Three-Fifths Compromise - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes (2024)

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached between the northern and southern states of the U.S. in 1787. The compromise was reached during a debate over whether or not slaves should be counted when a state was determining its total number of residents for legislative and tax purposes. If they were to be counted, then the next issue was to determine how they would be counted. It was ultimately decided that a slave would be counted as three-fifths of a person. To explore this concept, consider the following three fifths compromise definition.

Definition of Three-Fifths Compromise

Noun

  1. The compromise that established that a slave would be counted as three-fifths of a person, insofar as determining the total population of a state.

Origin

1787 Compromise reached during the Constitutional Convention

What was the Three-Fifths Compromise

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise that established that a slave would be counted as three-fifths of a person when taking a census of a state’s overall population. The compromise was reached during the 1787 Constitutional Convention, which took place in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The issue of how slaves should be counted was important, since the total number of a state’s population would be used for determining legislative representation. It also had an effect for tax purposes.

The total population of each state is used to determine how many seats each state has in the House of Representatives for the ten years following each official census. The northern states pointed out that none of the slaves that were counted by the Census would be allowed to vote. Therefore, counting slaves as free citizens (or, as a “full” person) would have resulted in an uneven distribution of power favoring planters in the south. Those districts contained large populations, but only a fraction of their population was permitted to have an influence on elections.

This debate in the 1787 Constitutional Convention ran hot, as the southern states faced being underrepresented in Congress should their slaves be counted as “people” in the census, as the number of free citizens was less that those of the northern states. If they were successful in having slaves counted as in the census, their representation in the House of Representatives would soar far above that of the northern states.

Representatives of the North argued that, because slave owners of the South denied their slaves the right to vote – as well as all other civil rights – they should not be able to use the slaves to bolster their census numbers. The disparity in population was a valid issue, as far as representation in Congress was concerned, so the two sides came up with a3/5 compromise that would allow more equal representation. In this deal, each black person was to be counted as three-fifths (3/5) of a person in the official census.

The result gave Southern states about 30 percent more seats in Congress, and about 30 percent more electoral votes than they would have, had the slaves not been counted at all.

This compromise ushered in a new age of slavery by giving it a new life in politics. Even when new slaves were prohibited to be imported by law in 1808, the south continued to increase its electoral votes and overall political status by illegally adding slaves to its population. They were also continuing to illegally breed them.

The Constitution on the Three-Fifths Compromise

The Articles of Confederation based taxation off of each state’s land value. When the Articles were replaced by the Constitution in 1789, the Founders decided that the laws of taxation should be based on a state’s population, rather than the value of its land. This change is the perfect example of the Three-Fifths Compromise propelling slavery to the forefront of the argument.

Under the Articles, states were able to underestimate the value of their land so as to decrease the amount of taxes they had to pay on it. Northern states wanted to be able to count slaves due to the tax burden that would place on the south, and the reduction in taxes that the northerners would be able to enjoy. Southern states wanted to include slaves in the population for representation. They did not view the tax issue as a high priority the way the northern states did.

James Madison came up with the idea of counting three out of five slaves toward the population. This was a compromise of the ideas that the North and the South had come up with. The North wanted to count three out of four slaves for taxation, while the South wanted to count one out of four. All of the states, save for New Hampshire and Rhode Island, agreed to the counting of three out of five slaves toward each state’s population. However, because the rule was that there had to be a unanimous vote in order for an amendment to pass under the Articles of Confederation, the idea was shot down.

While drafting the Constitution in 1787, the Founding Fathers understood that in order for the tax code to be revised, then there had to be a decision made insofar as slavery and representation. Counting three out of five slaves toward the population was a decision that greatly benefited the Southern states. Before counting slaves toward the population, the Southern states occupied 38 percent of the House’s seats. After counting them, their representation shot up to 45 percent in 1790.

The issue insofar as who would be counted toward each state’s population was nothing short of an uproarious controversy. For example, the Three-Fifths Compromise is considered one of, if not the most, controversial topics in U.S history. This is due to the fact that it granted states the right to count their slave population as a whole as three-fifths of the total white population when attempting to allocate Representatives and determine issues related to taxes.

James Wilson and Roger Sherman came up with the idea for the Three-Fifths Compromise during the Constitutional Convention. The Constitutional Convention took place from May to September of that year in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Its purpose to initially to revise the Articles of Confederation, though the Convention ended up becoming a meeting on how to create a new government, rather than fix the one that existed at that time.

