Three-fifths Compromise data analysis and questions.
1.What was the instrumental reasoning behind the arguments in support of and
in opposition to counting slaves in the apportioning of seats in the House of
Representatives?
- They were both trying to play off of each other.The southerner were saying that
if the northerners wanted the slaves to be free then they should count as citizens
as far as how many representatives they had.While the Northerners basically said
that the southerners didn’t treat slaves like people so they shouldn’t count.
2.How many “extra” House seats did the South get as a result of the three-fifths
rule in 1790? In 1800? In 1810? In 1820?
- 1790 1 extra seats.
- 1800 2 extra seats
- 1810 3 extra seats
- 1820 3 extra seats
3.What advantages did the three-fifths rule give the South in national policy
making?
- The South counted ⅗of their slaves so they did get more say in national policies
than if they didn't count slaves.
4.What advantages did the three-fifths rule give the South in presidential
elections?
- So the South had more representation for voting on presidents.
South’s “bonus” representation in the House accounted for Jefferson’s
presidential victory in 1800.
5. How do rules, particularly rules about apportioning representation, perpetuate
themselves?
- Not only did the Three-fifths Compromise matter for the initial apportionment
of House seats, but the Southern states believed that they would continue to
accrue benefits over time, as the continued importation of slaves meant that the
three-fifths rule, once established, would increase their House representation and
offset non-slave population growth in the Northwest.