The lifting of the compromise gave more representation to the South, since the members of the former black population, formerly enslaved, were now fully counted. Nevertheless, this population continued to be denied the full value of citizenship. The South passed laws such as “grandfather clauses” that were supposed to deprive blacks of their rights, while their population gave them more influence in Congress. The additional voting rights have given the Southern states not only more seats in the House of Representatives, but also more votes. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) later replaced Article 1, Section 2, paragraph 3, and expressly repealed the compromise. It provides that “representatives… census of the total number of people in each country, with the exception of non-taxed Indians. A subsequent provision of the same clause reduced the representation of states in Congress that denied adult men the right to vote, but this provision was never effectively enforced.  (The Thirteenth Amendment, passed in 1865, had already excluded almost all persons from the jurisdiction of the original clause by prohibiting slavery; the only remaining persons subject to it were those who were sentenced to a crime, which was excluded from the prohibition by the amendment).) The proposal to count slaves in three-fifths was first proposed on 11 June and was proposed by nine states with only a brief debate. :143-4 It was discussed at length between 9 and 13 July (including) when it was rejected six to four by the present members of the Convention.   Some delegates from the South, who saw an opportunity, then proposed a complete representation of their slave population; Most states voted “no.”   As states did not agree to count slaves as five-fifths, without any kind of compromise, the three-fifths ratio was brought back to the table and agreed by eight states for two.
:416 Including three-fifths of slaves (who did not have the right to vote) in the legislative division, the three-fifths compromise provided additional representation in the House of Representatives of slave states over free states. In 1793, for example, the slave states of the South had 47 of the 105 seats, but would have allocated 33 seats on the basis of free populations. In 1812, the slave states had 76 out of 143 instead of the 59 they would have had; 1833 98 seats out of 240 instead of 73. As a result, the southern states had additional influence over the presidency, the spokesman for the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court until the American Civil War.  Moreover, the insistence of the Southern States on the same number of slave and free states maintained until 1850 protected the southern bloc of the Senate as well as the votes of the Electoral College. David Gans is Director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights and Citizenship Program at the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and law firm. The Express News published a column of him on last year`s constitutional requirements (“Count All Persons, as required by the Constitution, March 10) in which he stated that “someone who has been enslaved would be counted as three-fifths of a person” in order to determine representation in Congress. Members of Congress in other regions have tried to reduce voting rights in the South because blacks have been disenfranked, but a 1900 proposal to do so never came to fruition. Ironically, this is because the South had too much representation in Congress to allow for change. Until the 1960s, the Southern Democrats, known as Dixiecrats, continued to have disproportionate power in Congress.
This power was based in part on the black inhabitants, counted for representation, but prevented from voting by grandfather clauses and other laws that threatened their livelihoods and even their lives. The Teniecrates used the power they had in Congress to block attempts to make the South a fairer place.