[ConservativeInPA]

by arguing that it was actually somehow anti-slavery.

It was exactly that. Quite simply it limited representation from pro-slavery states at the time when only white males could vote. If slaves were fully counted, then more representatives would come from the south, but fewer people would elected those representatives than in the north. It was a compromise required to have the south to enter the Union.

[semimojo]

If slaves were fully counted, then more representatives would come from the south, but fewer people would elected those representatives than in the north.

It was in no way anti-slavery. Slaves had no representation and should not have counted at all for apportionment.

The compromise gave the slave holders more representation than they should have had.