270
The Achievement of the Philadelphia Convention
Some subjects roused serious debate, particularly the matter of slavery, which greatly complicated questions concerning the basis of direct
taxation and of representation. The system of requisitions—State contributions to the Federal treasury upon request—that prevailed under the
Confederation might be continued, but how should those requisitions be
allocated among the States? Oddly, there was no distinct recognition that
the normal basis of representation ought to be persons, and that the normal basis of taxation ought to be wealth. It was finally decided, however,
that both representatives and direct taxes should be apportioned among
the several States according to population. The larger the population the
greater the number of representatives. As a concession to the southern
States, the population to be counted included three-fifths of the slave
population, even though slaves were not entitled to vote.
The inclusion of three-fifths of the slaves constituted the so-called
‘‘Three-Fifths Compromise.’’ There was some objection to it in the Convention, but the issue was not vigorously challenged there or in the
State ratifying conventions. This adjustment, in fact, had already been
suggested in the Confederation Congress, and it was not altogether
strange or novel to the delegates.
Although the question of slavery would later bring about disunion
and civil war, in 1787 it was overshadowed by other considerations. Of
paramount concern to the delegates was the desperate need to reach a
compromise on a great variety of issues and to develop a consensus sufficient to persuade the delegates and the State ratifying conventions to
endorse the final draft of the Constitution. Far more troublesome than
slavery was the jealousy between the large States and the small States—
a jealousy that reached back to the Revolutionary War period and that,
had it been aroused by a prohibition against slavery, would probably
have made Union impossible.
This jealousy was based not on differences between free States and
slave States, as would later be the case, but upon political, cultural, and
economic factors. Among the delegates, there were slaveholders from the
North as well as the South. We noted earlier, in fact, that nearly all of
the States in 1787 had slaves, and that the opponents of slavery were not
confined to any particular State. Some of the New England delegates—
Rufus King of Massachusetts, in particular—objected to having the Con-