Talk:Three-fifths Compromise

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2018 and 18 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abaiardi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Original Research?
''The Three-Fifths compromise ensured that Thomas Jefferson was elected to office. Also, via Andrew Jackson, the Trail of Tears would never have happened, nor would the ban on congress to discuss slavery have been put into effect. Also, the 1820 Missouri compromise would never have come into effect. While it is arguable that the 3/5ths compromise may have slowed the day that America came to blows with itself, via the Civil War, it is also arguable that the 3/5ths compromise caused most of the problems between the North and South.''

What's the point of this paragraph? Seems like original research and POV unless there's a citation for it. Tetigit 05:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it is quite true that many Democratic electoral successes were due to the three-fifths compomise; I'll try to fix that paragraph up to get rid of the original research.--Pharos 07:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That was not OR. It is all demonstrated in Garry Wills book already cited as a reference for the article. DMorpheus 13:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

3/5 economically productive?
The comment "The compromise was based on the belief that a slave was supposedly three-fifths as economically productive as a white." was recently added, but I've certainly never heard that argument. Can someone cite a source, or otherwise I'll go ahead and modify this.

AFAIK, the compromise was purely that- a compromise between those who wanted slaves to count as a full person (for representational purposes only, not human rights purposes) and those who thought if they were to be treated as property, they should be counted as such (which is to say, not at all). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prothonotar (talk • contribs) 15:17, June 6, 2005

Oh no. I'm going to have to be the evil devil's advocate and defend the south's position. The South's position that a slave be counted for representation is logical within the theory of American democracy of the time. Women also did not vote, but were counted for puposes of representation. The reason is that American democracy was founded on the idea that government is unnatural and its existence is a compromise between the power of collective defense and other benefits of organization and the natural state of mankind where everyone walks around in a loin cloth making up his own rules according to the dictates of his own reason and consciounce. (okay, so i added the loin cloth part.) The exception to this is the family, which they felt was the only natural form of human organization. A vote was per family, with the adult male representing his own family. Thus even though he was the only one voting, his vote counted for him and all his dependants. The South felt that since slaves were dependants as well, they should be counted for purposes of representation just like other non-voting members of society, like women. Basejumper2 07:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your argument is nonsense even on its own terms. No one counted 3/5ths of the white women or 3/5ths of the white kids. Where did the 3/5ths come from? Can you cite any sources for this theory? DMorpheus 15:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But a slave is not a dependant, a slave is property Jamesman666 (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Nobody counted 3/5ths of the white women or 3/5ths of the kids. They counted ALL of them. So the south was correct. Just like those non voting citizens were counted completely, so to the non voting slaves should have been counted as a whole person. The 3/5ths was a random number chosen to give the south most of what they wanted, but still deny them enough of what the logically deserved to give free states the hope of gaining enough of a numerical advantage in Congress to eventually end slavery. Basejumper2 13:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you cite a source for this novel argument? DMorpheus 13:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't think so. DMorpheus 18:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * While I can understand that perspective, at the same time, counting women and children is equivalent, in terms of representation, to only counting men. That is, as long as every state adopts the same standard, either only counting men, or counting both men and women, they will have the same relative populations.  If state A has 40% more men than state B, it will also have 40% more women.  Male children are future voters, and thus there is a logic in counting them and female children are in the same position as women.  Slaves, on the other hand, were neither voters nor potential voters, and their proportion varied from state to state.
 * Also, by your reasoning, the number of households rather than humans should've been counted. Thus, a single man would count the same as a married man with 6 children and dozens of slaves.  Each represents a single household and thus a single vote. Nik42 (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Getting briefly back to the subject of this section from 2005, I couldn't find a supporting source. What sources I do find discuss other reasoning -- see e.g., this. Also, I see that the objected-to assertion inserted on June 5, 2005 was removed a month later, in the very next edit Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

race and slavery are separate issues
Several commentators in this discussion make the common error of assuming that the Constitution was refering to racial or national categories rather than specifically to the status of free or enslaved individuals. A slave is not necessarily the same as an African or African-American. A free person is not necessarily a white person. The Constitution does not assume that slavery was racially-based, although that was generally the reality by 1787.

