# data[].attributes.body
The Southern states wanted slaves to count for for representation and not for taxes, but the Northern states wanted slaves to be counted for taxes and not for representation. The compromise they came to was all of the Southern states were allowed to count slaves as 3/5 of a person. This means three in every five slaves counted towards representation in Congress and counted towards taxes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The "Three-Fifths" compromise

On this date in 1787, the Three-fifths Compromise was enacted. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia that year accepted a plan determining a state's representation in the U.S. House of Representatives. It was ironic that it was a liberal northern delegate, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, who proposed the Three-Fifths Compromise, as a way to gain southern support for a new framework of government. Southern states had wanted representation apportioned by population; after the Virginia Plan was rejected, the Three-Fifths Compromise seemed to guarantee that the South would be strongly represented in the House of Representatives and would have disproportionate power in electing Presidents.

The issue of how to count slaves split the delegates into two groups. The northerners regarded slaves as property who should receive no representation. Southerners demanded that Blacks be counted with whites. The compromise clearly reflected the strength of the pro-slavery forces at the convention. The "Three-fifths Compromise" allowed a state to count three fifths of each Black person in determining political representation in the House. It was an early American effort to avoid the intersectionality of race, class, nationality and wealth for political control.

Rather than halting or slowing the importation of slaves in the south, slavery had been given a new life, a political life. Even when the law stopped the importing of new slaves in 1808, the south continued to increase its overall political status and electoral votes by adding and breeding slaves illegally. The Three-fifths Compromise would not be challenged again until the Dred Scott case in 1856.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The "Three-Fifths" compromise - African American Registry

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On this date in 1787, the Three-fifths Compromise was enacted. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia that year accepted a plan determining a state's representation in the U.S. House of Representatives. It was ironic that it was a liberal northern delegate, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, who proposed the Three-Fifths Compromise, as a way to gain southern support for a new framework of government.

# data[].attributes.body
The Great Compromise was a compromise made between the big and small states. The bigger states suported the Virginia Plan which based representation on population, but the smaller states supported the New Jersey Plan which made all the representation equal no matter the population. The compromise was a 2 house Congress and each state had 2 senates, but the House of Representatives was based on population.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Great Compromise helped determine how each of the US states was to be represented in the Congress.

What Was The Great Compromise?

The Great Compromise, also known as the Connecticut Compromise, the Great Compromise of 1787, or the Sherman Compromise, was an agreement made between large and small states which partly defined the representation each state would have under the United States Constitution, as well as in legislature. It occurred in 1787. The Connecticut Compromise resulted from a debate among delegates on how each state could have representation in the Congress. The Great Compromise led to the creation of a two-chambered Congress. Also created was the House of Representative which is determined by a state's population. The agreement retained the bicameral legislature, but the upper house had to change to accommodate two senators to represent each state. The deal reshaped the American government structure striking a balance between the highly populated states and their demands while at the same time taking into consideration the less-populous state and their interests.

Overview And Background

The United States underwent painful years in the 1780s. The 1781 ratification of the Articles of Confederation provided an inadequate governmental structure. It failed to regulate trade, levy taxes, and draft soldiers. Also, it failed to solve the slavery issue which polarized the Northwest Territory. The country's economy which had severely plummeted following the Anglo-American Revolution struggled to rebound. Debt, especially the accumulated war debts became an enormous issue in the US. Many citizens found it increasingly difficult to generate enough income to pay for their daily expenses as well as taxes. As much as the people looked up to the state for help, no social welfare relief developed. Furthermore, the contentious politics also divided the citizens. This instability called for a delegation in 1785, proposed by Alexander Hamilton which would address a national reform. James Madison responded with support and asked other states to send their delegates to Annapolis, Maryland for a conference. However, only five states representatives attended, but even so, they approved a plan in whichever state would send delegates to the 1787 Philadelphian convection. In May 1787, 55 delegates representing 12 states, Rhodes Island was absent, met in Philadelphia to discuss the limitations of the Articles of Federation. The Constitutional Convention started later on when Madison proposed the Virginia Plan which Patterson countered with the New Jersey Plan.

What The Great Compromise Involved?

Before the 1787 Constitutional Convention, larger states like Virginia favored congressional representation based on a state's population. On the other hand, smaller states wanted equal representation. Edmund Randolph and James Madison proposed the Virginia Plan on May 29, 1787. This plan outlined that the government should comprise of three branches the legislature, executive, and judiciary. The three branches would serve a two-housed legislature. The population was to elect the members of the lower house and they, in turn, would elect representatives in the Upper House. In other words, both houses included a population proportional representation. Madison also proposed that Congress get a veto for all state laws. The New Jersey Plan, put forward on June 15, 1787, by William Patterson, called for equal representation of each state like it was in the Articles of Confederation system but sought to increase Congress power. It called for a one-house legislature, equal representation of each state, and popular elections. Patterson also proposed a lifetime Supreme Court appointed by executive officers. He focused on the probability that the national government would violate the sovereignty of the states. At this point, the less populous states representatives feared that the agreement would result in larger states drowning the voices and interests rendering them useless in the national scale. Madison, on the other hand, argued that the most important states were very different from each other. Hamilton pointed out that each state was an artificial entity made up of individuals. He thus accused smaller states of being power hungry.

