The authors of this book used data from official state and federal documents (circa 1850) to compare the condition of the slaveholding and non-slaveholding states as to territory, population, industry and wealth, education and intelligence, religious and moral advancement, and general progress.
The excerpt below addresses the relationship between population and congressional representation.
“five slaves are reckoned equal to three freemen”: Refers to the 3/5 clause in the US Constitution. The clause states that representation and taxation are based on population numbers, which are determined by counting free white people as one whole person and enslaved people as 3/5 of a person.
Invariably: Without variation or change; in every case; always or almost always.
The whole number of slaveholders in the Slave States, in 1850 …is less than 350,000, including females and minors. The number of voters in this class is therefore much smaller. But, counting them all as voters, they are less than the number of freemen who voted at the last Presidential election in New England, even without including Vermont. They are less than the number who voted in either Pennsylvania or Ohio, and less than two-thirds the number who voted in New York.
… The number of free inhabitants in the Slave States is 6,412,605, and in the Free States 13,434,686. The number of freemen in the Free States is, therefore, over 600,000 more than double the number in the Slave States.
The representation in Congress is, from the Slave States, ninety members, representing the 6,000,000; and from the Free States one hundred and forty-four, representing the 13,000,000. This discrepancy between population and representation arises from the fact that, in determining the number of representatives to which each State is entitled, five slaves are reckoned equal to three freemen. The 3,200,304 slaves, therefore, in the Slave States are reckoned equal to 1,920,1823 freemen, and are represented accordingly. The slaves of the South have, therefore, a representation equal to that of the Free States of New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Iowa, and Wisconsin.
Without the representation allowed to slave property, the number of representatives from the Slave States would be seventy-five, instead of ninety; and from the Free States one hundred and fifty-nine, instead of one hundred and forty-four; a gain of thirty in favor of the Free States, making their representation double that of the Slave States, even without the representation of Rhode Island, Wisconsin, California, and Iowa. (It will be seen that in the late severe contests in the House of Representatives, had freemen only been represented, the question would invariably have been decided in favor of the North.)
What conclusion do the authors draw about the connection between population numbers – free whites and enslaved people – and congressional representation?
One commentator of the day said that the authors’ findings “demonstrate beyond all doubt … that slavery, as an institution, viewed from whatever stand-point, is all that is implied by such terms as a cancer, plague-spot, a mildew, a curse ….” What do you think about the authors’ conclusion?
Refer to the “Slavery Clauses” in the US Constitution (Document 1). How did the Constitution continue to shape the problems referred to by the authors of this piece?
See Document 17 for a map of the enslaved population in 1860, ten years after this data was gathered.