Indeed. Sam 21:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Though race and slavery are separate issue, regarding the compromise it was drafted to refer to black slaves; when you look at the numbers of Africans brought to the North American continent, they out number the natives. This only being that a census wasn't really taken regarding Native North Americans. Though there were slaves of many different races on this land, the majority is generally thought of when referencing. This of course would lead towards African Americans. The wording of this compromise and the Constitution is very smart as to not mention race. It was created with thought but thought towards Africans and the African Americans. Common sense. Look into what slavery actually was..a money maker. Where did most slaves come from? It's almost as if the above person was trying to find a loophole to splinter away from race or national categories with the above comment. The creators of the Constitution were highly educated when it came to manipulation of words. Anyone with a grasp for wording can manipulate words to guide it towards other meanings with an underlining obvious meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagemecca (talk • contribs) 23:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Original Research Again
"Although the words "slave" and "slavery" are not found in the Constitution this and two other references to the institution of slavery are widely interpreted as giving an implicit sanction to the institution in the U.S. Constitution. The other two references are the prohibition for Congress to restrict the international slave trade for twenty years (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 1), and the provision for a fugitive slave clause (Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 3)." They may be widely interpreted that way in liberal arts colleges, but not so widely elsewhere. This is an important entry - clean it up. Sam 16:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact the compromise could be just as easily viewed as the Constitution's recognition of the Existence of slavery, but also of its opinion that it was morally abhorant and should eventually be abolished. It also is constitutional recognition of slaves as human beings. "3/5ths of all other Persons." IT does not, as some say, count a slave as only 3/5ths of a person, but rather as an entire person within a population which is only partially counted for representation it cannot benefit from. Basejumper2 13:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Extremely widespread misconception
I realize that this article exists primarily to cover the "facts" of history, but I think room in this article should also be made for directly addressing the extremely widespread misconception about the three-fifths compromise, i.e. that it was some sort of statement by the framers that African Americans were "60% as human" as whites. The majority of people coming to this article will probably already have this idea in their minds, and I think it would be appropriate to correct this by mentioning it specifically as a widespread misconception.--Pharos 16:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Leftists, race-baiters, and sundry demagogues who benefit from portraying modern black folk as victims misconstrue and mis-characterize the three-fifths compromise to de-legitimize and abase the Framers and, by implication, the Constitution itself. They probably know better, but their rhetoric serves their political and ideological purposes. It's just a shame that so many people buy into it.  The fact is the three-fifths compromise was the beginning of the end of slavery in America.  Without it, it's doubtful the Constitution would have been ratified (and certainly not unanimously), and slavery as an institution would have lasted much longer on the continent than it did. Schnaz (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If somebody wants to deliberately distort the Constitution, or can't be bothered to read it for themselves, there's not much we can do about that. What concerns me more are the people who heard the "three fifths of a person" interpretation somewhere, and might read the Compromise that way because that's what they've always been told.  I added a brief section referencing two books written by Ph.D.'s that use the specific phrase "three fifths of a person."  It's easy to find blogs and opinion pieces that use the phrase, but I thought it best to start with mass-published books from seemingly authoritative sources.  -- A. (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, that's nonsense. There's no misconception.  Only 3/5 of the population of slaves and indentured servants counted toward representation.  That, by extension, means each slave counted as 3/5 of a person.  You could argue that the constitution may not have been ratified without the compromise, but it DOES say that "other persons" are only 3/5 of a free man.  --Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.175.204 (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * But it says nothing of the kind, and I believe that is the point being made by the person who started this section. Article 1, Section 2 states quite clearly that the number adjustment applies to the apportionment of representation and direct taxes. No mention is made of the degree of anyone's claim to the human race. No personal rights are abridged. And as for indentured servants, it is explicitly stated that the scale factor does not even apply to their numbers.


 * I would support some sort of refutation of the misconception, but I regret that there is no way to win this one. That simplistic misrepresentation of the Constitution is somehow more enticing than the real thing. People love to say it, and even after reading the actual words, many of them continue to perpetuate the urban legend. Geometricks (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The truth is that slave states were only allowed to count 3/5ths of the slave population towards increasing their number of representatives in Congress. If it hadn't been for the 3/5ths rule, then slave-holding states would have had even more power in the House of Representatives... AnonMoos (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, there's no way to know that for sure, but it hardly matters. In the Constitutional Convention, some Southern Delegates proposed that slaves be counted the same as free men while Northern delegates were proposing that slaves not be counted at all.  There were other suggestions that slaves be counted for purposes of representation, but not for taxation and vice versa.  We might have ended up with something that could be described as "3/5ths of a man", but the institution of slavery would have been just as bad had they counted slaves equally or not at all.AlanK (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Slavery itself would have been just as bad either way, but the power of slaveholders would have been even more entrenched in the U.S. political system than actually occurred in history if the 3/5ths adjustment factor hadn't existed... AnonMoos (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

