Agreement To Count Slaves As Three-Fifths Of A Person Was Related To

Much has been said about the inadequacy of the representation of men who have no will of their own…. They are men, although they are relegated to the state of slavery. These are people known to the municipal laws of the states in which they live, as well as the laws of nature. But representation and taxation go together…. Is it just a single charge without giving a reasonable advantage? A controversial issue at the 1787 Constitutional Convention was whether slaves were counted as part of the population in determining state representation in Congress or whether they were instead considered property and not considered as such for representation. Delegates from states with a large population of slaves argued that slaves should be regarded as persons in determining representation, but as property if the new government collected taxes on states on the basis of population. Delegates from states where slavery had become rare argued that slaves should be involved in taxation, but not in the provision of representation. The compromise recognized that slavery was a reality, but did not address the evils of the institution. Delegates adopted not only the three-fifths compromise, but also a constitutional clause allowing slaves to “recover” slaves in search of freedom. By characterizing them as refugees, this clause criminalized individual slaves who fled in search of their freedom. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) later replaced Article 1, Section 2, paragraph 3, and expressly repealed the compromise. It provides that “representatives…

census of the total number of people in each country, with the exception of non-taxed Indians. A subsequent provision of the same clause reduced the representation of states in Congress that denied adult men the right to vote, but this provision was never effectively enforced. [19] (The Thirteenth Amendment, passed in 1865, had already excluded almost all persons from the jurisdiction of the original clause by prohibiting slavery; the only remaining persons subject to it were those who were sentenced to a crime, which was excluded from the prohibition by the amendment).) Members of Congress in other regions have tried to reduce voting rights in the South because blacks have been disenfranked, but a 1900 proposal to do so never came to fruition. Ironically, this is because the South had too much representation in Congress to allow for change. Until the 1960s, the Southern Democrats, known as Dixiecrats, continued to have disproportionate power in Congress. This power was based in part on the black inhabitants, counted for representation, but prevented from voting by grandfather clauses and other laws that threatened their livelihoods and even their lives.