As such, the two sides rejected each other's plans. The disagreements called for reflection leading to a negotiation on how to determine the future of the US government. Roger Sherman, a Connecticut delegate suggested a plan that eventually turned out as the Great Compromise. His plan included a two-legislative form of government in the US, the Senate and the House of Representatives. For every 300,000 citizens, a state received one member to serve in the House of representative and two senators. On July 16, 1787, despite Benjamin Franklin efforts to block equal voting rights of the smaller states, the proposal did pass even though by only one vote. Thus the name compromise was conjured, and it paved the way for the constitutional final passage and became an important stepping stone in the creation and development of the United States.

Upon deciding on the representation issue, the debate focused on the slaves existing in a state's population and which led to the formation of the Three-Fifths Compromise. Under this agreement, each state had to count three-fifths of its slaves into its total population. Before this agreement, slave-holding states called for an increase in their representation in Congress by counting all slaves as part of the community. On the other hand, opponents argued that since slaves were not citizens they thus had no rights. Counting them in the context of the population was not necessary.

The Results Of The Great Compromise

The most significant effect of the Great Compromise was the change in the American Government structure. The agreement focused on working out the interests of large states like Virginia and New York, and the smaller states such as New Hampshire and Rhodes Island, striking a balance between proportional and general representation. The most visible term achieved under the compromise was that each state would split congressional delegates between; representatives who would then be elected by district so as to serve in the lower house and senators to represent individual states in the Upper House. The practical effect was in the creation of a two-tiered system that could address the needs of the people in the lower house, and the upper house could handle the interests of states. The Electoral College and Presidential elections formation splinted from this split between direct and indirect representation.

The Great Compromise of 1787 gave larger states representation in the lower house according to population, and the smaller states attained equal representation in the upper house. Many delegates called for proportional representation in both houses while the smaller state delegates decided not having a constitution was better than having Madison's proposed system. As such the compromise balanced the needs of both the smaller states which wanted a unicameral legislature and the larger states that were rooting for a bicameral legislature, paving the way for constitutional development. Ultimately, the Connecticut Compromise kept the Convention together and led to the system of bicameral Congress in which the lower House is based on proportional representation, and each state has equal representation in the Upper House.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Great Compromise, also known as the Connecticut Compromise, the Great Compromise of 1787, or the Sherman Compromise, was an agreement made between large and small states which partly defined the representation each state would have under the United States Constitution, as well as in legislature. It occurred in 1787.

# data[].attributes.body
Representatives from the Southern and Northern states disagreed over the issue of trade and its regulation. The Southern states were scared that the regulation of trade would end slvery. The compromise was called the Commerce Compromise. This promised no tax import for 20 years and they would wait 20 years to ban slavery.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When the thirteen colonies met to draft the United States Constitution, the Northern states and the Southern slave-owning states disagreed on issues such as the slave trade and tariffs on imports and exports. Eventually, they reached a compromise on both.

The commerce compromise was a compromise reached on import and export taxes, and most importantly, the slave trade. It was finalized after heated debates during the drafting of the United States Constitution in 1787. During negotiations, the urban northern states and the southern agricultural slave-owning states realized that some fundamental differences would have to be put aside, even for just a short time, in order to move forward with the Constitution. Hence, the compromise was born.

Commerce Compromise on Imports and Exports

The northern states wanted the federal government to levy import tariffs on finished products coming into the country to protect against foreign competition and to encourage the southern states to purchase goods made in the North. They also wanted export taxes on raw materials coming into the U.S. The southern states disagreed, arguing that tariffs on the export of raw materials would hurt their agricultural economy. The commerce compromise permitted tariffs only on imports from foreign countries and not on exports from the U.S. to other countries. Most significantly, this commerce compromise made the regulation of interstate commerce the responsibility of the federal government. All commerce legislation would be regulated by a two-thirds majority of the U.S. Senate.

Commerce Compromise on the Slave Trade

The question of slavery was a divisive issue in the United States even before the official establishment of the federal government. The commerce compromise regarding the slave trade was agreed upon in order to bring the northern and southern states together. At the time Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence in 1776, there were an estimated 500,000 African slaves in the Colonies. Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison and other founding fathers owned hundreds of slaves themselves. African slaves lived primarily in the southern colonies and made up about one-fifth of the entire Colonial population and comprised 40 percent of the southern population.

Jefferson called slavery a "hideous blot" on America. Washington called it "repugnant," and many Colonists, even some slave owners, hated slavery, too. The problem was that the southern economy relied on agricultural products like tobacco, indigo and rice that were produced by slave labor they could not afford to lose. At one point, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, the three states that still permitted the slave trade threatened to leave the Constitution convention if importing slaves was outlawed.

