Three-Fifths Compromise and Slavery in Constitution — Reading Comprehension

The framers of the United States Constitution in 1787 faced a major problem: how to decide the issue of representation and slavery in the new government. The Northern and Southern states had sharply different interests. Northern states, where slavery was less common, wanted representation in Congress to be based only on the free population. Southern states, with large enslaved populations, wanted to count enslaved people fully so they could have more political power in the House of Representatives.

This conflict led to intense debate at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Southern delegates argued that enslaved people should be included in the population count, even though enslaved people had no rights as citizens. Northern delegates thought this was unfair, since enslaved people could not vote or participate in government. The stakes were high: the outcome would determine the balance of power between North and South for years to come.

To solve this disagreement, the delegates agreed to a compromise. This agreement, known as the Three-Fifths Compromise, stated that each enslaved person would be counted as three-fifths of a person for both representation and taxation. The Constitution says, "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States... by adding to the whole Number of free Persons... three fifths of all other Persons." This meant that states with enslaved people would have more seats in Congress than if only free people were counted, but not as many as if enslaved people were fully counted.

The motivation for this compromise was political power. Southern states threatened not to join the new Union if their demands were not met. Northern states, eager for a strong national government, accepted the compromise, even though many felt it was morally wrong. This decision reveals the contradiction at the heart of the Constitution: the founders created a government built on liberty, yet allowed slavery to continue.

Different groups viewed this compromise in very different ways. White Southern leaders believed it protected their way of life and economic interests, since their wealth depended on enslaved labor. Many Northern leaders disliked slavery but were willing to make a deal. Enslaved people themselves had no voice in these debates, although some, like Frederick Douglass years later, would argue that the Constitution was "a compromise with death." This quote shows how the compromise deeply affected the lives and rights of millions.

The consequences of the Three-Fifths Compromise were lasting. It gave Southern states more influence in Congress and the presidency, allowing slavery to survive for decades. This increased tension between North and South and set the stage for future conflict, including the Civil War. The compromise solved the immediate problem of forming a union, but at the cost of justice for enslaved people.

Analyzing the Three-Fifths Compromise shows how history is shaped by difficult choices and competing interests. It reminds us that the Constitution was a product of both high ideals and serious flaws. By studying these complexities, we better understand the challenges of building a fair and lasting government.

Interesting Fact: The Three-Fifths Compromise was officially erased from the Constitution by the 14th Amendment in 1868, after the Civil War.

What year was the Constitution written?

Which group wanted enslaved people fully counted?

What ended the Three-Fifths Compromise?

Why did Northern states accept the compromise?

What effect did the compromise have?

What does the primary source quote show?

The compromise increased tension between North and South.

What does 'compromise' mean?