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