Two Key Commerce Compromises

To protect their economy and standard of living, the southern states came up with two proposals. The first compromise was to prevent Congress from taxing American exports in order to protect their agricultural trade. The second compromise was a proposal that would forbid the newly formed United States from banning slave importation. Those opposed to slavery argued passionately against it, calling slave trade a moral issue that was dishonorable to the America character. George Mason of Virginia called the business of slave trading "nefarious traffic" and slave owners "petty tyrants."

However, it became clear that a compromise would have to be reached to move forward as a country. The agreement provided that Congress could not tax exports and that no slave trade laws could be passed until 1808, about 10 years after the convention and ratification of the Constitution. The commerce compromise also included a fugitive slave clause as an additional concession to the southern states, but when the 13th Amendment was passed after the Civil War, the provision requiring fugitive slaves to be returned was eliminated.

The importance of the Commerce Compromise is evident from the that it was included in Article I of the U.S. Constitution. It also tells us that, despite moral principles and lofty ideals of equality, the founding fathers were prepared to do whatever was necessary to keep the country united.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When the thirteen colonies met to draft the United States Constitution, the Northern states and the Southern slave-owning states disagreed on issues such as the slave trade and tariffs on imports and exports. Eventually, they reached a compromise on both.

# data[].attributes.body
After the slave trade and arguments were settled, 2 South Carolina delegates propsed that if runaway slaves were caught in a free slave they should be returned to their owners. In conclusion, if any runaway slaves were caught in a free state they had to be retuned to the South.

# data[].attributes.body
In the 2 main groups in the Constitutional Convention, Federalists and Non-Federalists. Federalists believed in a strong central government and they believed a new Constitution was necessary to create a strong government. Anti-Federalists believed in strong state governments and they were against the approval of the new Constitution unless it had a Bill of Rights to protect individual freedoms. They compromised by creating a new Constitution and adding a Bill of Rights.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Over the next few months we will explore through a series of eLessons the debate over ratification of the United States Constitution as discussed in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. We look forward to exploring this important debate with you!

One of the great debates in American history was over the ratification of the Constitution in 1787-1788. Those who supported the Constitution and a stronger national republic were known as Federalists. Those who opposed the ratification of the Constitution in favor of small localized government were known as Anti-Federalists. Both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists were concerned with the preservation of liberty, however, they disagreed over whether or not a strong national government would preserve or eventually destroy the liberty of the American people. Today, it is easy to accept that the prevailing side was right and claim that, had you been alive, you would have certainly supported ratifying the Constitution. However, in order to develop a deeper understanding of the ideological foundations upon which our government is built, it is important to analyze both the Federalist and Ant-Federalist arguments.

The Anti-Federalists were not as organized as the Federalists. They did not share one unified position on the proper form of government. However, they did unite in their objection to the Constitution as it was proposed for ratification in 1787. The Anti-Federalists argued against the expansion of national power. They favored small localized governments with limited national authority as was exercised under the Articles of Confederation. They generally believed a republican government was only possible on the state level and would not work on the national level. Therefore, only a confederacy of the individual states could protect the nation's liberty and freedom. Another, and perhaps their most well-known concern, was over the lack of a bill of rights. Most Anti-Federalists feared that without a bill of rights, the Constitution would not be able to sufficiently protect the rights of individuals and the states. Perhaps the strongest voice for this concern was that of George Mason. He believed that state bills of right would be trumped by the new constitution, and not stand as adequate protections for citizens' rights. It was this concern that ultimately led to the passing of the bill of rights as a condition for ratification in New York, Virginia, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and North Carolina.

The Federalists, primarily led by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, believed that establishing a large national government was not only possible, but necessary to "create a more perfect union" by improving the relationship among the states. Until this point, the common belief was that a republic could only function efficiently it was small and localized. The Federalists challenged this belief and claimed that a strong national republic would better preserve the individual liberties of the people. By extending the sphere of the republic, individual and minority rights would be better protected from infringement by a majority. The federalists also wanted to preserve the sovereignty and structure of the states. To do so, they advocated for a federal government with specific, delegated powers. Anything not delegated to the federal government would be reserved to the people and the states. Ultimately, their goal was to preserve the principle of government by consent. By building a government upon a foundation of popular sovereignty, without sacrificing the sovereignty of the states, legitimacy of the new government could be secured.

Today, it appears that the government established by the Constitution is an improvement from that which was established by the Articles of Confederation. At the time however, the Constitution was merely an experiment. Forget what you now know about the success Constitution. Considering its unprecedented nature and the fear that a strong national government would be a threat to personal liberty, would you have been a Federalist or an Anti-Federalist?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Would you have been a Federalist or an Anti-Federalist? - Bill of Rights Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Would you have been a Federalist or an Anti-Federalist? Over the next few months we will explore through a series of eLessons the debate over ratification of the United States Constitution as discussed in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. We look forward to exploring this important debate with you!