Answer:
The two compromises established a delicate balance between the North and the South.
Explanation:
The Great Compromise of 1787, also known as the Connecticut Compromise, was a political agreement during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that defined the structure of the legislature of the United States. Under the Compromise, the legislature would be divided in two chambers: the Senate, as the upper house, where every state would have equal representation, and the Congress, the lower house, where seats would be allocated to states proportionally, according to their population. The Three-Fifths Compromise, on the other hand, was the other great compromise agreed during the Constitutional Convention. According to this compromise, three out of every five slaves would be counted as part of the population of each slave state when allocating seats for the Congress.
<u>The political significance of these two compromises was that they established a delicate balance between the North and the South.</u> For the northern states, which were generally smaller than the southern ones, the Great Compromise meant that they would be considered as equals. For the southern states, the Three-Fifths Compromise meant that they were overrepresented. If slaves had not been counted, they'd have been a minority in Congress. However, this balance was very fragile, and the disagreements between the North and South erupted into the Civil War of 1861-65,
The right answers are either A or C, which highlights the changes in Mississippi's economic situation.
<h3>What did the Bourbons accomplish?</h3>
The Bourbons, who stood in for the planters, landowners, and businessmen, utilized threats and bribes to secure enough votes from the black community to win control of the Democratic Party conventions and, ultimately, the state legislature.
In Spanish America, the Bourbon reforms were successful in increasing revenue and silver production.
Hence, option A or C is correct
Learn more about Mississippi's economy:
brainly.com/question/11993482
#SPJ1
The answer is Presidents have gradually assumed more power to deal with crises
