No. It was in the Constitution as originally written. The 3/5 compromise was made because if slaves had counted as full population, the Southern states would have dominated the House of Representatives. Northerners didn't want slaves to count at all because they couldn't vote.
Thus the compromise, which has nothing to do with the Missouri Compromise. That was the agreement to allow Missouri into the Union as a slave state, but that any new states admitted had to not tip the balance in the Senate. So Maine was admitted at the same time as Missouri.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act basically only allowed future slave states below the Mason-Dixon line.
Isn't that a Dominion program?
No. It was in the Constitution as originally written. The 3/5 compromise was made because if slaves had counted as full population, the Southern states would have dominated the House of Representatives. Northerners didn't want slaves to count at all because they couldn't vote.
Thus the compromise, which has nothing to do with the Missouri Compromise. That was the agreement to allow Missouri into the Union as a slave state, but that any new states admitted had to not tip the balance in the Senate. So Maine was admitted at the same time as Missouri.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act basically only allowed future slave states below the Mason-Dixon line.
If the goal was to not tip the balance in the Senate, does that mean adding Puerto Rico and DC would be unconstitutional?