Yes, the 3/5 was a condition AGAINS THE SLAVE HOLDING STATES.
Counting the slave holding states slave populations, on a one-to-basis, instead of 3/5ths, would have given a little greater representation in Congress to the slave holding states.
How much?
By 1860, this much:
The slave states total 1860 population was about 9.1 million, with about 5.5 million “free” and about 3.6 million slave. But due to the 3/5ths rule, the slave states population, for purposes of seats in Congress, would have been considered as only 7.69 million, instead of the 9.1 million, thus lowering their congressional representation accordingly.
(The 7.9 million is arrived at by using only 2.1 million for the slave population (3/5ths of the 3.6 million).
Yes, the 3/5ths measure was a good one. It was NOT a slant against the humanity of the slave, it was against the slave states, reducing their congressional representation BECAUASE their slaves did not enjoy freedom to represent themselves.
Bingo - since the slaves could not vote, their owners would be voting on their behalf, in their interests, not the interest of the slaves. . .sort of like how Congress is now treating voters when they pass legislation.