The Three-Fifths Compromise, The Great Cocomise, And Slave Trade Compromise

1137 Words3 Pages

When the Founding Fathers got together at Philadelphia to draft the Constitution, they had many different views and opinions as to how to govern our country. At the convention, the founders fought over the issues of slavery, representation and the Congress’s powers. Their personal lives had influenced their ideas and some of the compromises made at the Constitutional Convention. The founders’ different personal experiences, economic backgrounds, and coming from states of different sizes, economy and needs, led to the creation of the Three-Fifths Compromise, The Great Compromise, and the Slave Trade Compromise. To start off, the founders all came from different states with different populations and sizes. Since the founders are representatives …show more content…

At the convention, the founders were debating about how many representatives in the Congress should each state allowed to have. For example, James Madison, who came from Virginia, one of the larger states, suggested that representation should be proportional to the state’s population (Hart et al. 109-110). Coming from a state with larger population had influenced Madison’s proposal, for he reasoned that since Virginia has a large population of people, so more representatives are needed to represent more people. However, the states with a smaller population disagreed with this proposal and came up with a proposal that would counter Madison’s proposal. Paterson, who came from New Jersey, one of those states with smaller population, proposed a plan in which equal number of people should be elected from each state for representation in the Congress (Hart et al. 109-110). It was evident to see how coming from a smaller state had affected Paterson’s proposal, for he feared …show more content…

The founders’ disagreements about this issue based on their economic backgrounds and coming from states with different economy had influence the creation of the Three-Fifths Compromise which dealt with how to count slaves as a part of the population. According to "The Slavery Compromises,” the Southern state 's economy, such as South Carolina, depends on the labor of slaves working in their large plantations (University of Louisiana Lafayette 2016). Since the Southern states that depended on slavery naturally owned more slaves, many of the founders from these states wanted slaves to be counted as any other white people to gain more representatives and more voice in Congress. On the other hand, the Northern states’ economy does not heavily rely on slavery, and many of these states are “free” states which restrict slavery (University of Louisiana Lafayette 2016). Many of these Northern delegates such as Elbridge Gerry countered that “Blacks are properties” and should be counted as properties that can be taxed, but not as people when they don’t have the rights of citizens (Hart et al. 111). From this, we can infer that the Northern delegates fear that the South will get more voice, more representation due to more slaves, and they thought it was ironic how the

Open Document