2023

 * Why would slaves be counted for representation anyway, they gave slave states extra power by counting the slaves who couldn't vote and didn't have rights. Jamesman666 (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm no historian, but my understanding is that it was a compromise arrived at on the way to creating a ratifiable constitution for the country. See the Constitutional Convention subsection in the article. Also see WP:NOTFORUM and the final item in WP:TPNO. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Census counts include everybody (except "Indians not taxed" before 1924) -- this means slaves in the 19th century, illegal aliens and homeless people today etc... AnonMoos (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * We are not talking about a census count, we are talking about representation and the 3/5ths compromise, what you said is irrelevant to the conversation Jamesman666 (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Allocation of numbers of representatives in the U.S. House is based on census counts, and always has been (except for the 1st congress). If not for the 3/5ths clause, slave states would have had more representatives in the House, and more weight in in presidential elections. AnonMoos (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If the 3/5ths clause didn't exist, you have no basis to state that all the slaves would have counted towards representation, that's the whole point of the "compromise" the north wanted none of them to count, the south wanted all of them to count, the north compromised with slave owners by letting them count 3/5ths of the slave who had no rights or couldn't vote. That's like letting them count 3/5 of all dogs and horses towards representation. It's not an anti-slavery measure, it's a compromise with slave owners. Jamesman666 (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Census counts have always included all humans (see comment of 23:29, 25 January 2023 above) except for "Indians not taxed" before 1924 (see comment of 12:16, 2 December 2009). Ability to vote has never been a prerequisite to being counted.  Women, children, and white males who did not meet property qualifications were always counted. AnonMoos (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The census was just used so they would know the number of people in each state, it has nothing to do with who gets representation, i'm not going to keep repeating myself. Jamesman666 (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * You need to read the Constitution, dude: Article 1, section 2, clause 3.  The word "enumeration" is used instead of "census", but the meraning has never been disputed. AnonMoos (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant to the discussion Jamesman666 (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The intent of this section was to discuss: (quoting), directly addressing the extremely widespread misconception about the three-fifths compromise, i.e. that it was some sort of statement by the framers that African Americans were "60% as human" as whites. It should not be a discussion about how individual wikipedians feel about that but, rather, about what viewpoints citeable reliable sources have expressed about that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC) Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We know how the compromise has been widely misquoted, the article should mention it. Jamesman666 (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

(outdent) It's not a matter of what we know (whomever "we" might be), it's a matter of WP:V and WP:DUE. Here's a start, in no particular order and without much attention to WP:RS: Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * {{cite web |url=https://www.aaihs.org/a-compact-for-the-good-of-america-slavery-and-the-three-fifths-compromise/ |title=A Compact for the Good of America? Slavery and the Three-Fifths Compromise}author=Patrick Rael |date=December 19, 2016|publisher=Black Perspectives}}
 * {{cite web |url=https://www.aaihs.org/a-compact-for-the-good-of-america-slavery-and-the-three-fifths-compromise/ |title=A Compact for the Good of America? Slavery and the Three-Fifths Compromise}author=Patrick Rael |date=December 19, 2016|publisher=Black Perspectives}}
 * {{cite web |url=https://www.aaihs.org/a-compact-for-the-good-of-america-slavery-and-the-three-fifths-compromise/ |title=A Compact for the Good of America? Slavery and the Three-Fifths Compromise}author=Patrick Rael |date=December 19, 2016|publisher=Black Perspectives}}
 * {{cite web |url=https://www.aaihs.org/a-compact-for-the-good-of-america-slavery-and-the-three-fifths-compromise/ |title=A Compact for the Good of America? Slavery and the Three-Fifths Compromise}author=Patrick Rael |date=December 19, 2016|publisher=Black Perspectives}}


 * Yet one of your source is misquoting the compromise, the constitution didn't declare slaves as 3/5ths of a person, it only counted 3/5ths of them for purposes of representation. Jamesman666 (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

1800 presidential election
I removed the following:

"(Adams won a majority of the popular vote and only the skewed Electoral College gave Jefferson the Presidency)."

Wills claims that Adams would have won the electoral vote had electors been apportioned according to free population. Discussing the popular vote only obscures this issue, especially in light of the modern controversy about the Electoral College. Moreover, most states didn't even hold a popular election; electors were appointed by the legislatures (see United States presidential election, 1800). 71.120.98.53 (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

