Emory's President cites the 3/5 Compromie as a way to achieve goals:

[Are_grits_groceries]

<snip>
One instance of constitutional compromise was the agreement to count three-fifths of the slave population for purposes of state representation in Congress. Southern delegates wanted to count the whole slave population, which would have given the South greater influence over national policy. Northern delegates argued that slaves should not be counted at all, because they had no vote. As the price for achieving the ultimate aim of the Constitution—“to form a more perfect union”—the two sides compromised on this immediate issue of how to count slaves in the new nation. Pragmatic half-victories kept in view the higher aspiration of drawing the country more closely together.

Some might suggest that the constitutional compromise reached for the lowest common denominator—for the barest minimum value on which both sides could agree. I rather think something different happened. Both sides found a way to temper ideology and continue working toward the highest aspiration they both shared—the aspiration to form a more perfect union. They set their sights higher, not lower, in order to identify their common goal and keep moving toward it.

As I write this, our country’s fiscal conundrums invite our leaders to wrestle with whether they will compromise or hold fast to certain of their pledges and ideologies about the future of our nation’s economic framework. Whatever the outcome of this fiscal debate over the next months or years, the polarization of our day and the lessons of our forebears point to a truth closer to our university.

A university by its inclusiveness insists on holding opposing views in nonviolent dialogue long enough for common aspirations to be identified and for compromise to be engaged—compromise not understood as defeat, but as a tool for more noble achievement. The constitutional compromise about slavery, for instance, facilitated the achievement of what both sides of the debate really aspired to—a new nation.
<snip>
http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_MAGAZINE/issues/2013/winter/register/president.html

...smh...

[daybranch]

1. what an idiot

That 3/5 compromise was just another case of catering to the extremely wealthy and resulted eventually in the bloody Civil War. It alos gave each Southerner more individual voting power than individuals in the rest of the country. What an idiot rationalization, just made!!
Yes it set up a very imperfect union, one that kept many enslaved, kept the right to vote from women even though they had earlier enjoyed that right in New Jersey, and maintained the power of the wealthy.

[Recursion]

2. So there should have been no union?

Sorry, I can't agree with that. Slavery only was ended because of the Union, and there would have been no Union without that compromise.

[Are_grits_groceries]

3. The South was given greater representation

because of the greater population count. That 3/5 did not go to the slaves to vote. It went straight to the Southern legislators to give them more Representatives and thus more power in Congress.

In one fell swoop, Southern politicians were given more power and appeased at the expense of this slaves by declaring them by law as less than a whole person.

The Union was held together for a longer time by this compromise when it was an utterly untenable agreement. Slave states and anti-slave states would never reach a true agreement unless one gave in 100% to the other. The Union could not and would not last half-slave and half-free.

This is appeasement and not compromise. All it does is embolden those appeased to push for more and more.

[Recursion]

4. Again, there would not have been a union without it

If you think there should have been a union, you're stuck supporting the 3/5ths compromise.

[Bucky]

7. Again, if you look for facts instead of triggers for moral outrage, it's easier to understand this.

No one here is defending slavery. The slave holding states did make a number of concessions. Giving up the right to levy import taxes was going to hit them harder in those early years. They were producing the country's most valuable cash crop (tobacco) and would end up paying more for the manufactured goods once that import tax was levied. That was a direct protection for the manufacturers in the Northeastern states (whose goods were still significantly inferior to the goods being imported from Britain and other Western European states).

As a result of that cash flow, the Southern states had more stable currencies. Under the Constitution, they were giving up the right to issue currency and instead their tax paying ability would subsidize the fiscal solvency of the entire nation. In the early years of the Republic, Alexander Hamilton also pushed to have the federal government assume all the remaining war debts incurred by the 13 states separately during the Revolution. This also hit the Southern states harder, because they had mostly paid off their debts by 1790. So they were again fiscally bailing out the cash-strapped Eastern states.

It was a bargaining process and both sides gained as much as they gave up. It was not appeasement (that would come later in the 1840s as the slavery issue heated up and the free states became more fiscally solvent). It really was a compromise among parties and interests who had more to gain by splitting their differences. That's the spirit of the president's comments, even if he didn't pick the best example to apply.

[Dr. Strange]

5. Yeah, the faculty didn't care much for that.

http://www.emorywheel.com/faculty-letter-to-president-wagner/

[Bucky]

6. While not the best example to use, he basically got the facts right.

The southern states really did want slaves counted as full citizens for purposes of representation. Remember that the category "slave-holding states" included New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut, and even Rhode Island.

The 3/5s wasn't a random number, either. The 3:5 ratio was what the Congress under the Articles of Confederation government had used for determining how much money a state should pay to the federal government--based on the assumption that a slave didn't produce as much wealth as a free man (And why should he? Working harder wouldn't improve his lot in life).

The larger point is that the Founding Generation had a tradition in Congress of just splitting their differences and getting on with handling the people's business in good faith. In fact, that tradition generally continued up to about 20 years ago, when Republicans decided they wanted to pitch a hissy fit every time they didn't get their way.