Compare And Contrast The Compromises Of The Framers

. Primarily, in unit 3 we will be talking about the disagreements between the north and the south at the convention, what parts of the constitution are the result of compromises that settles disagreements between the Northern and the southern states and why we think the the framers should have made these compromises. All of these topics are about the Northern and Southern states. There was a lot of conflict of conflict between the Northern and Southern states, but the framers did find a way to solve these problems.

They also “included the three-fifths clause which states that in deciding how many representatives a state could send to the house of representatives, the number would be determined by counting free persons, servants, in three-fifths of all other persons { slaves }. Congress was to use the same count for collecting taxes from the states”. Indians were excluded. Finally the framers agreed to include the fugitive slave clause which states that persons who escape from slavery to a state where slavery was prohibited “ shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due”. The compromise on slavery was designed to satisfy the demands of some of the southern states these states would not have supported the constitution without this agreement. I think that the framers should have not made the compromises because it was not fair to the slaves, it was possibly the only way to reach an This clause is evidence of the fact that the “Framers anticipated the possibility of evasions of the restrictions they created. The clause also seems to point to the vulnerability and unpopularity of the slave trade. If the trade had not been questioned, this clause may have never been included in the Constitution. In a way, it legitimized the future abolition of the slave trade. The provisions seem to hint to the fact that had the clause not been put there, Congress could have immediately abolished the trading of

The North should have been more aggressive when it came to the South in regards to slavery”. Another reason why the they shouldn’t done the compromises was because in Article IV, Section 2. This is the fugitive-slave clause which reads:“No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom Service or Labour may be due”.This clause explains that no person held in service (which implied slavery) or labor in one state, and under that state’s laws, can escape into another state and be relieved of his services. Even if a slave escapes to a free state with laws prohibiting slavery, he still must be returned to his rightful owner to whom he owes his services in the slave state. He is still a slave no matter where he is, as long as he belongs to his master. This point would later be discussed in the opinion of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision. This clause "...became the basis for the more notorious kind of federal intervention in behalf of the institution."this provided for the enforcement of returning slaves anywhere in the Union to their rightful master. The only reason why i disagree with this is because slaves should not be taken back to the people that they work for because it’s not fair they took the time to figure out their freedom, and