Introduction

Rich Addicks for The New York Times

Emory University students marched in anger last week over a decision that was reached more than 200 years ago. They were outraged, among other things, that the school’s president called the Constitution’s “three-fifths compromise” one of the “pragmatic half-victories” that assured the union.

Americans today are repulsed by the fact that the Constitution let each state’s House delegation be determined by adding all free citizens, except most Indians, and “three fifths of all other Persons.” Southerners wanted all slaves counted. Northerners thought none should be. The compromise let the South keep humans as property, increasing the region’s political power.

But did the framers have a choice? Could the compromise have been avoided? Would any other path have prevented a united United States or did the bargain only delay that division?