The Three-Fifths Compromise Represented An Agreement Between Which Two Sides

Representatives and direct taxes are distributed among the different States which may be admitted to this Union, according to their respective number, determined by adding the total number of free persons, including those who are held for a period of service, and without third parties who are not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons [added in italics]. [2] The New York Convention illustrates the gap between federalists and anti-federalists. When an anti-federalist delegate, Melancton Smith, criticized the representation scheme as too limited and non-reflective for the people, Alexander Hamilton replied: San Antonio U.S. District Judge Fred Biery addressed the Austin Bar Association on Law Day 2012. His speech focused on different social injustices in the American past and how lawyers correct those injustices. Biery used the example of the youngest Heisman Trophy winner, Robert Griffin III. The judge said that in 1787, when the Constitution was ratified, the “ancestors of Griffin. They were counted for only three-fifths of a person. Biery is terribly ignorant. Or worse, he is consumed by the need to promote and promote a personal profession of faith. The text of the compromise, which appears in Article I, Section 2, of the Constitution, states that the 13th Constitutional Amendment of 1865 effectively enerd the three-fifths compromise by prohibiting the enslavement of blacks. But when the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1868, it officially annulled the three-fifths compromise. Section 2 of the amendment states that seats in the House of Representatives should be determined on the basis of “the total number of persons in each state, with the exception of undeased Indians.” The ratification of the United States Constitution was the subject of intense debate between 1787 and 1789.

A particularly controversial topic was the three-fifths compromise, which defined how sworn persons should be counted for representation and tax purposes. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia had agreed that three-fifths of the slave population should be counted for representation, making southern states more represented in the House of Representatives, while remaining exempt from paying taxes for the other two-fifths of the slave population. Although the authors of this 1788 article focus on the second aspect of the compromise, it was the issue of representation in Congress that proved to be much more important. Southern states gained disproportionate power in determining issues (especially with regard to slavery), while refusing to vote for a large portion of their population. A republic, I mean a government in which the system of representation takes place, opens up another perspective and promises the healing we seek. Let us look at the points where it differs from outright democracy and we will understand both the type of healing and the effectiveness it must deduce from the Union. David Gans is director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights and Citizenship Program at the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and law firm. The Express News published a column of him last year on constitutional requirements (“Count all human beings, as required by the Constitution, 10. March) in which he declared that “someone who has been enslaved would be counted as three-fifths of a person” to designate representation in Congress.

. . .

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.