Rutledge,didn't make any threat about slavery. that is only in the musical 1776 ;)
southern delegates is for slavery they were trying to keep it. northern delegates is against slavery they were trying to get rid of it.
the northern and the south delegates have different ideas about slavery because the southern needed slaves and the northern did not
The three fifths compromise
The convention delegates did not want to upset the sensibilities of the people in the Northern states.
the economic impact of slavery.the enconimc effect on slavery.
D. whether the federal government should have the power to regulate slavery.
the southern delegates would not have signed.
the issue is that some people were for slavery, and some were not...the north was mostly opposed and the south was all for it, thats why there are so many african americans in the south today
The delegates at the Annapolis Convention declared slavery to be unconstitutional.
they just were different
The Three-Fifths Compromise was necessary as it aimed to balance the interests of both pro-slavery and anti-slavery delegates during the Constitutional Convention. Pro-slavery delegates wanted enslaved individuals counted for representation in Congress to gain more political power, while anti-slavery delegates opposed this, arguing that enslaved people should not be counted as citizens. The compromise allowed for enslaved individuals to be counted as three-fifths of a person, which helped to maintain a delicate balance between northern and southern states and facilitated the ratification of the Constitution. This agreement, however, reflected the deep divisions and moral compromises surrounding the issue of slavery in the early United States.
John Rutledge, a prominent American statesman and a delegate at the Constitutional Convention, held pro-slavery views. He believed that slavery was essential for the economic prosperity of the Southern states and advocated for its protection in the Constitution. Rutledge argued that slavery was a "positive good" and expressed strong opposition to any measures that would limit or abolish the institution. His stance reflected the prevailing attitudes of many Southern leaders during that era.