1787 constitutional convention
This article has to be fleshed out more. It's nice to know about the origins of the 3/5 number under the articles. But readers will want to know just what happened at the convention. Who proposed it there? Who supported and who opposed it? What was the vote? If you leave that out, you're not giving the whole story! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.127.101 (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Some who lurk here who don't want the voting public or the world at large to know or understand the complexities. It's a big boon for pseudo intellectual academia and their money interests to objectify the contemporary United States, its founding, and development as simplistic and vulgar. If you offer substance to pages like these, often a Lilliputian stands ready to delete your time & labor. Most are low-level teachers tampering with history at taxpayers' expense: ''Much has been said of the impropriety of representing men who have no will of their own. ...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.'' - Alexander Hamilton Jonathan Elliot, ed (1866). The Debates In The Several State Conventions On The Adoption Of The Federal Constitution, As Recommended By The General Convention At Philadelphia, In 1787. J.B. Lippincott & Co. Washington: Taylor & Maury. pp. 237. Marcus Helvidius (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Effects Section Dispute
I made a change to the Effects section in on account that the wording was difficult to read, but I was reverted by North Shoreman on account that "editor's point is made in the very next sentence." Regardless of the fact that I wasn't changing the meaning of the sentence, I disagree that the next sentence actually "makes a point", but even if it did, that would violate No_original_research. AlanK (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your text:
 * It has been claimed by a wide variety of people[8] that the Three-Fifths Compromise relegated all African-Americans to second-class status, counting them as only three-fifths of a person, but an examination of the text of the provision makes it clear that this was only the case for African-American slaves, not free African-Americans.[9] Free blacks counted fully, while "Indians" did not count at all.
 * Text before you changed it:
 * It has been claimed by a wide variety of people[8] that the Three-Fifths Compromise relegated all African-Americans to second-class status, counting them as only three-fifths of a person, but an examination of the text of the provision makes it clear that this is not the case: "Persons" "other" than "free Persons" clearly means slaves.[9] Free blacks counted fully, while "Indians" did not count at all.
 * Both versions contain the exact same information (i.e. only slaves count as three-fifths, free blacks count as one), but the latter does it in fewer words. Your edit summary indicates your intent was to "Cleared up confusing wording", although I fail to see how anyone could be confused.  Your version was not an improvement and I haven't got a clue about why this has anything to do with original research -- especially since you also include the sentence in your version of the paragraph. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On closer examination, it appears that the whole paragraph constitutes original research. The footnote number 8 does not support the statement that "It has been claimed by a wide variety of people" -- all the note directs us to is two incorrect inferences that may or may not be reflective of "a wide variety of people".  I have removed the entire paragraph, pending verification that this is, in fact, a widely held misperception and not simply a strawman situation. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for considering this. Considering the bigger picture, I'm not sure that the paragraph added anything of value to the article.  It may be technically true, but it is a minor issue that meant very little to how the 3/5ths compromise affected the nation historically. AlanK (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Indians
What exactly is meant by 'Indians not taxed'? This have anything to do with reservations? --Gwern (contribs) 00:24 2 December 2009 (GMT)


 * Perhaps not - in context (looking at the dates involved), it would appear to be a way of distinguishing those who were members of the community or not. Tedickey (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It means those who had their own quasi-autonomous governments, so that for most purposes the U.S. national government did not really deal with individuals directly, but only with the group as a whole (and its leaders.).. AnonMoos (talk) 12:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In any case, it was defunct by 1924, when all Indians were declared to be U.S. citizens... AnonMoos (talk) 07:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Historical Fiction in the Effects Section
Why launch a tangent regarding what might have happened if the 3/5s had been replaced with 0? This did not actually happen. Why not consider if it were 1 or 3/4s each of which was taken seriously during negotiations. As long as we are considering imaginary worlds where 3/5s was zero, why not imagine that the free born population was reduced to zero too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meadbert (talk • contribs) 17:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's said to be speculation by historian Gary Wills, not science fiction... AnonMoos (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Gary Wills or not, if the point is to be neutral shouldn't both extreme cases, 1 and 0, as well as the other compromise ratios be taken into account, not just zero and 3/5ths? It seems like a cherry-picked data set to me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nesogra (talk • contribs) 17:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The point stands that this statement by Gary Wills is biased and misleading rather than neutral. If the three-fifths compromise had not been reached and the slave states were allowed to count each person (including slaves), then the effect would have been the opposite of what Mr. Wills has indicated - namely that the slave states would have actually had even greater majorities and greater power.

Capitalization
This is a specific historic compromise. Therefore, its name is a proper noun, and all nontrivial words in its name should be capitalized. I have edited the article accordingly and moved the article to the appropriate headword. Marco polo (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Extremely widespread misconception
I realize that this article exists primarily to cover the "facts" of history, but I think room in this article should also be made for directly addressing the extremely widespread misconception about the three-fifths compromise, i.e. that it was some sort of statement by the framers that African Americans were "60% as human" as whites. The majority of people coming to this article will probably already have this idea in their minds, and I think it would be appropriate to correct this by mentioning it specifically as a widespread misconception.--Pharos 16:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Leftists, race-baiters, and sundry demagogues who benefit from portraying modern black folk as victims misconstrue and mis-characterize the three-fifths compromise to de-legitimize and abase the Framers and, by implication, the Constitution itself. They probably know better, but their rhetoric serves their political and ideological purposes. It's just a shame that so many people buy into it.  The fact is the three-fifths compromise was the beginning of the end of slavery in America.  Without it, it's doubtful the Constitution would have been ratified (and certainly not unanimously), and slavery as an institution would have lasted much longer on the continent than it did. Schnaz (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If somebody wants to deliberately distort the Constitution, or can't be bothered to read it for themselves, there's not much we can do about that. What concerns me more are the people who heard the "three fifths of a person" interpretation somewhere, and might read the Compromise that way because that's what they've always been told.  I added a brief section referencing two books written by Ph.D.'s that use the specific phrase "three fifths of a person."  It's easy to find blogs and opinion pieces that use the phrase, but I thought it best to start with mass-published books from seemingly authoritative sources.  -- A. (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, that's nonsense. There's no misconception.  Only 3/5 of the population of slaves and indentured servants counted toward representation.  That, by extension, means each slave counted as 3/5 of a person.  You could argue that the constitution may not have been ratified without the compromise, but it DOES say that "other persons" are only 3/5 of a free man.  --Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.175.204 (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * But it says nothing of the kind, and I believe that is the point being made by the person who started this section. Article 1, Section 2 states quite clearly that the number adjustment applies to the apportionment of representation and direct taxes. No mention is made of the degree of anyone's claim to the human race. No personal rights are abridged. And as for indentured servants, it is explicitly stated that the scale factor does not even apply to their numbers.


