You KNOW that wasn't true. The article is dealing
with the apportionment of representatives in Congress. The South, for purpose of that
apportionment, wanted to count all slaves held
by landowners in the South as full people for
purposes of representation ONLY. If the Noth
had agreed to the South's demand for full
representation of slaves as persons, the Southern apportionment of taxes, and the representation in the Congress, would over-
whelm the North. By the way, the clause you mention says 'all persons bound to service for
a term of years,' which meant that white inden-\
tured servants would be considered only 3/5
of a person as well. This was not descriptive
as a permanent rule for blacks in general, but
only for this particular case. People of color,
of all races and creeds, were considered by
the North to be fully human persons.
It can also be demonstrated that only 3/5ths of the census value of 'other persons'would count
for purposes of apportionment and
representation. The language of the article is
dealing ONLY with the NUMBER, NOT the
people themselves
See:
https://www.theusconstitution.org/news/understanding-the-three-fifths-compromise/