An Agreement To Count Slaves As Three Fifths
It is true that the idea of five-thirds does not fit the mantra “one person, one voice” of which the nation is proud. But the exact legal meaning of this sentence is still unclear, which is why the Supreme Court will reconsider it during the next term at Evenwel v. Abbott. In this case, it is the basis for determining the size of a district: should it be the total population or only the population of voters? Currently, a district with a considerable number of unable voters (children, undocumented immigrants, temporary military personnel) has these inhabitants among its population, thereby increasing the weight of its voters` ballots. (Of course, ridings with a small number of these unauthorized voters do not feel that the number of votes of their residents is lower.) In the U.S. Constitution, the three-fifths compromise is part of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution (1868) then replaced this clause and expressly annulled the compromise. After a controversial debate, the compromise that was finally agreed – “all people” having only three-fifths of their actual number, reduced the representation of slave states compared to the initial proposals, but improved them compared to the northern position. [16] An incentive for slave states to accept the compromise was its commitment to taxation in the same proportion, which also reduced the tax burden on slave states. One of the most widespread ways to defame the Constitution is by manipulating the perception of the three-fifths compromise. Agenda-driven academics and committed ideologues routinely explain that the U.S.
Constitution recognizes blacks as only three-fifths of a person. No context is specified. This lie, often repeated, fuels disrespect for the Constitution and contempt for the founders who drafted it. The three-fifths ratio was created by an amendment to the Articles of Confederation of 18 April 1783[4:112[5] The change should have changed the basis for determining the wealth of each state and thus its tax obligations, from real estate to the population, as a measure of the ability to produce wealth. The proposal of a congressional committee had proposed that taxes “be provided by the various colonies in relation to the number of inhabitants of all ages, genders, and qualities, with the exception of Indians who do not pay taxes.” [6]:51[7] The South immediately objected to this formula, as it would include slaves considered primarily as property in the calculation of the amount of taxes payable. . . .