1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
nadezda [96]
3 years ago
6

Explain the purpose and controversy of the 3/5 compromise ​

History
1 answer:
Kitty [74]3 years ago
4 0

Answer:

Explanation:

The Three-fifths Compromise is a compromise that was reached among state delegates during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. This compromise stated that the population of slaves would be counted as three-fifths of a person in total when apportioning Representatives, as well as Presidential electors and taxes. The Three-Fifths Compromise was proposed by James Wilson and Roger Sherman. The purpose of it was to reach a compromise between antislavery advocates and for those for slavery.

You might be interested in
What elements of this passage support the idea that John Arthur opposed Chinese immigration? Check all that apply.
suter [353]

Answer:a b and d

Explanation:

Give me brianlysest thingy

6 0
3 years ago
2 Points<br> How did Ashoka the Great encourage the spread of Buddhism in India?
Dmitriy789 [7]

Answer:

Ashoka promoted Buddhist expansion by sending monks to surrounding territories to share the teachings of the Buddha.

7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
After conquering ____________ and _________________, Allied forces focused on invading Japan.
Nitella [24]
No, it's Iwo Jima and Okinawa, because this is World War 2, we never invaded Iran or Iraq in World War 2
6 0
3 years ago
In the 1860s, most factories were located in the
Anestetic [448]
In the 1860s, most factories were located in the North of the United States, mostly because the South was largely agricultural and remained this way for many years. 
8 0
3 years ago
Were Belgium actions in the Congo a genocide?
Vlad1618 [11]
Like the previous person said, the belgium actions in the congo are considered atrocities, not genocides. although king leopold did kill many of the natives, people debate whether it should be considered a “genocide”. it’s more appropriate to label it as an atrocity than a genocide.
7 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What the correct term ?
    13·1 answer
  • How did life in Germany change for Jewish people after 1933
    9·2 answers
  • Who invented the electric trolley car?
    9·2 answers
  • Why is Charter of rights MOST significant?
    8·1 answer
  • How does Rousseau's Social Contract theory justify the need of social "safety nets" such as America's educational system?
    5·1 answer
  • The Nubian people came from the African savannas south of the ...?
    12·1 answer
  • Plz plz plz plz plz plz help What is one effect the Papal States had on the Renaissance? (4 points)
    9·2 answers
  • —-What do the police do to the peaceful night protestors ?<br><br> Help
    10·1 answer
  • If you were a delegate to the First Continental Congress, would you have voted for or against the Declaration and Resolves? Expl
    5·1 answer
  • Which generalization about governments in Africa is supported by evidence?
    9·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!