I don’t think it’s that “three fifths” is the only bad part per se, it just gets referenced a lot because it is a really indefensible example of how enslaved people were considered less than a person. So much so that here it is codified as a fraction of a person. Very in your face sort of language.
I think although very vivid language it is quite defensible for the reasons Kuni mentioned: in the only context where slaves were actually defined as 3/5 of a person, all they could do was allow their masters to extract extra value through representation from them, as they did not get representation for being counted towards House representation.
I don’t think it’s that “three fifths” is the only bad part per se, it just gets referenced a lot because it is a really indefensible example of how enslaved people were considered less than a person. So much so that here it is codified as a fraction of a person. Very in your face sort of language.
I think although very vivid language it is quite defensible for the reasons Kuni mentioned: in the only context where slaves were actually defined as 3/5 of a person, all they could do was allow their masters to extract extra value through representation from them, as they did not get representation for being counted towards House representation.