The Three/Fifths Compromise

Inaccurate Interpretation

10 Comments
Join the Conversation
U. S. Constitution Draft - Wikimedia Commons
U. S. Constitution Draft - Wikimedia Commons
Did the U. S. Constitution claim that Africans were only three/fifths human? No, the three/fifths compromise decided representation, not the humanity of individuals.

The following false statements are just three examples of inaccurate interpretations that persist regarding the three/fifths compromise :

  • the 3/5s compromise of 1788. . . enshrined slavery in the United States Constitution
  • African Americans in this country were considered only 3/5s human at one point in history.
  • “In the original U.S. Constitution, I was only three-fifths of a person." --Condoleezza Rice

When a person as knowledgeable and sophisticated as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gets a historical fact so wrong, it demonstrates how deeply some errors persist throughout the culture.

Representation, Not Degree of Humanity

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia from May 25 to September 17, 1787. Their original reason for meeting was to revise the Articles of Confederation, which had proved too weak to address the issues that faced the country in its independence from England. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton had been convinced that they would have to scrap those Articles and start fresh, and that is what they did.

A controversy arose about how to write the sections on representation in the Senate and House of Representatives. The states with large populations wanted representation based solely on population, while the states with small populations wanted each state to have equal representation. They settled on a solution that would satisfy both large and small-populated states: each state would send two representatives, Senators, to the upper house, and the number of members sent to the lower House of Representatives would be based on population.

Even after this compromise was worked out, another problem still existed. Northern states insisted that counting slaves, who did not vote or pay taxes, would give the South an unfair advantage in representation. Southern slave states, of course, wanted this advantage.

To What Does Three/Fifths Refer?

The compromise that settled this dispute is now called the Three/Fifths Compromise, which stipulates that three/fifths of the slave population would be counted for purposes of representation. Three/fifths does not, nor did it then, designate the degree of humanity that a black person has. The framers of the Constitution did not “enshrine” slavery in that document; they actually used language that would allow for the demise of slavery, which they knew would happen, because they knew slavery was an evil institution.

In Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution, the three/fifths compromise is stated:

"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 to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Number of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." (emphasis added)

The "three fifths of all other Persons" refers to the slave population as a whole, not to the humanity of each individual.

Readers will notice that no term such as "slavery," "slaves," "Negroes," or "Blacks" is used to designate those in the United States of African descent. The framers of the Constitution knew that the institution of slavery could not endure, but the country urgently needed a government that would provide strong leadership in securing the rights for citizens and a government that would bring unity to the sprawling land.

If those framers had deemed Africans only three/fifths human, they would not have hesitated to write that distinction in their founding document. Some of the framers maintained plantations and owned slaves; thus, they knew that Blacks were fully human. However, it was not feasible to emancipate slaves at the same time they were desperately trying to formulate a document that would govern the country.

Sources:

  • Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission, People, James Buchanan.
  • Kathy Belge, Some Inspirational Words of the Day, Lesbian Life.
  • Eric Zencey, "Is Condoleezza Rice Right to Say the Founders Believed Blacks Were Only 3/5ths of a Person?" History News Network.
Linda Sue Grimes, Ron Grimes

Linda Sue Grimes - As a writer, researcher, and SRF devotee, Linda Sue Grimes has studied poetry and practiced Kriya Yoga for over thirty years..

rss
Advertisement
Leave a comment

NOTE: Because you are not a Suite101 member, your comment will be moderated before it is viewable.
Submit
What is 9+1?

Comments

Apr 25, 2008 12:21 PM
Guest :
this is ok i guess.. you need to have more information and not just facts.
Apr 25, 2008 12:22 PM
Guest :
and you r racis about about the fact that ur saying neigro in this article
Apr 28, 2008 7:07 AM
Guest :
facts are information
May 4, 2008 10:22 AM
Guest :
She said "negroes" in quotation marks, Guest 2. That makes it quoting a term that was actually NOT racist at the time either, the racist term is (sorry for saying this) "nigger".
(By no means am I advocating the use of the term.)


Facts = information. Facts are pieces of information.
May 10, 2008 7:30 PM
Guest :
You may not advocate the term, however you did not hesitate to use it. On to something else of intelligence, the racist term used is an ignorant term, as for Negro, I consider it not racist, due to it is a type of human feature. To be considered as property is not considered an individual, same offense, as for thinking slavery was cruel, how is it decided by a Caucasoid, of what is offensive and cruel to the Negro, oh yes, that's right it was property, not individual.
Dec 14, 2008 2:40 PM
Guest :
you just plain out need more information.
and you people need to watch your language
Dec 22, 2008 9:15 PM
Guest :
People who argue that the 3/5 compromise should think about the implication of their argument. If they are correct, it means that the framers SHOULD have considered slaves as a full human being. If the framers had done so, what would have happened? The population of the slave states would have increased. As a result, the slaves states would have more representation in the House. In other words, counting slaves as a full human being would have made the slaves states MORE powerful.
Jan 8, 2009 3:55 PM
Guest :
Whether intended or not, the result was that slaves in practice became viewed as less than human. This was a promotion form how they were regarded by the southern masters, however, who claimed them as property. During the Constitutional Convention, the southern delegates wanted the best of both worlds; they wanted their slaves to be counted as full people but wanted to treat them as property, thus increasing the national power and influence of the white aristocracy that controlled the southern states.
Dec 19, 2011 6:25 PM
Guest :
interresting
May 6, 2012 9:24 AM
Guest :
Is there any source to point to noting that the authors of this compromise. quote: "did not “enshrine” slavery in that document; they actually used language that would allow for the demise of slavery, which they knew would happen, because they knew slavery was an evil institution."? Because if not, that's wishful thinking. If so, then these "men" would have to be "evil" knowing that they engaged in an "evil" practice for years to come, willingly. Glad that this clears up a misunderstanding; but in showing how human they thought African-Americans were, this shows how much more less human "our" founders were. They didn't have to write it down, their actions spoke volumes.


10 Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement