This was posted to the Slavery list a while back and seems to fit here
as an appropriate cross-post.

Take care,

Bob

Judy and Bob Huddleston
10643 Sperry Street
Northglenn, CO  80234-3612
303.451.6376  [log in to unmask]


-----Original Message-----
From: The history of slavery, the slave trade, abolition and
emancipation [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steven Mintz
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 8:55 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Slavery and legislative apportionment

From: "Douglas Deal" <[log in to unmask]>

Re:

"none of the states counted slaves for state representation in 1787;
does
anyone know when the changes started?"

There must be some recent studies of this somewhere. I've consulted the
older studies by Fletcher Green and Charles Sydnor, as well as a couple
of
volumes of Thorpe's State Constitutions and can offer the following
summary re Maryland and North Carolina:

Maryland

1776 - Each county allocated the same number of reps in lower house
1837 - Amendment created a graduated scale of rep based on "federal
population"
1851 - Amendment created new graduated scale of rep based on [total]
"population"

Note: The "graduated scale" referred to was in each case a scheme that
allocated the smallest number of reps to the counties whose federal
population (or total) fell somewhere in the bottom range of the state
spectrum; one more rep to those in the next range; one more than than
that
to those in the next range; and one more to those in the top range (# of
reps per county in post-1837 legislature was 3, 4, 5, or 6)

North Carolina

1776 - Each county allocated same number of reps in lower house
1835 - Amendment changed basis of representation to "federal population"

In both cases, the states began with representation schemes that were
not
based on population per se but clearly favored older "eastern" counties
over
newer "western" ones that were growing faster but had fewer slaves.
This resulted in dominance of state government by wealthy elites and
established interests till the "reform" era of the 1820s-30s, when
constitutions were amended nearly everywhere to accommodate the calls
for
"democratization." In the case of apportionment, the reformers wanted
representation based on white population alone (the only true
"republican"
arrangement, they argued), while the old elites feared this would
undercut
their control (and maybe undercut slavery itself), so they managed to
push
through compromises that were based on that old 1787 compromise, the
"federal ratio."

The important point here is that this first explicit "counting of
slaves"
for the purposes of representation in these state legislatures was
actually
a *reform* that relaxed somewhat the control that slaveholding
minorities
had hitherto exercised over state politics. The earlier schemes
that did not mention slaves or population at all were in fact more
unequal
and biased in favor of slaveholding interests in these states.

Obviously, the progression from one scheme to another looked different
in
southern states that were formed later than these old southeastern
states.

I hope experts in state political and constitutional history will offer
corrections or additional details where needed.

Doug Deal
History/SUNY-Oswego

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html