The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the enumerated population of slaves would be counted for representation purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives.
The Three-Fifths Compromise if i'm not mistaken. It counted slaves as 3/5 of a person when determining the amount of representatives a state received in congress (based on population)
Slaves were counted by population by three-fifths of a person.
Slaves were 3/5 of a person
As 3/5ths of a person...
Most sources referred to such people as "slave-owners" or "slave-masters."
This agreement was made in the original US Constitution, and is generally referred to as "The Great Compromise." The North didn't think that slaves should be counted at all, and the South thought that each slave should be counted as a full person. The reason for the argument was that representation in the house of representatives was based on population and each side wanted to be the majority.
The Three-Fifths Compromise if i'm not mistaken. It counted slaves as 3/5 of a person when determining the amount of representatives a state received in congress (based on population)
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states that was reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the enumerated population of slaves would be counted for representation purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives.
rum, sugar (molasses), and slaves
Slaves were counted as three-fifth's of a single person.
Slaves do not have fun. They are slaves and are people owned by another person.
Slaves do not have fun. They are slaves and are people owned by another person.
The Three-Fifths Compromise was an agreement between the North and the South to only count the slaves as three-fifths of a person. The North was afraid the South would have greater representation in Congress.
Slaves were considered one-third of a person. Three slaves were the equivalent of one person.
No one person resuced all the slaves.
A person who sells slaves is normally called a 'slave trader', or 'slave broker'.
No. Your question smacks of the Jim Crow view of slavery and that was slaves were happy to be slaves. That is not true. When another person owns a person as property that is wrong.