I have exhaustively read the history. Perhaps you misunderstand my presentation. Or perhaps you choose to view the compromise from a purely Southern point of view.

Representation was apportioned according to free, legal persons. The slaveowners argued for representation according to total (free and non-free) population, specifically including slaves, to increase their presence in Congress and the electoral system. The compromise was struck to mitigate disproportionate representation on the basis of counting the slave population who secured no rights as persons, but allowed greater place at the legislative and electoral table.

The compromise can hardly be called a Northern initiative, as it was, specifically a compromise. The South increased its representation 3/5 more than the North wished it to have. During debates for amending the Articles of Confederation, the North wanted to increase the South's burden of taxes, while the South wanted to diminish it. During the Constitutional Convention, however, the greater interest was found in the Southern states' desire to have greater proportional representation that did not exclude slaves (they were both property not deserving of recognition as legal persons, but human beings which the South believed entitled them to greater representation).