The Republican nominee for lieutenant governor in Virginia is a real piece of work. He’s the first person I’ve seen argue that the three-fifth’s compromise in the Constitution was an anti-slavery provision.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
“All other Persons” means slaves. Negroes. Black folks. The South wanted them counted for Census purposes so that they could have more members in the House and thereby could better protect the institution of slavery. The North didn’t want them counted at all, since they couldn’t vote. Thus, the compromise.
Ironically, under the Articles of Confederation, when the issue was solely about taxation, the North and South took the opposite sides in the debate. The North wanted slaves counted and the South did not. But when it came to representation in Congress, the South was willing to take the extra tax burden in order to have more power. And it worked.
The three-fifths ratio, or “Federal ratio”, had a major effect on pre-Civil War political affairs due to the disproportionate representation of slaveholding states relative to voters. For example, in 1793 slave states would have been apportioned 33 seats in the House of Representatives had the seats been assigned based on the free population; instead they were apportioned 47. In 1812, slaveholding states had 76 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 instead of 73. As a result, it dominated the Presidency, the Speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War.
So, E.W. Jackson, who happens to be black, has a very interesting interpretation of the Three-Fifths Compromise. He appears to be insane.