Ch. 2.1. Primary Source: The Apportionment Clause Debated (May 30; June 11)

From May 30 onwards the debates began to zero on the conceptual and terminological problem of who or what should be counted to make representation “proportional,” i.e., reflective of each state’s size or importance.

On June 11 James Wilson of Pennsylvania introduced what would eventually become, after much more discussion and some editing, the wording of the apportionment clause (C1.2.3). Wilson’s initial proposal already included the three-fifths clause, which counted each slave as three-fifths of a free person for the purposes of calculating the number of each state’s representatives.

As Wilson briefly notes, this ratio had already been discussed in the Confederation Congress. It was proposed in April, 1783, as part of an amendment to Article VIII in order to make population, rather than land values, the basis for estimating each state’s contribution to federal expenses; the amendment fell two states short of the unanimous approval that was needed and it was dropped.

Debate Stalls. Because of disagreements among states with divergent interests, the question of how to apportion representatives in the lower house remained unresolved for more than three weeks after Wilson’s proposal.

Wed., MAY 30

The following Resolution, being the second of those proposed by  Mr. RANDOLPH [VA], was taken up, viz. “that the rights of suffrage in the National Legislature ought to be proportioned to the quotas of contribution, or to the number of free inhabitants, as the one or the other rule may seem best in different cases.”

Mr. MADISON [VA], observing that the words “or to the number of free inhabitants,” might occasion debates which would divert the Committee from the general question whether the principle of representation should be changed, moved that they might be struck out.

Mr. KING [MA] observed, that the quotas of contribution, which would alone remain as the measure of representation, would not answer; because, waiving every other view of the matter, the revenue might hereafter be so collected by the General Government that the sums respectively drawn from the States would not appear, and would besides be continually varying.

Mr. MADISON [VA] admitted the propriety of the observation, and that some better rule ought to be found.

Colonel HAMILTON [NY] moved to alter the resolution so as to read, “that the rights of suffrage in the National Legislature ought to be proportioned to the number of free inhabitants.”  Mr. SPAIGHT [NC] seconded the motion.

It was then moved that the resolution be postponed; which was agreed to.

Mon., JUNE 11

Mr. Sherman [CT] proposed, that the proportion of suffrage in the first branch should be according to the respective numbers of free inhabitants; and that in the second branch, or Senate, each State should have one vote and no more. He said, as the States would remain possessed of certain individual rights, each State ought to be able to protect itself; otherwise, a few large States will rule the rest. The House of Lords in England, he observed, had certain particular rights under the Constitution, and hence they have an equal vote with the House of Commons, that they may be able to defend their rights.

Mr. RUTLEDGE [SC] proposed, that the proportion of suffrage in the first branch should be according to the quotas of contribution. The justice of this rule, he said, could not be contested.

Mr. BUTLER [SC] urged the same idea; adding, that money was power; and that the States ought to have weight in the government in proportion to their wealth.

Mr. KING [MA] and Mr. WILSON [PA], in order to bring the question to a point, moved, “that the right of suffrage in the first branch of the National Legislature ought not to be according to the rule established in the Articles of Confederation, but according to some equitable ratio of representation.” The clause, so far as it related to suffrage in the first branch, was postponed, in order to consider this motion…

It was then moved by Mr. RUTLEDGE [SC], seconded by Mr. BUTLER [SC], to add to the words, “equitable ratio of representation,” at the end of the motion just agreed to, the words “according to the quotas of contribution.”

On motion of Mr. WILSON [PA], seconded by Mr. PINCKNEY [SC], this was postponed; in order to add, after the words, “equitable ratio of representation,” the words following: “in proportion to the whole number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants of every age, sex and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term of years, and three-fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians not paying taxes, in each State” — this being the rule in the act of Congress, agreed to by eleven States [in 1783], for apportioning quotas of revenue on the States, and requiring a census only every five, seven, or ten years.

Mr. GERRY [MA] thought property not the rule of representation. Why, then, should the blacks, who were property in the South, be in the rule of representation more than the cattle and horses of the North?

On the question, — Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye — 9; New Jersey, Delaware, no — 2.