The 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia aimed at revising the Articles of Confederation in order to serve a better preservation of the union. However, the mandate of the Convention could not be restricted to the introduction of amendments only. It led to substantial changes that continue to form the foundations of modern American democracy. There were many axis of conflict, as the readings rightly suggest.
However, whether peaceful or violent, attempts aimed at altering the status quo have always been about power. The arguments in the Constitutional Convention were no exception to this. They revolved around one issue, the distribution of power at different levels. This becomes obvious if we analyze the debates around the issue of representation and the question of participation in the government decision making, which at the end of the day, comes down to the extent of power that one person, one group, one race, one community or one state exercises with the purpose of influencing the government decisions. Representation therefore, can be seen as a bridge that connects those who exercise power with the ends of the exercise of power. And it was in the light of this informed intent that some of the participants of the Philadelphia Convention demonstrated a pattern of political behavior with the aim of achieving certain political goals, through a political proposal, the 3/5th Compromise (1790-1820).
While one might argue the contrary, in particular considering the then commonly held view against voting rights for the slaves[1], and suggest humane and equality driven concepts and basis for the Compromise, it is not easy to ignore the at least initial Southern advantage involved in it, who happened to be its prime supporters.
According to the Three-Fifth Compromise, of every five slaves three of them would be counted as legitimate population towards the apportionment of the House of Representatives. This meant that a large population of slaves, who otherwise would have not been counted at all towards securing votes for election to the House of Representatives, was now to be counted, obviously in favor of the candidates from those regions. It is important to note that in the late 18th century, over 90% of slaves in America lived in the Southern states, where they made 30% of the population[2].
Later developments proved that the informed intent of southerners who supported the compromise was not that ill informed. Many including Garry Wills argue that the agrarian nature of south by virtue of which the region lagged behind could not have been safeguarded against the northern evils of commerce, banking and production without such a proposal[3]. A comparison of the 38% seats of southern states in the Continental Congress, to their 45% seats in the first US Congress of 1790 indicates towards the impact that the 3/5th compromise had[4].
While I was trying to find figures to support or reject what I am thinking, I came across the debate about whether American founding fathers were racist. I don’t know how did this debate conclude, but I don’t believe such a conclusion could be drawn from the idea of 3/5th. It was not being racist, but simply being political in a war zone where the only language spoken and understood is that of power and the only relations are power relations.
[1] Alexander Keyssar, the Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States, (Basic Books, 2009). P 45
[2] Donald L. Robinson, Slavery in the Structure of American Politics: 1765-1820, (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971) p. 4
[3] Peter Robinson, A Slave to the System? Thomas Jefferson and Slavery, in discussion with Jack Rakove and Garry Wills, January 19, 2004, http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uncommon-knowledge/27007
[4] http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu