Analyze The Arguments In Favour Of The Three Fifths

613 Words3 Pages
The three-fifths compromise was a system to determine state representation in Congress by counting each enslaved person as three-fifths of a person. Proposed in 1787 by James Wilson and Roger Sherman, it clearly showed the strength of the proslavery forces during the time of the United States Constitutional Convention. Since the Virginia Plan was rejected, the three-fifths compromise was enacted as a new framework for the government. The Southern states demanded more representation politically because their population was vastly increased due to slavery. The Northerners viewed one free man as one vote and one slave not counting as part of the population while the Southerners viewed one free man as one vote as well as one slave as one vote. As a result, an agreement was reached between the states of lower and higher slave population. During the proposition of the…show more content…
The Constitution and the Dred Scott case each viewed the three-fifths compromise from a different perspective in which one opposed and the other supported it. The Constitution declared for the distribution of political power among the states while the Dred Scott decision fought against it wanting slaves to be free. Both sources gave me a better understanding of the issue that is being debated and why it is so historically important. I agree with the Dred Scott case in terms of it fighting for freedom. There is a current issue being dealt with today similar to the political issue of the three-fifths compromise making it difficult to expand states. “California’s population is seventy times larger than Wyoming’s, but they have the same number of votes in the Senate.” This shows that representation issues are still being dealt with and are still of importance to this

More about Analyze The Arguments In Favour Of The Three Fifths

Open Document