[RobbyS]

The irony is that without the 3/5 rule, the South gained presentation, which is why the Northern delegates supported the old “federal proportion,” for purposes of direct taxes and representation.

[BroJoeK]

RobbyS: "The irony is that without the 3/5 rule, the South gained presentation, which is why the Northern delegates supported the old “federal proportion,” for purposes of direct taxes and representation."

I suspect you've just mis-stated what you intended to say.

In fact, the Constitution's 3/5 rule provided slave-holding states with many more representatives than their white populations alone could justify.

That's the root-source of the term "Slave Power" -- the South's increased political power in Federal Government resulting from owning millions of slaves.

In 1787, non-slave states only supported the 3/5's rule grudgingly, as a compromise to entice Southern states to join the Union.

But any suggestion that slaves somehow caused Southern states to pay higher Federal taxes is just ludicrous propaganda.