Which compromise counted three-fifths of the slave population for taxation and representation?

Which compromise counted three-fifths of the slave population for taxation and representation?

• A. The Great Compromise
• B. The Commerce Compromise
• C. The Northwest Ordinance
• D. The Three-Fifths Compromise

Answer: (D)

The main idea here is how population counts affected political power in the new government. When delegates asked how to apportion representation in the House and how to levy taxes, they faced a conflict: counting enslaved people would boost Southern states’ representation, but counting them fully would raise taxes and representation more than Northern states wanted. The compromise that settled this asks that enslaved people be counted as three-fifths of a person for both representation and taxation. This provided a middle ground: it gave Southern states more seats in the House than if enslaved people were counted as nothing, but it also kept the count from giving them a full, unrestrained advantage. It tied the population count directly to both how many representatives a state would have and how much tax it would contribute. Other options deal with different issues: the Great Compromise created the two-house structure of Congress but didn’t decide how enslaved people would be counted; the Commerce Compromise dealt with regulating trade and delays on certain trade restrictions; the Northwest Ordinance set governance rules for new territories and banned slavery in those areas. None of those establish the specific three-fifths counting method for taxation and representation, which is the defining feature of this question.

The main idea here is how population counts affected political power in the new government. When delegates asked how to apportion representation in the House and how to levy taxes, they faced a conflict: counting enslaved people would boost Southern states’ representation, but counting them fully would raise taxes and representation more than Northern states wanted.

The compromise that settled this asks that enslaved people be counted as three-fifths of a person for both representation and taxation. This provided a middle ground: it gave Southern states more seats in the House than if enslaved people were counted as nothing, but it also kept the count from giving them a full, unrestrained advantage. It tied the population count directly to both how many representatives a state would have and how much tax it would contribute.

Other options deal with different issues: the Great Compromise created the two-house structure of Congress but didn’t decide how enslaved people would be counted; the Commerce Compromise dealt with regulating trade and delays on certain trade restrictions; the Northwest Ordinance set governance rules for new territories and banned slavery in those areas. None of those establish the specific three-fifths counting method for taxation and representation, which is the defining feature of this question.