WI: No 3/5 compromise?

The Three-Fifths Compromise gave a disproportionate representation of slave states in the House of Representatives relative to the voters in free states until the American Civil War. In 1793, for example, Southern slave states had 47 members but would have had 33, had seats been assigned based on free populations. In 1812, slave states had 76 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 instead of 73.

As a result, Southern states had disproportionate influence on the presidency, the speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War.

For the sake of argument, let's assume the Northern delegates manage to outmaneuver the delegates from the Southern states at the Constitutional Convention and ensure that enslaved African Americans are not counted for the purposes of representation/taxation.

How does this affect American history down the line? Would Jefferson have been elected President? What are the butterflies from this potential decision?
 
I think even if USA members excuse me...there would be not union.

They knew would be marginalized and their power curtailed, so they would walk off and end the union, imagine early confederacy alongside mason-dixon line...
 
I doubt civil war, but a crisis would arise to that effect. The southern states were home to some of the vilest, most uncompromising politicians imaginable pre-1865. When even Andrew Jackson got fed up with them, you know it's bad. They would start whining from day 1, maybe refuse to ratify the constitution for some time, but they'd lose out initially. What will they do? Secede? Virginia isn't leaving- most of the founding fathers live there and it still has a large non-slave population. That leaves Maryland and Delaware cut off geographically and the odds are stacked against them.

If not at the constitutional convention, then I'm guessing at some point within the next 20 years there would be something to compensate the southern states for their slaves. Perhaps in exchange for banning the slave trade?
 
There would be no Jefferson in election of 1800, that would go to Adams

Hopefully Louisiana purchase is still in 1803 - so election of 1804 may go to Pinckney.

1808 - ???

The Democrats may be able to re-establish themselves by 1808

This is of course if the southern states are party to the US Constitution without the 3/5 rule
 
What if the reverse, slaves are counted towards representation and taxes? I imagine they might go that route hoping to ease slavery out slowly by making it more expensive. Flip side is a stronger South politically.
 
What if the reverse, slaves are counted towards representation and taxes? I imagine they might go that route hoping to ease slavery out slowly by making it more expensive. Flip side is a stronger South politically.

IIRC they were counted as 3/5 for tax purposes too. I can't see the north going along with a full count, for political reasons. Perhaps even for slightly moral ones too. The 3/5 compromise was obscene, but a full count might be too cynical for even 19th century politicians
 

jahenders

Banned
Hard to see the Southern colonies going along with a plan that doesn't count slaves at all. If that, somehow, happens, then the South has considerably less power in the early US. Assuming the abolition movement gets started at the same timeframe or earlier, things may rush more quickly to the point where the South is worried about slavery being outlawed. If that all happens then you might potentially have an ACW 10-20 years earlier. An ACW 10-20 years earlier puts the south at considerably less disadvantage than IOTL as the disparity in manufacturing, railroads, etc isn't as great.

The Three-Fifths Compromise gave a disproportionate representation of slave states in the House of Representatives relative to the voters in free states until the American Civil War. In 1793, for example, Southern slave states had 47 members but would have had 33, had seats been assigned based on free populations. In 1812, slave states had 76 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 instead of 73.

As a result, Southern states had disproportionate influence on the presidency, the speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War.

For the sake of argument, let's assume the Northern delegates manage to outmaneuver the delegates from the Southern states at the Constitutional Convention and ensure that enslaved African Americans are not counted for the purposes of representation/taxation.

How does this affect American history down the line? Would Jefferson have been elected President? What are the butterflies from this potential decision?
 

Pomphis

Banned
IIRC they were counted as 3/5 for tax purposes too. I can't see the north going along with a full count, for political reasons. Perhaps even for slightly moral ones too. The 3/5 compromise was obscene, but a full count might be too cynical for even 19th century politicians

Why ? Were only adult males with the franchise counted otherwise ? I always thought that children and women without voting rights were counted too.
 

tenthring

Banned
An ACW 10-20 years earlier puts the south at considerably less disadvantage than IOTL as the disparity in manufacturing, railroads, etc isn't as great.

The earlier the civil war the greater the chance the south succeeds, assuming they can get Virginia.
 
What if the reverse, slaves are counted towards representation and taxes? I imagine they might go that route hoping to ease slavery out slowly by making it more expensive. Flip side is a stronger South politically.

This would enormously increase the political power of the slave states and would not hurt them economically because for most of the period before the ACW *there were no (federal) direct taxes* (as defined by the Surpeme Court in *Hylton v. U.S.*, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/3/171/case.html) The federal government got its money mostly from tariffs and sales of land.
 
The slave states would never have ratified the US Constitution if their slaves had not been counted at all. The northern delegates at the Constitutional Convention did not want to have a country that did not include Virginia. If those delegates had not agreed to the compromise, than it is likely Delaware, Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and Maryland would have pulled their delegates from the convention. It is even possible that in this scenario, the thirteen colonies would split into a northern confederation (dominated by New York and Pennsylvania) and a southern confederation (dominated by Virginia).
 

jahenders

Banned
Agreed -- ratification seems unlikely without something LIKE the 3/5 compromise. That being said, it's certainly possible it could have varied from that -- i.e. a 50% or a 75% compromise. Any of those would obviously have implications on power, but considerably less so.

Who knows, perhaps they could even have negotiate some kind of sliding scale if it (at least initially) appeared generous to the South. For instance, maybe slaves count as 80% initially, but fall to 70% in 1800, 65% in 1810, 60% in 1820, 55% in 1830, 50% in 1850, etc. Politicians typically think short-term, so Southern delegates might be fine if their successors have to worry about a less favorable situation. If a sliding scale like that was approved, then those timelines (each census) might precipitate action.

The slave states would never have ratified the US Constitution if their slaves had not been counted at all. The northern delegates at the Constitutional Convention did not want to have a country that did not include Virginia. If those delegates had not agreed to the compromise, than it is likely Delaware, Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and Maryland would have pulled their delegates from the convention. It is even possible that in this scenario, the thirteen colonies would split into a northern confederation (dominated by New York and Pennsylvania) and a southern confederation (dominated by Virginia).
 
Top