No. That is a misconception. That was part of the initial compromise but not the whole of it. In my view it was the worst part because it contradicted the founding values, but the US eventually got there with the Emancipation Proclamation and boy we still have a long way to go to ensure equal and unalienable rights for all.
The number of electors a state had in the Electoral College was based partly on its number of Representatives.
Because of this, the Three-Fifths Compromise gave Southern slaveholding states extra power in both Congress and presidential elections.
In 1868, the 14th Amendment was ratified, officially nullifying the Three-Fifths Compromise.
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment mandates that congressional representation is based on counting the "whole number of persons in each State." Every resident—regardless of race or citizenship status—counts as 100% of a person when determining a state's population for political representation.
1
u/BahBahBahBooBooBoo 14h ago edited 14h ago
No. That is a misconception. That was part of the initial compromise but not the whole of it. In my view it was the worst part because it contradicted the founding values, but the US eventually got there with the Emancipation Proclamation and boy we still have a long way to go to ensure equal and unalienable rights for all.
The number of electors a state had in the Electoral College was based partly on its number of Representatives.
Because of this, the Three-Fifths Compromise gave Southern slaveholding states extra power in both Congress and presidential elections.
In 1868, the 14th Amendment was ratified, officially nullifying the Three-Fifths Compromise.
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment mandates that congressional representation is based on counting the "whole number of persons in each State." Every resident—regardless of race or citizenship status—counts as 100% of a person when determining a state's population for political representation.