The correct answer is counting slaves as three fifths of a person for the purposes of apportionment.
The fight over whether or not slaves would count towards a states population had major implications. This is because in one of the houses of Congress (the House of Representatives) the number of representatives in the state depends on its population. States with larger populations would then have more representatives. More representatives means that states would have more influence over national laws.\
This is why southern states (that had slaves) fought to count them towards the population while states without slavery fought against counting slaves as part of the population.
Helped the german leaders
I have this excerpt here about Norman Cantor's view on manorialism. I hope this has come to your help.
". . Of necessity, the manor was a self-sufficient economic unit in view of the overwhelming difficulties of transportation in the period. International trade was carried on only to serve the demands of the wealthy, and it was largely in the hands of aliens [different peoples]-Greeks, Jews, Moslems. Local society made almost no use of money. To the extent that local exchange was carried on, it was conducted by barter. The small amount of international trade precluded [ruled out] the need for gold coinage. The Carolingians minted only silver coins, which were all that was usually necessary when the smallest silver coin could buy a cow. When gold coins were needed, Byzantine and Moslem currency was used. . . ."
<span>Source: Norman F. Cantor, The Civilization of the Middle Ages, Harper Perennial</span>
This is true if it is true/false.