George Washington was chosen to preside over the Convention, and the end result of the Convention was the creation of the Constitution. This made the Convention one of the most significant events in U.S. history.

Despite the fact that the Three-Fifths Compromise was proposed years before the Constitutional Convention, it was not adopted until the Convention because not all states had approved it, and the Articles of Confederation had required a unanimous vote in order to continue. Interestingly, the Three-Fifths Compromise did not actually give the south the population advantage they had hoped for. This was because the population of the northern states ended up growing faster than that of the southern states.

Even though the south had essentially dominated American politics prior to the Civil War, their power would soon peak and begin to fade out. By the time the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution was enacted in 1865, the Three-Fifths Compromise was considered to be obsolete.

It is important to remember, however, that the Three-Fifths Compromise did not advocate for slavery, despite the behavior of certain southern states after its inception. Despite the fact that slaves were considered property in the south, the Constitution acknowledged slaves as people.

Three-Fifths Compromise Example in the Dred Scott Case

Perhaps the most notable example of the Three-Fifths Compromise being challenged before the court was in the Dred Scott case. Scott was born into slavery in or around 1800. Two years after Scott’s master, Peter Blow, passed away, Scott was bought by Dr. John Emerson, an army surgeon, who then took Scott to the free state of Illinois. In 1836, Emerson moved to Wisconsin and brought Scott with him. While there, Scott met Harriet Robinson, a fellow slave whom he ultimately married. Upon their marriage, Harriet’s ownership was transferred to Emerson.

The fact that Scott had lived for an extended period of time in both Illinois and Wisconsin – free states – gave Scott the legal standing to sue for his freedom. However, he never did make the claim, either because he was unaware of his rights or because he was happy with Emerson as his master. It was not until Emerson’s death in 1843 that Scott sought freedom for himself and his wife.

First, Scott offered to buy his freedom from Emerson’s wife for $300, but she refused the offer. Scott then decided to seek his freedom through the court system. Scott’s case went to trial in June of 1847, but he lost on the technicality that he could not prove that Emerson’s widow owned him and his wife. The Missouri Supreme Court decided the following year that Scott should be granted a retrial.

At the 1850 retrial, the St. Louis Circuit Court decided that Scott and his wife should be free. Two years later, however, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision. Scott and his lawyers brought the case to federal court, and in 1854 the Circuit Court upheld the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision. Scott then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

The overwhelming majority of the Supreme Court’s justices were from proslavery backgrounds. However, it is believed that if the case had gone directly from the state supreme court to the federal supreme court, then the federal court would have probably upheld the state’s ruling just the same. This is because the federal court would have likely cited the Three-Fifths Compromise, which gave states the authority to determine whether or not slaves could be considered equal residents in their state.

Scott sealed his fate, however, by claiming that he and the defendant in the case – Emerson’s brother-in-law, John Sanford – were citizens of different states. The Supreme Court then had to decide whether it had the jurisdiction to try the case, and whether Scott was, in fact, a citizen at all.

The Court made its decision in March of 1857 – 10 years after Scott initially went to trial for his freedom. In the decision, the Court wrote that because Scott was black, then he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision went on to declare the Missouri Compromise of 1820 – legislation that restricted slavery in certain areas – to be unconstitutional. Per the Court, Scott was to remain a slave.

However, the story has a somewhat happier ending in that Blow’s sons, who had helped Scott with his legal fees over the years, ended up purchasing Scott and his wife and setting them free. Unfortunately, Scott’s freedom was short-lived, as he passed away nine months later.

Related Legal Terms and Issues

  • Defendant – A party against whom a lawsuit has been filed in civil court, or who has been accused of, or charged with, a crime or offense.
  • Legislation – A law, or body of laws, enacted by a government.
Three-Fifths Compromise - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes (2024)

FAQs

What is an example of the Three-Fifths Compromise? ›

For example, in 1790 South Carolina's population of free people was 141,979, but the state was allowed to use 3/5ths of the 107,094 enslaved people to determine how many Representatives in Congress the state would have.

What is an example sentence for Three-Fifths Compromise? ›

The three-fifths compromise ensured Southern states enough votes in the House to stave off attempts to regulate or abolish slavery.

