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
Stolb23 [73]
3 years ago
5

Was the 3/5 compromise effective? please explain and be specific. Thank you.

History
1 answer:
Alja [10]3 years ago
7 0

Slavery was prominent in the South. Southern states wanted to count enslaved African Americans as part of their populations. This would give these states more votes in the House of Representatives. At the time, there were more than 550,000 enslaved African Americans. Counting them would add many representatives. The North, however, had fewer representatives. The enslaved people couldn't vote or participate in government. The North didn't want them to be counted.

The 3/5 compromise meant that every five enslaved persons would equal three free persons. This was effective because the North and South had equally gained what they had wanted- enslaved persons to be counted or not to be counted. (This rule was applied  for assessing taxes on the states as well)

<h3>Hope this helped :)</h3>

You might be interested in
Judaism was founded in a region called Israel, which is
goldenfox [79]

Answer:

B

Explanation:

7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What effect did the ruling have on legislative precedent?
Phoenix [80]

Answer:

The Importance of Precedent. In a common law system, judges are obliged to make their rulings as consistent as reasonably possible with previous judicial decisions on the same subject. ... Each case decided by a common law court becomes a precedent, or guideline, for subsequent decisions involving similar disputes.

Explanation:

8 0
3 years ago
HELP PLS<br> Why is there only two senators in each state?
andreev551 [17]
If the system were being designed today, such a design probably would be rejected as unfair. Part of the problem is that the Framers were dealing with a less lopsided distribution. The ratio between most populous state and least populous stat in 1789 was about 7 to 1. Today, the ratio between California and Wyoming population is 50 to 1.

But the Senate made sense to the Framers in 1787 for a particular reason. At that time, all 13 former colonies were like independent nations or independent countries. They could mint their own coins, print their own money, and conduct international diplomacy directly with other nations. There are lots of reasons this was unsatisfactory. It produced economic chaos and a poor prospect of winning future wars, but it did give each state the status of a country.

Now, imagine you’re a small state like New Hampshire. Right now, you completely control your own destiny. Why do you want to join a Union unless you’re guaranteed a strong voice in that Union? Now, all the arguments that people still have about the Electoral College (“The big states would push all the little states around!”) actually do apply.

It is the Senate that does a superb job… if anything TOO good a job… of protecting “small states rights.” You can argue that it is an unfair system, and it probably is… but the point is this: In 1787, the question of how to get small states like New Hampshire to join this new Union, which was after all seemed like a risky experiment, was a big problem.

It’s really for political reasons, not absolute fairness, that the Senate was created in such a way as to give equal representation to each state. It seemed necessary in 1787. But there were lots of things that could not be foreseen, such as the rise of a strong national culture and the eventually lopsided ratios between the most populous and least populous states.

Now, let me address the “House of Representatives” question. How can the Senate be based on 2-senators-per-state while the House is based on population?
7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Look at the following short outline for an explanatory essay. What is wrong with it?
xenn [34]

Answer:

C is the answer i believe

3 0
3 years ago
Why did the issue of voting lead to another constitutional amendment in the late 1800s?
Nadya [2.5K]
Poor white southerners were blocked from voting by poll taxes
3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • How did Germany respond when the United States declared war on Japan?
    11·1 answer
  • What are some examples from history that show how state and federal laws have found a balance?
    10·1 answer
  • During the post war years, the middle class was
    15·2 answers
  • What was Nat turners resistance
    14·1 answer
  • By end of the Great Schism the Trinity of three popes had come to be accepted. true or false
    8·2 answers
  • Which factor contributed most to the beginning of the women's-rights movement in the United States during the mid-1800s?
    14·2 answers
  • Medieval women were expected to bring a dowry into a marriage. This included what?
    6·2 answers
  • Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe citizens should disobey a law?
    11·2 answers
  • All the following are true about the Treaty of versailles except : A)It helped bring French dominance over EuropeB)it failed to
    8·1 answer
  • As a result of the system of mass production, the majority of factory owners
    8·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!