But it wasn’t the slaves who benefited from it. The benefit of representation only went to the slave owners. There was no incentive for a legislator to serve a population that cannot vote, and the added representation was for the slave owners not for the slave. It was actually more harmful to the slave than if he hadn’t been “represented” at all. It was also an attack on the legal representation of those opposed to slavery because it used stolen representation to dilute the voting power of legal antislavery citizens.
It was a negotiated settlement with respect to a real issue between sovereign states.
Rewrite history much, p?
Of course the slaves didn’t benefit from the extra representation, that is why the north didn’t want to count slaves at all (contrary to the idiots who decry the 3/5th compromise as demeaning to blacks). My point was that the census is required to count all persons, not all citizens.
by counting the slaves however, the slave states increased their representation in the house.