 * I would support some sort of refutation of the misconception, but I regret that there is no way to win this one. That simplistic misrepresentation of the Constitution is somehow more enticing than the real thing. People love to say it, and even after reading the actual words, many of them continue to perpetuate the urban legend. Geometricks (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The truth is that slave states were only allowed to count 3/5ths of the slave population towards increasing their number of representatives in Congress. If it hadn't been for the 3/5ths rule, then slave-holding states would have had even more power in the House of Representatives... AnonMoos (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, there's no way to know that for sure, but it hardly matters. In the Constitutional Convention, some Southern Delegates proposed that slaves be counted the same as free men while Northern delegates were proposing that slaves not be counted at all.  There were other suggestions that slaves be counted for purposes of representation, but not for taxation and vice versa.  We might have ended up with something that could be described as "3/5ths of a man", but the institution of slavery would have been just as bad had they counted slaves equally or not at all.AlanK (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Slavery itself would have been just as bad either way, but the power of slaveholders would have been even more entrenched in the U.S. political system than actually occurred in history if the 3/5ths adjustment factor hadn't existed... AnonMoos (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Why would slaves be counted for representation anyway, they gave slave states extra power by counting the slaves who couldn't vote and didn't have rights. Jamesman666 (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm no historian, but my understanding is that it was a compromise arrived at on the way to creating a ratifiable constitution for the country. See the Constitutional Convention subsection in the article. Also see WP:NOTFORUM and the final item in WP:TPNO. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Census counts include everybody (except "Indians not taxed" before 1924) -- this means slaves in the 19th century, illegal aliens and homeless people today etc... AnonMoos (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * We are not talking about a census count, we are talking about representation and the 3/5ths compromise, what you said is irrelevant to the conversation Jamesman666 (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Allocation of numbers of representatives in the U.S. House is based on census counts, and always has been (except for the 1st congress). If not for the 3/5ths clause, slave states would have had more representatives in the House, and more weight in in presidential elections. AnonMoos (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If the 3/5ths clause didn't exist, you have no basis to state that all the slaves would have counted towards representation, that's the whole point of the "compromise" the north wanted none of them to count, the south wanted all of them to count, the north compromised with slave owners by letting them count 3/5ths of the slave who had no rights or couldn't vote. That's like letting them count 3/5 of all dogs and horses towards representation. It's not an anti-slavery measure, it's a compromise with slave owners. Jamesman666 (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Census counts have always included all humans (see comment of 23:29, 25 January 2023 above) except for "Indians not taxed" before 1924 (see comment of 12:16, 2 December 2009). Ability to vote has never been a prerequisite to being counted.  Women, children, and white males who did not meet property qualifications were always counted. AnonMoos (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The census was just used so they would know the number of people in each state, it has nothing to do with who gets representation, i'm not going to keep repeating myself. Jamesman666 (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * You need to read the Constitution, dude: Article 1, section 2, clause 3.  The word "enumeration" is used instead of "census", but the meraning has never been disputed. AnonMoos (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant to the discussion Jamesman666 (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The intent of this section was to discuss: (quoting), directly addressing the extremely widespread misconception about the three-fifths compromise, i.e. that it was some sort of statement by the framers that African Americans were "60% as human" as whites. It should not be a discussion about how individual wikipedians feel about that but, rather, about what viewpoints citeable reliable sources have expressed about that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC) Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We know how the compromise has been widely misquoted, the article should mention it. Jamesman666 (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

(outdent) It's not a matter of what we know (whomever "we" might be), it's a matter of WP:V and WP:DUE. Here's a start, in no particular order and without much attention to WP:RS: It appears to me that some of these writers were more sensitive to clarifying whether 60% characterized degree of humanity or referred merely to determining voting numbers in the lower house than others. Some editors may be seeing racist attitudes which the writers did not believe they were expressing at the time of writing. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I
 * I
 * I
 * I
 * I
 * I


