So, sorry for any formatting errors, as I'm on my phone.
The other day a guy at my work was talking about "when black Americans counted as 3/5 of a person," and essentially condemning the notion as utterly racist in every way. My question comes in two parts- did free and/or land holding blacks count as 3/5 of a person as well, or was it specifically slaves? This seems to be an important distinction to me, because it seems like that would imply that the concept was more a result of economics than racial discrimination, unless I'm misunderstanding the purpose of the compromise.
As such, my second question actually pertains to my understanding of the compromise- was the 3/5 compromise actually a terrible thing for slaves, or was it in fact very important to slowing the spread of slavery? The reason I ask is because, and I may be misunderstanding or misremembering some core concepts here so please correct me where I'm wrong, it seems like the southern slave states were vastly less populated than the growing industrial centers of the north. As such, the northern states had more of a presence in the Federal Government. Thus, the Southern states made the argument that their slaves should count towards their total populations in regards to seats allocated in the government. However, if this were to be allowed southern interests, including the practice of slavery, would be furthered and would have a stronger base of support in the Federal Government. The Northern anti- slavery states couldn't allow this to happen, but also didn't quite have the ability to check the southern states and deny them any representation as a product of their slave populations. So, the compromise was created.
From this perspective the 3/5 compromise was actually a brilliant move in the ongoing battle to halt the spread of the practice of slavery. Am I misunderstanding the ideas behind these events, or is this a giant misconception that we're taught from the beginning of our education?
Also, I will add that I understand that there were many factors at play both politically and economically that led to the northern states wanting to halt the spread of, and/or abolish slavery, I'm just referring to the effects of the compromise in practice. Was it actually bad thing for the slaves, or was it a good thing?
The text you're asking about comes from article 1, section 2 of the Constitution, and it reads:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
So to answer your first question:
My question comes in two parts- did free and/or land holding blacks count as 3/5 of a person as well, or was it specifically slaves?
Slaves were the people counted in the 3/5 compromise; indentured servants (those bound to Service for a Term of Years) were counted as full members of the population, and native Americans not living what I suppose we'd call Western lifestyles (excluding Indians not taxed) weren't counted. Free blacks would be included in the "whole Number of free Persons."
As to your second question, I would say your understanding is basically correct -- the goal of the 3/5 compromise was for the slave states to have a larger number of representatives than their free populations would allow for, but not so many that they could have more representation than the free states would. As to whether it was good or bad for slaves themselves, I will defer to folks who are more expert in the time period.
From this perspective the 3/5 compromise was actually a brilliant move in the ongoing battle to halt the spread of the practice of slavery.
This compromise had nothing to do with halting the spread of slavery. By allowing the slaves to be counted, but not allowed to vote, it gave the slave holding states more political power per white person than from people from non-slave states. Slavery is being encouraged by reward of more powerful votes.