How did THEY come up with slaves in colonial America being worth 3/5 of a person?

Question

3/5 is a pretty specific number. Why didn't they use something simple like 2/3 or 1/2? Obviously they should have been counted as 1, but I am curious as to how they settled on 3/5.

Thanks jr_goodman. I think you're right. It had to do with the souths' right to vote...

Answer 1

Other answers have clarified some of WHY there was need for such a compromise (esp. making the important note that it was the SOUTH that wanted the full number of slaves counted, because it would increase their power via increased representation in Congress, and more say in naming the President). But "why specifically 3/5?" is a good question, and most treatments of this Constitutional compromise don't explain it.

Perhaps that is because this number was not a creation of the Constitutional Convention. Rather it stems from a related debate from 1783. The Articles of Confederation had included a method of assessing the wealth of each state, on which federal tax assessments were to be based, according to real estate. Problems with implementing that system led to the proposal of an amendment to assess taxes based on population, considered as a measure of a state's ability to produce wealth.

In that debate, the North wanted to count ALL the slaves, the South did NOT want to count them! (who fights to pay MORE taxes!?) So they dickered. The South suggested counting half the slaves; the North pushed for 3/4, but neither could gain enough support. Then 2/3 was proposed, but that also failed. Finally, they settled on 3/5 (suggested, I believe, by James Madison), which was unanimously approved by Congress. The amendment was defeated, however, because two states would not ratify it (amendments to the Articles required support by ALL the states).

But when a similar issue arose in the Constitutional Convention (though the sides flipped since the issue was more representation than taxes), James Wilson of Pennsylvania suggested they go back to the 3/5 ratio. Since that had been widely accepted in the earlier debate everyone thought it a workable number and there appears to have been no debate about it.

For more details on the origins of this number see:
http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/calvinjohnson/80tn591.htm
esp footnote /26/
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/respub/v6n1/boyd.html

see also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise
(esp. the "Origins" section)

Answer 2

I do not need to add anything to Shane L's answer, although I would disagree with some of his phrasing, i.e., it was not quite as simple as "racist" southerners and "enlightened" northerners coming to terms. The basics of your answer are correct, though.

I would, however, like to address the abysmal ignorance exhibited by jr_goodman and krisr22. If you do not know the answer to a question, or are unsure, either do some research or don't answer the question. And it's a good idea, even if you think your answer is correct, to check your facts.

Just to be sure you understand, the southern states wanted to count their large, non-citizen, slave populations equally with their free citizens so that they would have greater representation in Congress. The northern states opposed this, because it would give the southern states disproportionate representation. The so-called Three-Fifths Compromise was agreen upon to get around this problem and ensure that the new Constitution would receive enough votes to ratify it.

As for this compromise not being reached in the "colonial period," it's in the Constitution as originally ratified by the thirteen original states after the Revolution, for God's sake! Go back and read the Constitution. I'll even make it easy for you -- it's in Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 3. And while you're at it, you can read the other sections that deal with slavery: Article I, Section 9; Article IV, Section 2; and Article V.

Answer 3

Some misinformation here. This was during colonial times. It was negotiated during the constitutional convention, so it eventually became law in 1787.

It had to do with the representation of the states within congress. Each state was to be apportioned a certain number of representatives based on their population. The south (the slave owning states) wanted to include slaves in their population count in order to increase their number of representatives within congress. The north didn't want slaves to be counted within the population, because this would have given the south a lot more power within congress. The 3/5 number was a compromise that was negotiated.

Thus, it was the racist slave owners that wanted to fully count the slaves as a whole person, and the englightened northerners who didn't want to count them at all, and for good reason. It makes no sense that representation in congress should have been apportioned based on a population that weren't even citizens of this country. However, in order to get a constitution that all states could ratify, a compromise had to be reached.

EDIT - my comments regarding "racist" southerners and "enlightened" northerners were only used to highlight the contrary nature of their viewpoints with respect to what most uninformed people assume to be their positions at the time. Most people think that the south wanted to not count slaves as people and that the north wanted to include them as a whole person. Not true.

Answer 4

The slaves and their owners were both getting a bad deal. They would have been better off to free them and pay them for their work. In many cases, the Stockholm syndrome made the slaves feel a part of the family and they worked for the common good. This was probably the only good thing about slavery. If this did not take place, the slaves had no incentive to be productive and no responsibility. Many of the slaves fought against the north to preserve their way of life. Most were treated fairly and provided food, clothing, and what medical care that was available at the time. They had better birth records than the white, because of their tax records.

Answer 5

Shane L and Jeffrey S are right. However, no one has really answered your question. Why 3/5? Why not 2/3 or 1/2? Saying it was a compromise is only a good guess. I wish I knew for sure myself.

Answer 6

3/5 is smaller than 2/3 but larger than 1/2, and they must have felt the slaves were only slightly more than half a person, but 2/3 would be too much. Also, people were idiots much like they are today.

Answer 7

this wasn't during the colonial period - it was during the period preceding the civil war - southern states wanted to count slaves as full people for determining population for congressional representation. the northern states disagreed. the northern states wanted to count them as full people for determining population in order to figure out taxes. the southern states disagreed - they came up with using 3/5 for both. for every 5 slaves they had 3 of them would be counted for both purposes. this number seemed to satisfy both groups.

Answer 8

The north wanted them to be either counted as one. The south didn't like this because then votes could go against them and wanted them to be worth 0. They came to a compromise.

Answer 9

Well, adjusted for inflation, those 3/5 people would be worth 15 or 20 people each today...

Answer 10

Dumb cluck *** white people...just dumb...that's all