Why did southern delegates to the Constitutional Convention have opposed the Three-Fifths Compromise?
Southern delegates at the Constitutional Convention were opposed to the Three-Fifths Compromise because they believed that enslaved individuals should be counted as full persons for the purpose of determining representation in the House of Representatives. They argued that if enslaved individuals were counted as three-fifths of a person, it would diminish their political power and representation in Congress. Additionally, Southern delegates were concerned that if enslaved individuals were not counted fully, it could lead to the eventual abolition or weakening of the institution of slavery.
The Three-Fifths Compromise, which was proposed during the Constitutional Convention held in 1787, stated that enslaved individuals would be counted as three-fifths of a person when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxation purposes. While it may seem counterintuitive, some southern delegates actually opposed this compromise.
To understand why, we need to consider the context of the time. The southern states, particularly those with large populations of enslaved people, had a key concern related to representation in the newly-formed government. They wanted to ensure that their interests were adequately represented in the federal government and that they retained enough power to protect their economic and political systems, which heavily relied on slavery.
Opposing the Three-Fifths Compromise, these southern delegates argued for enslaved individuals to be counted as whole persons. They believed that counting each slave as a whole person would increase their states' population, thereby providing them with more seats in the House of Representatives and an increased influence in the federal government. They saw this as a way to preserve their economic and social systems, which depended on the institution of slavery.
It's important to note that there were also some southern delegates who supported the compromise. They recognized that it would still provide the southern states with additional representation/power, while also avoiding the scenario in which enslaved individuals would be counted as entire persons, which could potentially strengthen the anti-slavery movement in the future.
In summary, while southern delegates had varied opinions on the Three-Fifths Compromise, those who opposed it did so because they believed that counting enslaved individuals as whole persons would give them more political power and protection for their economic interests, which were largely dependent on slavery.
The Three-Fifths Compromise was one of the most contentious issues debated during the Constitutional Convention. While the majority of Southern delegates supported the compromise, some opposed it for several reasons. Here are the step-by-step explanations:
1. Representation Concerns: Southern delegates wanted to maximize representation in the House of Representatives, as each state's representation was determined based on its population. They believed that counting enslaved persons as a whole, rather than only a fraction, would grant the South greater representation in Congress.
2. Slavery Legitimization: Opponents of the compromise argued that by counting enslaved persons as part of the population, it would inadvertently legitimize slavery. They feared this would perpetuate the institution and hinder its eventual abolition.
3. Economic Implications: Some Southern delegates were concerned that counting enslaved persons fully would lead to higher taxes. Taxes were imposed based on the population, and counting enslaved persons would increase the population count, resulting in higher tax obligations for Southern states.
4. Moral Objections: A few Southern delegates objected to the Three-Fifths Compromise from an ethical perspective. They believed that enslaved persons should be treated as human beings with full rights, rather than bargain chips to increase political power or financial benefits.
5. Political Strategy: For a small faction of Southern delegates, opposing the Three-Fifths Compromise was a political strategy. They hoped that by holding out against the compromise, it might be renegotiated or abandoned entirely, leading to a more advantageous agreement for Southern states.
It's important to note that while some Southern delegates opposed the Three-Fifths Compromise, it eventually gained enough support to be included in the final draft of the Constitution. It was a pivotal compromise that helped resolve conflicts between Northern and Southern states by providing a clear formula for determining representation and taxation based on population.