Free persons, including free servants, plus three-fifths of “other persons,” excluding indians. For purposes of representation in the house and direct taxation. A direct tax is imposed directly upon property according to its value. A property or ad valorem tax. Of course, the Slave States gained an advantage because no such tax was ever imposed on property by Congress. After the Civil War, the category of “other persons” disappeared.
That’s right.
When the 3/5th’s rule was implemented for the purposes of taxation the south squealed. They didn’t want their blacks to be a part of the count (and thus the apportioned tax). For the purposes of taxation the south didn’t want the blacks to hold any value at all.
But for the purposes of representation they were again angry because this time they wanted their blacks to be counted as a whole person - but without a single human right of course.
It’s funny how the slavers managed to run their hypocrisy both ways.
I've never seen a discussion of the Constitution's "direct tax" provision, or what it specifically had to do with the 3/5 rule.
Perhaps it was considered then as a potential emergency war-time measure to quickly raise funds for national defense?
In any case it was never used, so far as I know.
The Constitution Convention debates leading to the 3/5 compromise had more to do with Northerners claiming they too wanted to count "property", so how about their livestock and furniture?
The bottom line is: slave-holders insisted they must have both Constitutional protections for slavery and representative advantages for slave-holders, while non-slave delegates were willing to settle for Union and a vague hope for slavery to eventually die out.