 * The authors of the constitution were not expressing any opinion on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin the metaphysical worth of souls. I haven't read every single word of the "Federalist Papers" or Madison's proceedings of the constitutional convention, but I would be very surprised if there were anything in either to support such a metaphysical-mystical interpretation.  By means of the 3/5th ratio they were cutting down on the power of slaveholding states.  If someone is against slavery, then they should logically wish that the discount factor should be as small as possible (2/5 or 1/5 or one one-thousandth etc), but some people tell a story according to which you should wish that the number was larger than it actually was (those people are misinformed). AnonMoos (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a ratio it's a fraction, and they were not cutting down the power of slaveholding states but allowing them to have extra power by counting 60% of their slaves. Also why has this comment section being duplicated? Jamesman666 (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Guys, can we get this overlong discussion headed towards a specific suggestion to remedy the perceived problem with the article which is the topic of this section? SEE WP:NOT #4 and WP:TALK. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The wording "three-fifths of a person", if not accompanied by a detailed contextual explanation, would tend to convey the impression that the members of the 1787 Constitutional Convention were abstract metaphysicians, preoccupied with weighing the value of souls and/or that increasing the 3/5ths ratio towards one would have given increased recognition to the humanity of slaves. Unfortunately, both these ideas are COMPLETELY AND ENTIRELY FALSE (not even useful as crude first approximations of the truth).  Since the "three-fifths of a person" wording very frequently gives rise to such misconceptions, therefore I see no reason to include it on the article. AnonMoos (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The only point in the article where I see wording similar to this is in the second paragraph of the lead, a recent insertion. The same point is asserted there that you make here. That added assertion was unsupported there. and I have added a couple of supporting cites. Perhaps that point ought to be expanded upon and better supported in an article body section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Evidence of the Three Fifths Compromise intent
Is there online incontrovertible evidence that the Three Fifths Compromise intended to count three fifths of the enumerated population of slaves? It is argued by many that the Three Fifths Compromise counted slaves as partial human beings, i.e., three fifths of a person. I intend to prove this as a prevarication and fallacy. I wish to get irrefutable and easily accessible evidence from the internet to prove slaves where not counted as three fifths of a person. Please provide internet links and concise descriptions to conclusive online proof (e.g. link to section of the Federalist Papers describing the intent of the three fifths clause or compromise, if section exist). --Ziggypowe (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * They were practical politicians, not scholastic metaphysical angel-on-head-of-pin counters. The Federalist Papers and the records of the 1787 constitutional convention are both on-line for you to search through, if you wish... AnonMoos (talk) 08:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

NPOV
The section on "Effects" compares what happened under the 3/5 compromise to what would have happened if slaves had not counted at all, and refers to "the disproportionate representation of slaveholding states relative to voters". This is seriously NPOV, because it's written as though there was only one alternative (i.e. not counting slaves at all) and this would have been the proper one. It may equally well be argued that slaves should have been counted in full, the same as women and children who also did not have a vote&mdash;by this reasoning what was disproportionate was the underrepresentation of slaveholding states relative to their population. Equal space should be given to this alternative and the wording should be neutralized.

--65.95.177.12 (talk) 06:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * We're just reporting what Garry Wills said. AnonMoos (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I came here to make the same comment, or actually I think the original comment is too charitable. I don't know if counterfactuals really belong here in the first place but even if they do, calling a model where slaves are not counted at all proportional, and an alternative that gives them 3/5 weight disproportionally favorable, seems biased and kind of offensive really. Maybe that's not the case when read in the full context of Wills' book but as written here it is. Plesner (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with Plesner and 65.95.177.12. "Disproportionate" is perspective-laden. Myshortpencil (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * With respect, I disagree completely.
 * Women and children (i.e., nonvoters) were equally distributed across all regions of the USA. Thus, even though they could not vote, their absence from representation could not have any *disproportionate* electoral effect.
 * This article illustrates why it did matter. The inclusion of women and children in the calculation offset the advantage given to southern states when they counted 3/5 of their non-voting enslaved population.  It must be included as part of the overall formula, or the representation of early Congresses change considerably.
 * Slaves were heavily concentrated in one region (some of the border "slave" states had tiny numbers of slaves) and therefore, their electoral effect was disproportionate compared to other regions. For example, nearly half the population of South Carolina was enslaved; zero percent of New York was enslaved. The effect on representation and the electoral college was disproportionate by the 3/5ths rule.
 * regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * In 1789, voting qualifications differed in many ways from state to state. But by about 1830, with the rise of Jacksonian democracy, an approximation to universal suffrage for all adult white citizen males had been achieved, and this threw a light on states whose proportion of Congressmen (and in the electoral college) was higher than their proportion of adult white citizen males in the national population.  (It also threw a light on Rhode Island, but that's a different issue.) AnonMoos (talk) 07:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Black citizens could vote on an equal basis in some states in ~1800. DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Wills' calculations
''The three-fifths ratio, or "Federal ratio", had a major effect on pre-Civil War political affairs due to the disproportionate representation of slaveholding states relative to voters. For example, in 1793 slave states would have been apportioned 33 seats in the House of Representatives had the seats been assigned based on the free population; instead they were apportioned 47.'' Is this really in Wills? It has a really basic factual error: during the 3rd United States Congress, 63 of the 105 members of the House of Representatives were from slave states. Look at File:US SlaveFree1800.gif; only New York, Pennsylvania, and the five New England states were free in 1800, and New York had emancipated just one year before. During the 3rd Congress, Connecticut had 7 representatives; Massachusetts 14; New Hampshire 4; Pennsylvania 13; Rhode Island 2; and Vermont 2. I don't know the formula for determining numbers of representatives following the 1790 census (but remember that they didn't have a set number of representatives then, as we've had since the 1910 census), but even if they would have had 33 seats based on free population, they definitely didn't get just 47. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I haven't read Wills, but probably he was using a slightly anachronistic definition of "slave state". By the time of the first national crisis over slavery in 1819-1820, slavery was abolished or clearly on its way out across the north, while it had gained in economic importance and was spreading into new territories in the south. Things were not yet so clearly polarized in 1793... AnonMoos (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The material in question is contained on page 6 of Wills' "Negro President". Wills actually directly quotes Leonard Richards in "The Slave Power" (pages 56-57).  It is clear from the context of both works that the authors are referring to Southern slave states rather than total slave states. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarification Needed - Did the South Gain a Third More Power in Congress?
The opening paragraph states that the compromise gave “southern slave-owners a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than they would otherwise have had” needs to be explained. Was that just for the first session of Congress? As stated later on the page, in 1793 “Southern slave states had 47 members" because of the compromise, but would have only had 33” without it. That’s 42% more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.166.173 (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Three-Fifths Compromise. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crf-usa.org/lessons/slavery_const.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Removal of material 12-14-2016
The following was in the article to refute a claim that the 3/5 Compromise gave Jefferson the 1800 election: "Other historians, however, have criticized Wills' analysis as simplistic. The link to support this is dead but I found a workable link at .  However the article linked (actually at interview) does not support the claim.  At best, a single historian, Jack Rakove, offers a different counterfactual argument based on the possibility that several state delegations could have changed their minds. Wills, also being interviewed at the same time quoted the following to Rakove that Rakove had written: ''"The Republican [Jefferson] victory depended on the additional votes gained through the application of the three-fifths clause to the Electoral College. But this factor arguably brings us within the realm of constitutional tragedy rather than mere stupidity."''

