Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, so that one third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies.
Confederation Congress[ edit ] The three-fifths ratio originated with a amendment proposed to the Articles of Confederation.
The proposal by a committee of the Congress had suggested that taxes "shall be supplied by the several colonies in proportion to the number of inhabitants of every age, sex, and quality, except Indians not paying taxes".
As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his notes on the debates, the southern states would be taxed "according to their numbers and their wealth conjunctly, while the northern would be taxed on numbers only".
Constitutional Convention[ edit ] The Convention had unanimously accepted the principle that representation in the House of Representatives would be in proportion to the relative state populations.
However, since slaves could not vote, leaders in slave states would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. Delegates opposed to slavery proposed that only free inhabitants of each state be counted for apportionment purposes, while delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, opposed the proposal, wanting slaves to count in their actual numbers.
The proposal was debated on July 11th and initially, the concept of counting by a three-fifths ratio was voted down by the members present at the Convention.
Compromise and enactment[ edit ] After a contentious debate, the compromise that was finally agreed upon—of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers—reduced the representation of the slave states relative to the original proposals, but improved it over the Northern position.
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 Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
A contentious issue at the Constitutional Convention was whether slaves would be counted as part of the population in determining representation of the states in the Congress or would instead be considered property and, as such, not be considered for purposes of representation.
Delegates from states with a large population of slaves argued that slaves should be considered persons in determining representation, but as property if the new government were to levy taxes on the states on the basis of population.
Delegates from states where slavery had become rare argued that slaves should be included in taxation, but not in determining representation. The proposed ratio was, however, a ready solution to the impasse that arose during the Constitutional Convention. In that situation, the alignment of the contending forces was the reverse of what had been obtained under the Articles of Confederation in In amending the Articles, the North wanted slaves to count for more than the South did because the objective was to determine taxes paid by the states to the federal government.
In the Constitutional Convention, the more important issue was representation in Congress, so the South wanted slaves to count for more than the North did. They are men, though degraded to the condition of slavery. They are persons known to the municipal laws of the states which they inhabit, as well as to the laws of nature.
But representation and taxation go together Would it be just to impose a singular burden, without conferring some adequate advantage? Infor example, Southern slave states had 47 of the members but would have had 33, had seats been assigned based on free populations.
Inslave states had 76 out of instead of the 59 they would have had; in98 out of instead of As a result, Southern states had disproportionate influence on the presidencythe speakership of the Houseand the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War.
Historian Garry Wills has postulated that without the additional slave state votes, Jefferson would have lost the presidential election of The Constitutional Convention: The Great Compromise It's The Articles of Confederation have proven to be too weak to create a workable government. At the Philadelphia State House, now called.
What were the main sources of conflict present at the Constitutional Convention? How did the Connecticut Compromise and the Three Fifths Compromise help to diffuse much of the conflict?
The three-fifths clause was part of a series of compromises enacted by the Constitutional Convention of The most notable other clauses prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territories and ended U.S.
participation in the international slave trade in The Civil War Home Page contains thousands of pages of Civil War material including Photos, Images, Battles, Documents, Associations, Letters & Diaries, Research Records, Biographical Information, Reenacting and Unit Information.
The Three-Fifths Compromise did not change the plight of the slaves. The slaves lived a miserable life.
The compromise was a mere mathematical formula which was a convenient way of stating that slaves should not be counted as persons. The Three/Fifths Compromise settled the issue of counting slaves: instead of counting the entire population of slavey, it was agreed to count only 3/5 of that number for the purpose of representation.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it state or even imply that slaves were only 3/5 human.