The Three-fifths Compromise was a compromise reached among state delegates during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. Delegates disputed whether and how slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population, as this number would determine a state's number of seats in the House of Representatives and how much it would pay in taxes. The compromise counted three out of every five slaves as people...

In the US Constitution, the Three-fifths Compromise is part of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3:

    Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [italics added].[2]

> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Is the complaint that we haven’t erased the slavery related stuff from the record?

What has this got to do with people being racist now?

A Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964.

Civil Rights Acts were also passed in 1866, 1871, 1875, 1957, 1960, 1968, and 1991.

But the passage of a Civil Rights Act is not, in and of itself, an indication of the end of systemic racism.

Systemic racism is rampant in every country I have lived in, the US included.

But you are changing the subject.

The question is about why it matters that it was once part of the constitution if it is no longer?

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

> Our (non-higher) education system in the US is nothing to be proud of and wildly inconsistent at best.

I guess I am conflating the history of slavery in the US with racism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States

At the time of writing the constitution, slavery was expressly racist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamestown_Polish_craftsmen#Str...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1619_Jamestown_craftsmen_strik...

The Jamestown craftsmen's strike of 1619 took place in the settlement of Jamestown in the Virginia colony.[1] It was the first documented strike in North America.[2] Skilled craftsmen were sent by the Virginia Company to Jamestown to produce pitch, tar, and turpentine used for shipbuilding.[3] When the colony held its first election in 1619, many settlers were not allowed to vote on the grounds that they were not of English descent, and they went on strike.[2] Due to the importance of the skilled workers in producing valuable naval stores for the colony, company leaders bowed to labor pressure and gave full voting rights to continental workers.[1]

I wonder if you could tell us, GP, which states wanted that number to be one and which wanted it to be zero?

Of course slaves weren’t allowed to vote, and 3/5ths meant that the South would get more representation as recognition of the economic strength they were bringing to the union.

It’s not like the Northern vs Southern states were arguing about whether a slave’s vote was worth 0, 3/5, or 1. This was about ascribing more (or less) power to slave owners.

The south wanted 1, the north wanted 0.

The 3/5 compromise was one of the forces that eventually brought about the end of slavery. It didn’t increase the south’s representation, it decreased it.

What I’m saying is that it “increased” the representation versus 0. Which is equivalent to your formulation that it “decreased” the representation from 1. In other words, 3/5 is more than zero and less than 1. No disagreement here.

My point is that it wasn’t about giving rights to black people, it was an argument about how much representation slave owners would have.