All categories

3 years ago

The Great Compromise and the Three-Fifths Compromise both focused on

History

2 answers:

Nostrana [21]3 years ago

8 0

Answer: the representation of states in Congress.

<em>The Great Compromise and the Three-Fifths Compromise both focused on </em><em>the representation of states in Congress.</em>

Both of these compromises were devised during the United States Constitutional Convention in 1787. The Great Compromise resolved a dispute between small population states and large population states. The large population states wanted representation in Congress to be based on a state's population size. The smaller states feared this would lead to unchecked dominance by the big states; they wanted all states to receive the same amount of representation. The Great Compromise created a bicameral (two-chamber) legislature. Representation in the House of Representatives would be based on population. In the Senate, all states would have the same amount of representation, by two Senators.

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a way of accounting (somewhat) for the population of slaves in states that permitted slavery. For taxation and representation purposes, the question was whether slaves should count in the population figures. (They were not considered voting citizens at that time.) The Three-Fifths Compromise said that three out of every five slaves could be counted when determining a state's population size for determining how many seats that state would receive in the House of Representatives.

VashaNatasha [74]3 years ago

4 0

The Great Compromise and the Three-Fifths Compromise focused on the representation of states in Congress.

Further Explanation:

The issue of representation in Congress was one of the most hotly debated topics during the Constitutional Convention. Northern and Southern politicians tried to position their region/state to have the most power possible. However, compromises needed to be made in order for the Constitution to be passed.

The Great Compromise solved the issue of representation in the Senate and House of Representatives. Due to this compromise, each state in the US would have two Senators in the Senate regardless of population. However, in the House of Representatives, the number of representatives per state would be based on population.

The Three-Fifths Compromise, on the other hand, focuses on whether or not slaves will count towards the population. At this time in history, slaves are usually considered property instead of people and actually possess very few (if any) legal rights. However, whether or not they counted towards the population was an important issue, as it would effect taxation and representation in the House. Ultimately, the two sides agree that for every 5 slaves, 3 will count towards the population.

Learn More:

Structure of Congress- brainly.com/question/10891751

Key Details:

Topics: American History, Constitutional Convention

Grade Level: 7-12

Keywords: Great Compromise, Three-Fifths Compromise, Congress

You might be interested in

What happened as the population grew in western territories? (Points : 3) Many people left and returned to the East. New states

IceJOKER [234]

Answer: New states such as Colorado, the Dakotas, and others were admitted to the Union.

After the War of 1812, the Western territories saw an enormous influx of people. White settlers migrated from the East, looking for more land and better economic opportunities. The areas of the Old Northwest, the Old Southwest and the Far West saw the population double between 1800-1820, and by 1830, a quarter of the American people lived west of the Appalachians. The population expanded even more after the Civil War. Several new states were admitted into the Union, such as Colorado in 1876 and North and South Dakota in 1889.

4 0

4 years ago

Read 2 more answers

if better jobs and opportunities arose in the northeast midwest, what changes in demographics might occur?

ryzh [129]

Answer: lame avvvggv

Explanation im built diff

8 0

3 years ago

A) Identify ONE similarity between the economic factors that encouraged trade on the Silk Road and the Indian Ocean trade networ

Vlada [557]

Answer:

A. One economic similarity between the Silk Roads and Indian Ocean trade has a lot to do with the ultimate benefits. In both of these trades, a lot of wealth was built up for countries involved, helping them thrive in such a way that they would continue to trade because of it.

B. A difference between the technology used to expand the trade on the Silk Road vs the Indian Ocean trade would be the different ways they had of travel. On the Silk Road, they would travel by land. This was primarily by wagon. On the other hand, the Indian Ocean trade mainly used ships to trade. They would sail on the ocean, making them reliant on something totally different than those involved with the Silk Road.

C. Some cultural similarities between the two trade networks would be the connection it helped build between countries. China and Europe were able to share ideas and inventions with one-another, thus helping create a bond. On the other hand, with the Indian Ocean trade, India began to convert to Islam as a religion, therefore creating more bonds with their counterparts. Ultimately, the two trade networks adopted ways of living and different inventions through those they were trading with.

4 0

3 years ago

AceTalon21 what is Enlightenment philosophers aimed to preserve the rights of individuals, including the right to an education.

LUCKY_DIMON [66]

The answer is education

3 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

1. Shade in the American prairie as it was in the 1800s on this map, or use the space below the map to describe the location of

Brrunno [24]

The US prairies or Great Plains included a large north-south swath of level or slightly rolling grasslands east of the Rockies from central Texas to Manitoba in Canada and included at least parts of Montana, Wyoming, /Colorado and New Mexico, North Dakota, S. Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma.

4 0

3 years ago