a practice.”
The main problem during the discussion of slaves was how to count them: When it came to
representation, the South worked vigorously on having African-American slaves counted as
inhabitants. However, when it came to population-based taxing, the South fought viciously to
not count the slave population, due to the raise in tax responsibilities. The North fought just as
hard from the opposite side, claiming that if slaves were viewed as property they could not be
viewed as eligible for the census. The South’s defense of population, but not taxation is rich
with irony, as only humans could be counted in the census. Yet slaves were counted lower than
human beings – a direct contradiction to the South’s philosophy of Caucasian superiority.
James Madison, to try and split the benefits for both the North and the South, proposed a
compromise between the representation which the South had wanted (1/2 a person) versus the
North (3/4 a person). His proposal was that every African-American slave would count as 3/5th
of a free white man. This would lower the taxes of the south while still giving them more votes
in Congress, and at the same time would have made the two regions nearly the same when it
came to population.
Towards the end of the convention, the subject of slavery was very touchy. The
Carolinas and Georgia threatened to secede from the Union if slavery was not allowed. The
compromise for this was Congress would have the ability to ban slavery – the catch that allowed
Christine Morley
Political Science 1100
Signature Assignment
this to go through was Congress wouldn’t be able to interfere with the slave trade until 1808.
Because it would put the nation’s unity in jeopardy, the founding fathers decided to leave it alone.
What the founders did approve of, though many reluctantly, was stated in Article 1, Section 2.2:
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which
may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be
determined by adding the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service
for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons.
Although Slavery was abolished in December 18, 1865 by the Thirteenth Amendment, much
debate still goes on about equality. Many suppose that African-Americans were not viewed as
equals to the founding fathers and are upset that, despite one of the most famous lines that was
written ten years before the Constitution, that “…all men are created equally…” did not apply to
the “three-fifths of all other persons.” The coals of contempt were fanned to create a flame of
fiery debate when in January 2011 the Constitution of the United States was read in Congress.
What sparked the arguments nation-wide was the 3/5th clause was skipped over for fear of
offence. Glen Beck, amongst others, took the liberty to talk about how he was enraged by that.
Others, however, jumped on Beck and supporters as racists and supporters of slavery.
Although this clause did bring about the Civil War, and not all of the founding fathers
necessarily agreed with the 3/5th Compromise. It was necessary to unite the Thirteen Colonies,
but merit be given to the Continental Convention delegates for creating a clause which gave
Congress the ability to regulate slavery in twenty years. With that, we were able to, after a long
period of time rid our great nation of a very great curse…and men eventually became true equals,
despite the color of one’s skin.
Christine Morley
Political Science 1100
Signature Assignment
Works Cited
anonymous. Glenn Beck slams Republicans for leaving out the Three-Fifths Compromise in their
reading of the Constitution. January 2011. 20 March 2011 <http://vodpod.com/watch/5276341glenn-beck-slams-republicans-for-leaving-out-the-three-fifths-compromise-in-their-reading-ofthe-constitution>.
—. The Slavery Compromises. 20 3 2011
<http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/slavery2.html>.
Fiorina, Morris P, et al. America's New Democracy. New York: Longman, 2009.
Lehrman, Gilder. The Three-Fifth Compromise . 3 March 2011. 3 March 2011
<http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/documents/documents_p2.cfm?doc=306>.
Wills, Gary. Negro President: Jefferson and the Slave Power. New York: First Mariner Books,
2003.