New Hampshire, 102,000 Massachusetts, 360,000 Rhode Island, 58,000 Connecticut, 202,000 New York, 238,000 New Jersey, 138,000 Pennsylvania, 360,000 Delaware, 37,000 ---------1,495,000 Maryland, including three fifths of 80,000 negroes, 218,000 Virginia, " " 280,000 " 420,000 North Carolina, " " 60,000 " 200,000 South Carolina, " " 80,000 " 150,000 Georgia, " " 20,000 " 90,000 ---------1,078,000 The authenticity of this table is established by referring to a speech made by General Pinckney in the legislature of South Carolina, in which he introduced and quoted it at length. (Elliot's Debates, IV. 283.) From this it appears that the estimated population of the eight Northern and Middle States, adopted in the Convention, was 1,495,000; that of the five Southern States (including three fifths of an estimated number of negroes) was 1,078,000. Comparing this estimate with the results of the first census, it will be seen that the _total_ population of the eight Northern and Middle States exceeds the _federal_ population of the five Southern States, in the census of 1790, in about the same ratio as the former exceeds the latter in the estimate employed by the Convention. Thus in 1790 the _total_ population of the eight Northern and Middle States, including all slaves, was 1,845,595; the _federal_ population of the five Southern States, including three fifths of the slaves, was 1,540,048;--excess 305,547. In the estimate of 1787, the population allotted to the eight Northern and Middle States was 1,495,000; that allotted to the five Southern States, counting only three fifths of the estimated number of slaves, was 1,078,000;--excess in favor of the eight States, 417,000. This calculation shows, therefore, that, in estimating the population of the different States for the purpose of adjusting the first representation in Congress, the Convention applied the rule of three fifths of the slaves to the five Southern States only, and that as to the other eight States no discrimination was made between the different classes of their inhabitants. Other methods of comparing the estimate of 1787 with the census of 1790 will lead to the same conclusion. FOOTNOTES: