WI: No Three-Fifths Compromise

This Three-Fifths Compromise gave disproportionate representation to Southern states. It allowed the South to have an unfair influence on American policy, protecting the institution of slavery until the Civil War, and fostering other policies of interest to the slave states. What if there had been no Three-Fifths compromise?
 
The above is kinda true, but misleading.

The issue really was whether to base the size of congressional delegations from each state on the total state population, or just on people who could vote.

The argument is not as straightforward. For example, today the size is based on population, not voters. This means citizens who live in areas with lots of non-citizens, both legal and illegal immigrants, are somewhat over-represented. There are actually lawsuits over this. The effect overall is pretty small and its generally agreed to let things slide instead of opening up several big cans of worms.

To make matters more complicated, the New England and Mid Atlantic states were just starting to abolish slavery in the 1780s, though the southern states still had larger slave populations.

As Akhil Amar shows in his Biography of the Constitution, generally the slave states got the better of the argument. Really the only thing the northern states got was to knock down the apportionment value of slaves to 3/5 instead of counting them per capita as the southern states wanted. The southern slaves states got parity in the Senate, and the President elected by the Electoral College on a state by state basis, with a bonus two electors for each state regardless of population, free or otherwise, which almost completely wiped out what would have the North's population advantage for presidential elections, if the office had been decided by direct national popular vote.

What I'm arguing is that this one wasn't even particularly close. The 3/5 thing were really the only points the North put on the board in this game.

To change this, you would have to get PODs that would produce alot of other butterflies. You could have slavery abolished everywhere in the North prior to independence, so slavery is more of a contentious issue but then you might not get all the colonies united enough to achieve independence. You could find some way to get slavery abolished in the South. Or maybe you could have the British southern campaigns be successful enough to detach Georgia and South Carolina from the US and these places remain as British colonies.
 
What if slaves were counted as full citizens for purposes of apportionment but Philadelphia became the Capital of the US?
 
Well I would argue without it, slaves would have no personhood at all. Being seen even more as property then in our history because of this lack of personhood idea.
 
The irony of it all is that the extra representation proved a disaster for the South.

Without it, the Kansas-Nebraska Bill fails in 1854, and without it there's probably no Republican Party, or at least not for a much longer time - and quite possibly no ACW. .
 
This Three-Fifths Compromise gave disproportionate representation to Southern states.

How does discounting a substantial part of the southern population give them "disproportionate representation"?

The 3/5 rule was a compromise between counting all persons the same, and not counting slaves at all. If no compromise, which of these two alternatives is in force?
 
How does discounting a substantial part of the southern population give them "disproportionate representation"?

The 3/5 rule was a compromise between counting all persons the same, and not counting slaves at all. If no compromise, which of these two alternatives is in force?

Because the 3/5 of the slave population does not vote but instead their voting strength is transferred to their owners. Giving their owners a disproportionate voice in the House.

The peculiarity is that by abolishing the 3/5 rule you remove the extra power that Southern electors have by legally disenfranchising the slave population. Or you can recognize the slave population by allowing the full population to count and give the Southern electors even more power.

The true solution of giving the vote to the slaves was supported by no one.
 
Seems like the South wanted it both ways: slaves were counted as property sometimes and people at other times.
 
How does discounting a substantial part of the southern population give them "disproportionate representation"?

The 3/5 rule was a compromise between counting all persons the same, and not counting slaves at all. If no compromise, which of these two alternatives is in force?

Because congressmen were supposed to be representing the interests of the people of their respective states, and the idea that slaves were being "represented" by the very people keeping them enslaved was a joke.
 
Seems like the South wanted it both ways: slaves were counted as property sometimes and people at other times.

Their argument was that it was unfair to do it the other way around, either, counting slaves as population for tax purposes but not for representation, which was the proposal of the Northern states. The three-fifths compromise was meant to split the difference between the two.
 
This Three-Fifths Compromise gave disproportionate representation to Southern states. It allowed the South to have an unfair influence on American policy, protecting the institution of slavery until the Civil War, and fostering other policies of interest to the slave states. What if there had been no Three-Fifths compromise?
I think it's entirely likely that if there is no compromise, then
1) the South wins and slaves are counted as whole people. Do some of the Northern states not ratify, then?
or
2) Slaves don't count at all, and almost certainly some southern states don't ratify.

I think no compromise means it's very likely that you don't have all 13 states in the new US, which is going to be really messy. Especially if the remainder insist on keeping the Articles of Confederation!
 
I think it's entirely likely that if there is no compromise, then
1) the South wins and slaves are counted as whole people. Do some of the Northern states not ratify, then?
or
2) Slaves don't count at all, and almost certainly some southern states don't ratify.

I think no compromise means it's very likely that you don't have all 13 states in the new US, which is going to be really messy. Especially if the remainder insist on keeping the Articles of Confederation!
Which then, would you say it's more possible?

Keep in mind the Northerners weren't particularly abolitionists at the time, safe for a few notable, but not yet influential, voices. Furthermore, would the Northerners really try to go at it alone knowing they had the (by then) behemoth that is Canada and the looming British prescence?
 
Top