Here's a review of the 3/5 compromise
"A fundamental economic and social division began to erupt over the issue of slavery. The southern, agriculturally based states relied heavily on slavery and slaves constituted a significant portion of their populations. The northern states opposed counting slaves for representation in government because they were not citizens and their population could easily be increased, tipping control of the federal legislature to the southern states"
Based on today's lesson regarding the 3/5 compromise, and your knowledge of social studies, respond to the questions below. You can post your responses, so you do not have to write them out on paper.
1. Was the 3/5 compromise the BEST possible solution in 1787 to the issue of slavery?
2. Do you think that the Constitution, by compromising on the slave trade and incorporating a fugitive slave clause, gave approval to slavery?
3. Is compromise over a moral issue like slavery ever justified? Can any human being ever be considered as less than a whole person? Why, or why not?
11 comments:
1. 3/5th of slaves counted as population in determining representation to the house of represenatives.
2. No, because they didnt have a choise in what they were doing.
3.No, a human cant be counted as less whole of a human because every one is equal and we all have the same rights in the united states.
~Alex RUIZ Period 3.
At the time, the 3/5 compromise was the best solution to count slaves as a population because the North belived that ALL slaves should be counted, while the South didn't think slaves should be. So to meet inbetween, they had to make a deal.
I think the 3/5 compromise helped the constitution with slavery but not eaxactly or right away.The reason for this is because at the congress in 1787 delegates were there to get more ideas to stop the slavery and the taxation in the north.As for the constitution letting compromises on slave trade in my opinion did let happen because after the congree meeting nothing happened right away.I think that no one can ever be untreated as a human beings like the slaves were treated, but I do believe that some how in the working world and just life, people are not going to like the other person not because of their personality ,their looks pretty much.
Jennine LaFurno
1)I think the 3/5ths compromise was good , because then each states would get what they want and there wouldnt be any problems .
2)Yes , because the fugitive slave law sent the runaway slaves back to where they came from , which sent them right back into slavery .
3)No , I dont think that anybody could be considered less then a whole person ,because race doesnt classify you as a person or not.
First , I think that the 3\5 compromise wasn't the best possible soulotion. Only because how do you count a whole person less than a person ? Even though they did do it i just dont think it is right for a person to not be considered a whole person.
~Alyssa M.
The 3/5 compromise was not the best idea. That is possibly worse than slavery because that says that only a piece of you counts as a citizen.
Alec Goldenberg
period 1
1. The 3/5 compromise is the best possible solution in 1787 to the issue of slavery because neither side considered giving enslaved people the right to vote.
southern states wanted to include the enslaved in their population counts to gain deligates in the house of representatives. northern states objected to this idea because they believed enslaved people were legally considered property.
2. I think that the constitution, by comprimising on the slave trade and ncorporating a fugitive slave clause gave approval to slavery because in order to keep the southern states in the nation, they had to not interfere with the slave trade because southern states considered slave trade essential to their economy.
3. i believe that compromise over a moral issue is never justified. no human being can be considered less than a whole person because everyone is equal and has their own natural rights.
I do not. It gave no clause for slavery.
Alec Goldenberg
Slavery is never justified. No human has the right to own another human.
1.i think the 3/5ths compromise was the best possible solution in 1787 to the issue of slavery.
2. i think the Constitution, by compromising on the slave trade and incorporating a fugitive slave clause, gave approval to slavery by giving them some count in the population, it was 50/50. They didn really count as much as people because they had no rights.
3.
In this case yes, slaves werent considered a whole person, but 3/5ths of a person.
1).i think the 3/5 compromise was not the best way to the issue of slavery in 1787. i think this because i beileve all the slaves should have been counted as population in the house of representatives 2).i beileve the Constitution hinted that slavery was not allowed , but didnt specificly say so.
3).something like slavery can never be compermised. i also beileve NO human being could EVER be considered anything less then that exactly , human. no matter what they did in the past we cant judge them as they are now.
Post a Comment