What was the 3 5 compromise simple definition quizlet? ›

Three Fifths Compromise. A compromise where every 5 enslaved people counted as 3 in the states population.

Which answer best describes the 3 5 compromise? ›

The three-fifths compromise decided that slaves would be counted, in terms of representation, equal to three fifths of a free person.

Why is the Three-Fifths Compromise important today? ›

The three-fifths compromise had a major impact on U.S. politics for decades to come. It allowed pro-slavery states to have a disproportionate influence on the presidency, the Supreme Court, and other positions of power.

Which group benefited most from the Three-Fifths Compromise? ›

Answer and Explanation: The Three-Fifths Compromise, reached during the Constitutional Convention in 1787, benefited slave states. During the convention, there was disagreement about whether slaves should count toward a state's population.

What is a simple example of compromise? ›

A compromise is a way of settling differences by everybody making concessions. If you want to stay out until 10 and your friend wants to stay out until midnight, 11 is a good compromise. Compromise comes from the Latin compromissum, which means "mutual promise." It can be a noun or a verb.

What are three examples of compromise from the process of creating the Constitution? ›

To get the Constitution ratified by all 13 states, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had to reach several compromises. The three major compromises were the Great Compromise, the Three-Fifths Compromise, and the Electoral College.

What was the 3 5 compromise for 5th grade? ›

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a part of a series of compromises between Northern and Southern representatives enacted by the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which declared that three-fifths of the slave population in a state would be counted for purposes of determining representation in Congress and direct ...

What are the 3 parts of the compromise? ›

The Compromise of 1850
  • Admitting California into the Union as a free state;
  • Leaving the option of legalizing slavery to the territories of New Mexico and Utah;
  • Allowing the new territory gained after the Mexican-American War either to prohibit slavery or to permit slavery in the territory;

Which two men favored the Constitution? ›

A compilation of these articles written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay (under the pseudonym Publius), were published as The Federalist in 1788. Through these papers and other writings, the Federalists successfully articulated their position in favor of adoption of the Constitution.

Why was the Great Compromise important? ›

The compromise provided for a bicameral legislature, with representation in the House of Representatives according to population and in the Senate by equal numbers for each state.

What is the best definition of the 3 5ths compromise? ›

It determined that three out of every five slaves were counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxation. Before the Civil War, the Three-Fifths Compromise gave a disproportionate representation of slave states in the House of Representatives.

Which statement best summarizes the Three-Fifths Compromise? ›

The Three-Fifths Compromise can best be described as follows: A slave would be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purposes of taxation and representation. Referendum.

Which statement best explains the Three-Fifths Compromise brainly? ›

The correct answer is C. According to the Three-Fifths Compromise in the United States Constitution, for the purpose of determining the population of a state, three out of every five enslaved people would be counted.

How did the 3-5 compromise lead to the Civil War? ›

While the three-fifths compromise brought all states on board to ratify the constitution, regional differences and continuing debates over slavery, representation, and laws ultimately caused a bloody civil war.

What was the Great Compromise in simple terms? ›

The Great Compromise established the United States legislature as a bicameral, or two-house law-making body. In the Senate, each state would be allowed two representatives; in the House of Representatives, the number of representatives allowed for each state would be determined by its population.

Which of the following was a direct outcome of the 3-5 compromise? ›

Final answer: The direct result of the Three-Fifths Compromise was a formula which allowed states to count slaves as three-fifths of a person for representation and taxation purposes. This was designed to settle political arguments between northern and southern states in the US.

What was the compromise on the importation of slaves? ›

The Convention passed a compromise on the issue of foreign trade—the importation of enslaved Africans being the most fraught part of the issue. Congress would be unable to ban the slave trade prior to the year 1808, although it could tax enslaved Africans as property.

References

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Recommended Articles
Article information

Author: Mr. See Jast

Last Updated:

Views: 5535

Rating: 4.4 / 5 (75 voted)

Reviews: 90% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Mr. See Jast

Birthday: 1999-07-30

Address: 8409 Megan Mountain, New Mathew, MT 44997-8193

Phone: +5023589614038

Job: Chief Executive

Hobby: Leather crafting, Flag Football, Candle making, Flying, Poi, Gunsmithing, Swimming

Introduction: My name is Mr. See Jast, I am a open, jolly, gorgeous, courageous, inexpensive, friendly, homely person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.