After the, "I think I might remember maybe..." one often wades through on
this site, now, this is an answer!
In a message dated 2/13/02 12:28:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
<< On April 2, 1783, Oliver Wolcott wrote from the Confederation Congress
meeting in
Philadelphia to Oliver Wolcott, Jr. that “Congress have agreed to recommend
to
the States to Alter the Article of Confederation respecting the precuniary
Quota,
being Apportioned to the States--so that all free Inhabitants including those
bound in Servitude for a limited Period, and three fifths of others under
different Descriptions Shall serve as a Principle upon which the Assessment
shall
be made and except Indians nor liable to pay Taxes by Law & Returns to be
made
triannually.”
See Paul H. Smith et al., eds., Letters of Delegates of Congress,
1774-1789,
vol 20 page 137-138, where Smith’s footnote reads “For this recommended
revision
of ‘the eighth of the Articles of Confederation,’ see Worthington C. Ford
et al.
eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 (34 vols. Washington:
Library of Congress, 1904-1937) vol 24: 222-224.
See also Smith ed LETTERS 20: 641 Rhode Island Delegates to Governor William
Greene, Sepr. 8th. 1783:
“By a resolve of Congress of the 18th of April last a proposition has gone
forth
to the States to alter the 8th article of confœderation. It is proposed to
alter
the rule for apportioning the public expence from that of "the value of all
lands, buildings and improvements therein" to that of "the whole number of
white
and other free citizens and inhabitants of every age, sex and condition
including
those bound to servitude for a term of years, and three fifths of all other
persons not comprehended in the foregoing discription except Indians not
paying
taxes in each State."
See also Smith ed LETTERS 22: 586ff David Howell to William Greene, Aug. 23,
1785:
“It has been & still is my private opinion that the whole, instead of three
fifths of the Blacks ought to have been taken into the estimation. In that
case
the rule might have approached so nearly to justice as to have been
admissible,
especially as it has a superior facility in Execution: But whether it ought
not
even as it is to be adopted in preference to no rule—or the hazard of delay &
embarrassment in all our pecuniary operations is a question of policy &
which is,
in my humble opinion, entitled to a very serious consideration. I am happy
that I
shall be readily pardoned for not giving my advice on this Subject.
An attention to the actual Situation & population of the Southern States
where
the blacks are most numerous will suggest a probability that in time the
proposed
rule of apportionment will become less objectionable. After you leave the Sea
cost, the moist & intervail lands near the mouth of the great rivers & pass
on
westward towards the mountains & more especially over the mountains
westward, the
lands are cultivated by white people, whose method of life & manners are
similar
to the middle & northern States, from which they are mostly supplied with
settlers. So that the number of blacks compared with the whites even in those
States will probably diminish in future. And for the sake of humanity this is
greatly to be desired. Should a wise policy discontinue the importation of
blacks
their ratio to the whites will on this account also diminish—And even the
ratio
of the States, in which the blacks are numerous, to the aggregate of the U.
States will gradually diminish as the tide of population rolls westward & new
States arise peopled from Europe where the Slavery of the blacks is unknown,
or
from the northern States where it is reprobated. On all these accounts the
proposed rule of quotaing the States will probably in future approximate to
justice.”
See also Smith ed LETTERS 23: 77ff South Carolina Delegates to Governor
William
Moultrie, December 27th. 1785”
“Resolutions of the 20th February 1782, 17th Febry. & 18th April 1783—for
fixing
a rule to apportion the Federal expences & for altering the 8th Article of
the
Confederation.
The fixing a rule whereby the expences of the federal Government may be
absolutely apportioned to each State, would be of the 18th April
1783—because, we
conceive it will operate more beneficially for us than the article as it now
stands, & being less complex would meet with fewer difficulties in the
execution;
our Eastern & Northern Brethren think the Southern States have been much
favored
in this mode, saying, that the whole number of blacks ought to have been
taken
instead of three fifths; upon the whole we feel ourselves strongly inclined
to
press the House to an immediate compliance with the alteration, but should
their
opinion be different from ours, it will then become necessary for them to Act
upon the other.”
My point (perhaps too hastily expressed in the earlier post) is that when
the
Philadelphia convention met, the 3/5s ratio was already a familiar formula.
So
much so that according to the index entries under “Slave representation,
three-fifths,” in Max Farrand ed. Records of the Federal Convention (5 vols.,
Yale Univ Press, 1930s) the 3/5 ratio appeared in the Pinckney plan, the
Virginia
plan, the New Jersey plan, and Hamilton’s unpresented plan.
--
Jon Kukla
1250 Red Hill Road
Brookneal, Virginia 23528
434 376-4172
Richard E. Dixon wrote:
> In a message dated 2/12/2002 12:41:21 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> > The 3/5s formula adopted in the Phila convention for
> > representation was based on percentage already in use by the
Confederation
> > Congress
> > to assess state quotas for support of the national government.
> > After adoption of the Constitution, the advantage deriving to southern
> > states was a
> > sore spot with many New Englanders -
> The only formulas that I find in the Articles of Confederation are for the
> cost of the war allocated by "the value of all land" in a state(Art VIII),
> and the cost of the "national government" (the administration of the
> Congress), based on the "number of white inhabitants" (Art IX). I don't
have
> Ames handy, but how would "state quotas" allow a different formula, i.e.,
the
> 3/5ths rule?
> _____________________________________________________________________
> >>
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|