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?
> _____________________________________________________________________
>
> Richard E. Dixon
> 12106 Beaver Creek Road
> Clifton, VA 12104-2115
> 703-830-8177
> fax 703-691-0978
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

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