How the Three-Fifths Compromise Changed U.S. History (2024)

The three-fifths compromise was an agreement reached by the state delegates at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Under the compromise, every enslaved American would be counted as three-fifths of a person for taxation and representation purposes. This agreement gave the Southern states more electoral power than they would have had if the enslaved population had been ignored entirely.

Key Takeaways: The Three-Fifths Compromise

The three-fifths compromise was an agreement, made at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, that allowed Southern states to count a portion of its enslaved population for purposes of taxation and representation.
The agreement allowed the enslavement of Black people to spread and played a role in the forced removal of Indigenous peoples from their lands.
The 13th and 14th Amendments effectively repealed the three-fifths compromise.

Origins of the Three-Fifths Compromise

At the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the founders of the United States were in the process of forming a union. Delegates agreed that the representation each state received in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College would be based on population, but the issue of slavery was a sticking point between the South and the North.

The Three-Fifths Compromise in the Constitution

First introduced by James Wilson and Roger Sherman on June 11, 1787, the three-fifths compromise counted enslaved people as three-fifths of a person. This agreement meant that the Southern states got more electoral votes than if the enslaved population hadn’t been counted at all, but fewer votes than if the enslaved population had been fully counted.

The text of the compromise, found in Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution, states:

How the Compromise Affected Politics in the 19th Century

The three-fifths compromise had a major impact on U.S. politics for decades to come. It allowed pro-slavery states to have a disproportionate influence on the presidency, the Supreme Court, and other positions of power. It also resulted in the country having a roughly equal number of states that opposed and favored enslavement. Some historians contend that major events in U.S. history would have had opposite outcomes were it not for the three-fifths compromise, including:

The election of Thomas Jefferson in 1800;
The Missouri Compromise of 1820, which allowed Missouri to enter the Union as a pro-slavery state.
The Indian Removal Act of 1830, in which Indigenous peoples were forcibly removed from their land.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which allowed residents to determine for themselves whether they wanted to allow the enslavement of Black people in their territories.

Altogether, the three-fifths compromise had a detrimental impact on vulnerable populations, such as the enslaved and the nation’s Indigenous peoples. The enslavement of Black people may have been kept in check rather than allowed to spread without it, and fewer Indigenous peoples may have had their way of life upended, to tragic results, by removal policies. The three-fifths compromise allowed the states to unite, but the price was harmful government policies that continued to reverberate for generations.

Repeal of the Three-Fifths Compromise

The 13th Amendment of 1865 effectively gutted the three-fifths compromise by outlawing the enslavement of Black people. But when the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, it officially repealed the three-fifths compromise. Section 2 of the amendment states that seats in the House of Representatives were to be determined based on “the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."

The repeal of the compromise gave the South more representation, since the members of the formerly enslaved Black population were now counted fully. Yet, this population continued to be denied the full benefits of citizenship. The South enacted laws such as “grandfather clauses” meant to disenfranchise Black people, even as their population gave them more influence in Congress. The additional voting power not only gave Southern states more seats in the House but more electoral votes, too.

Congress members from other regions sought to reduce the South's voting power because Black people were being stripped of their voting rights there, but a 1900 proposal to do so never materialized. Ironically, this is because the South had too much representation in Congress to allow for a switch. Until as recently as the 1960s, Southern Democrats, known as Dixiecrats, continued to wield a disproportionate amount of power in Congress. This power was based in part on the Black residents, who were counted for the purposes of representation but who were prevented from voting through grandfather clauses and other laws that threatened their livelihoods and even their lives. The Dixiecrats used the power they had in Congress to block attempts to make the South a more equitable place.

Eventually, however, federal legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would thwart their efforts. During the civil rights movement, Black Americans demanded the right to vote and ultimately became an influential voting bloc. They have helped a slew of Black political candidates get elected in the South and nationally, including the nation’s first Black president, Barack Obama, demonstrating the significance of their full representation.

Sources

Henretta, James, and W. Elliot Brownlee, David Brody, Susan Ware, and Marilynn S. Johnson. America's History, Volume 1: to 1877. New York: Worth Publishers, 1997. Print.
Applestein, Donald. “The Three-Fifths Compromise: Rationalizing the Irrational.” National Constitution Center, Feb. 12, 2013.
“Indian Removal: 1814-1858.” PBS.org.
Philbrick, Steven. “Understanding the Three-Fifths Compromise.” San Antonio Express-News, Sept. 16, 2018.