All in all, the article does not support the claim being made so I am removing it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Process at the Convention
I added a section detailing the process that was followed at the convention:
 * 1) 3/5ths of slaves proposed
 * 2) 3/5ths of slaves rejected
 * 3) Full representation of slaves proposed, rejected
 * 4) 3/5ths accepted

There is a problematic line in the wiki article: "reduced the representation of the slave states relative to the original proposals, but improved it over the Northern position" - this line could give the impression to some that somehow the north's position - opposing slavery - was somehow wrong. Noting in the article the very important facts that the compromise was initially voted down as well as contentious clarifies this line and casts it in the proper light. It should also be noted, but I will leave that to others, the clear math issue using Garry Wills' numbers.

In 1793, the slave states would have only had 33 members without representation - which is what the north preferred. By 3/5ths, the slave states had 47 representatives, vs 56 for the free states. But what if the south would have had its way and gained full representation for its slave population? The southern states would have had more like 55 representatives, and the northern states would have been the minority. Progressingamerica (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Some of the commenters in sections above seem to believe that at the 1787 convention, there were scholastic metaphysical mystical debates about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin the relative worth of souls, but I found a reprint of Madison's Notes (ISBN 0-393-30405-1), and no such debates are reported to take place -- just debates about whether population or taxed property should be used as the basis of representation, some people pointing out that the 3/5ths rule isn't one thing or the other, and denunciations of slavery by Gouverneur Morris. AnonMoos (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I just wanted to make a note, that the numbers Wills uses are not his own but they come from Leonard Richards. Richards does indeed omit calculating for full representation, even though a motion to that effect was expressly made at the convention. He calculates 0/5, 3/5, but does not calculate 5/5ths. Progressingamerica (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Roger Sherman
No source is given for Sherman proposing this. Madison's record of the Convention says Wilson proposed it and was seconded by Mr C Pinckney, so I've changed it to that and cited Madison. Richard75 (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

removal of content
Let's discuss. valereee (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Impact before the Civil War
Another editor deleted this section of the article, and I have restored it. The reason given for deleting it was "I removed this whole section because is speculative and uses skewed numbers to support an untrue fact. It states that the South had more representation than it should have if the slaves were not counted at all but does not show what the South's representation would have been if the slaves were counted as whole persons instead of 3/5. It is disingenuous to "cherry pick" numbers that will support a fallacious notion not based in fact."

I have the following problems with this explanation. Firstly, it doesn't actually say what the "untrue fact" is. Secondly, it cannot be disputed that the three fifths clause gave the Southern states greater representation than they would have had if the slaves hadn't been counted at all. Thirdly, if there is a problem with the article not mentioning (perhaps because it's obvious?) that the Southern states would have had greater representation if the slaves had been counted equally, then the solution would be to add that, rather than to delete the whole section. Indeed, the whole point of the clause was that it was a compromise between those two positions. Fourthly, an article about the three fifths clause should include a section about the effect of that clause while it was in force before the War. It's just ridiculous to cut that all out; it compromises the credibility of the whole article.

