More handpicked essays just for you.
Disadvantages of the missouri compromise
Missouri compromise cause and effect
Positives about the missouri compromise
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Missouri compromise was an agreement between the north and south. It allowed Missouri to be the 24th state. Maine was also established, therefore Missouri was a free state. The Mason Dixon line was established, this created a line between the slave and free states. This rule was broken, and even more conflict was contributed to the start of the civil war.
The three-fifths compromise was a system to determine state representation in Congress by counting each enslaved person as three-fifths of a person. Proposed in 1787 by James Wilson and Roger Sherman, it clearly showed the strength of the proslavery forces during the time of the United States Constitutional Convention. Since the Virginia Plan was rejected, the three-fifths compromise was enacted as a new framework for the government. The Southern states demanded more representation politically because their population was vastly increased due to slavery. The Northerners viewed one free man as one vote and one slave not counting as part of the population while the Southerners viewed one free man as one vote as well as one slave as one vote.
During the early years of America, agricultural demands drove most of the economy allowing the South to demanded political protection. One of the protective measures was the Three-Fifths Compromise in 1787. The South wanted to count the slaves toward its population allowing for more representation. At the Constitutional Convention, the delegates decided to count a slave as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of determining the population for how many seats each State would have in the House. This solidified Southern control over Politics for several years to come.
Eventually, the delegates compromised on the slavery issue as well. Slaves were declared to count as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of population counts. However, neither the word slavery nor slave was used in the Constitution. Rather, it refers to the Three-Fifths Compromise as applying to “all other persons. ”Still, it was apparent whom the Three-Fifths Compromise targeted, since it went a step further and addressed the issue of the African slave trade.
In an attempt to address concerns dealing with representation of the states in Congress, delegates chosen from the states: Massachusetts, New York, Maryland, Delaware, North Carolina, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia, Connecticut, and Georgia met in Philadelphia on July 16, 1787 in a meeting called, The Constitutional Convention. Among these delegates was Roger Sherman of Connecticut. Sherman was seen as awkward and unmeaning, giving off the air of a sub-conscious farmer when seated quietly. Although Sherman’s posture and physical appearance was not up to par of other politicians, and gave insight on his background as a Yeoman farmer, his superior intelligence was often recognized and spoken about on a grand level by those
At this time, slaves were not counted as anything for taxes or population. The South proposes that their slaves should be counted as part of their total population. Northerners object to this, obviously, because they wanted to continue having more representation and voice than the South. The Constitutional Convention decided upon the Three-Fifths Compromise. This compromise stated that every five slaves would count for three people.
The 3/5ths compromise The smaller states wanted more representation in the house but the north argued that if blacks weren 't allowed to vote and didn 't have rights they shouldn 't be counted towards house seats. The compromise stated that every slave counted as 3/5ths of a person towards house
The Three-Fifths Compromise is between the North and the South. The issue they were arguing over is whether a slave should be counted as a part of the state’s population, which determines how many representatives the state can select. The North had a population mostly that was comprise of white man. They believed that slaves shouldn’t be counted as a person since they were not citizens and didn’t have the rights to vote. However, the South disagreed because the majority of their population was slaves.
In return, the free states argued that if slaves are considered property, then they should not be counted for in a state’s population and if they are accounted for then they are considered individuals, not property. Upon hearing this, slave states said they would not approve the ratification of the Constitution unless their slaves were counted for in the House of Representatives. A compromise was then made, and it was called the 3/5 Compromise. As a result, only 3/5 of the slave population in these slaves' states were counted for in
Before the Civil War, the States had argued over numerous things. Many of these issues were settled through compromises that appeased each State’s arguments. However, America had slowly split into the Northern and Southern states due to their increasing amount of disagreements. This had eventually become a big issue and Americans could no longer turn to compromise in order to restore peace. Over time, the South decided to secede from the North, primarily due to sectional differences, their views on slavery, and the election of 1860.
The 3/5 compromise is stating that slaves are only counted as 3/5 of a person on a census as id believe is so wrong and demeaning to do that just because of a different skin color or religion and culture. Back in those days the colonist or most of them thought that white Christians were superior to all other cultures and religions, so when it came to making a census and whether or not slaves should be counted or not they just thought hey! Even though there is a whole person standing in front of me I’m just going to count them as 3/5 just because they work for me and there are my property and aren’t like me. There are so many reason as too why this is wrong but first I’m going to say that nowhere in the bible does god ever say either that
However, the Missouri Compromise caused some problems. The compromise equaled the concerns and interests in the North and South, but the South was upset about how Congress gave itself the power to create and pass laws dealing with slavery. Much of the North was upset because Congress let slavery spread into another state. There were people who didn’t want to compromise, and others who did, such as Henry Clay.
The compromises of the previous decade could of have postponed the civil war and accelerate the civil war. The civil war was inevitable because of Missouri Compromise of 1820, Compromise of 1850, Fugitive Slave law, and Dred Scott Decision. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was about all states that are north of 36 degrees north latitude were to be free except Missouri. All states below the line would become a slave state so far there were some problems.
One of the compromises made in the Constitutional Convention is the three-fifths compromise. In this compromise, the southerners wanted to add slaves to the population of the state they lived in. If slaves were included in their state’s population, that state would be able to add more representatives in the House of Representatives. Northerners did not agree with that statement because slaves did not have the right to vote. After the delegates compromised, they agreed that only three-fifths of the slave’s population would be counted into the state’s population.
However, these differences show that the North and South were actually two distinct countries held together by one constitution. The North felt that decisions regarding slavery and its legality were entrenched in the central government while the South felt that such decision belonged to the individual states. In the times preceding the war, both sides could not reach a compromise. Bonner mentions, “Because secession and war were permitted to come, warned Russel, "We are not entitled to lay the flattering unction to our souls that the Civil War was an inevitable conflict (Bonner, 195).” Hence, these differences could only be addressed through war.