Frankly, I can't see the point of this deletion at all. I won't speculate about the motives behind it, because I'm supposed to assume good faith, but if there is a problem with this section, then (1) a better explanation needs to be given, (2) the solution is to edit the text rather than deleting it all, and (3) there ought to be a consensus before introducing any major changes to such an important section. Richard75 (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Robbenn69 was bringing up a really good point, the section does engage in speculation that goes too far only on one side and this makes the section problematic. The problem to be clear, is that either the Wiki user who originally quoted Gary Wills' numbers some years ago went out of his way not to include that portion of Gary Wills' numbers - they were cherry picked out of the book; or Gary Wills himself went out of his way to not include such numbers which is in its own way cherry picking.  But somebody somewhere did some cherry picking here.   Historian Sean Wilentz writes in his book No Property in Man the question What if the Deep South had forced the delegates to pass a five-fifths rule?, which is something I asked (just in a different way) two years ago on this talk page.  Had there been a five-fifth's rule, then the southern states would have had more like 55 representatives in the calculated time frame.  It's clear by looking at the totality of this talk page that Gary Will's numbers come up again and again as problematic.  We should not wait any longer to come up with ways to fix this.
 * Here's one solution: we could add the numbers elsewhere (perhaps the Compromise and Enactment section) or move the numbers to a different section altogether. Either way, we should include the 5/5ths projection that the South originally asked for at the convention to give the reader a proper view of what was at stake.  Currently, the article does not do that.  There's three positions here numerically: No representation, full representation, and 3/5ths representation, but yet only two make their appearance.  That diminishes the substance of the article. Progressingamerica (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to including the numbers for a 5/5 scenario. Richard75 (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

using Wikipedia page for soapbox
neologisms such as enslaved are promotional rather than neutral, used to promote a political ideology TEDickey (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for commenting. A descriptive term isn't a matter of promoting anything (see WP:NPOV), and it's also not "political" or newly-coined. Of course, the US practice of enslaving people was itself a political ideology, so I can understand the confusion. Check out the usage in Slavery in the United States. Feel free to call for a new editor consensus there. Otherwise, there's no reason for the terms to be inconsistent. 75.172.60.209 (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Some time has passed now, but I think "enslaved" refers to the awkward "enslaved persons" as a substitute for simply "slave" rather than as a verb. is this what you mean? Wikinights (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Something like that. The terms don't mean the same thing, though the editor commenting before pretends that they do, and that it's herd-consensus.  I'm not inclined to argue with someone who makes up their own facts.  Bye. TEDickey (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Mention of racism in Background section
I'm re-considering whether a mention of the Southern founders' racism should be included in the "Background" section. (I was the writer of the short Background paragraph, including a mention of racial prejudice.) The current state implies that the Southern founders justified slavery at least in part due to their prejudice and that the Northern founders did not use racial prejudice to justify slavery. Some Southerners did express moral qualms with slavery (Thomas Jefferson comes to the top of my head, but he still owned slaves). And racism wasn't restricted to the South.

The current paragraph is too general to be entirely accurate. I propose that we link the articles Slavery in the United States, referencing the sections "Origins" and "Revolutionary era," and Slavery in the colonial history of the United States. The current section would become a summary of those two articles. Wikinights (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * In the 18th century, some southerners were among the loudest in theoretically deploring the existence of slavery. It was only in the nineteenth century, when Northern states gradually got rid of slavery, while it gained in economic value in the South and became more solidly entrenched there, that there came to be a strong divergence between Northern and Southern attitudes (though being against the expansion of slavery is not the same thing as a lack of racism, of course).  The first "sectional" crisis (pitting north vs. south over the issue of slavery) was in 1819 (leading up to the Missouri Compromise)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I deleted the background section due to nuances that would be lost in a single paragraph and lack of sourcing. Wikinights (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

NPOV and omission
I have only a sketchy knowledge of early American history, but I'm bothered by what seems to me to be a glaring NPOV-ignoring omission here -- prominent mention of the point of fact that counting enslaved persons on the same basis as those not enslaved would have given slave states a massive voting advantage in the House of Representatives.

As I understand it, the point that counting enslaves persons on the same basis as their slavers would give slave states a great voting advantage had been thrashed out a bit in the Continental Congress, and delegates to the Constitutional Convention arrived aware of this; delegates favoring slavery proposed a compromise of three-fourths; delegates opposed to slavery countered with a proposal of one-half (not zerp, as the votes of slave states would be needed for ratification of the constitution being hammered out), and three-fifths was the compromise arrived at by the Convention. That compromise, it seems to me, was more an exercise in limiting the governmental voting power of slavers in slave states than it was an exercise in disrespecting enslaved persons.

I'm on shaky ground searching for sources but I've found one -- not the best of RSs -- which seems to explain this pretty well -- see the second paragraph on pages xi-xii in  Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * See comment of "12:57, 22 June 2010" above on this page. AnonMoos (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Ontology
Are the ontology mentions a joke? — THORNFIELD HALL (Talk) 09:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)