23. Which compromise during the Constitutional Convention addressed the question of how enslaved people would be counted for representation and taxation purposes?
Answer: D
The Three-Fifths Compromise addressed the question of how enslaved people would be counted for representation and taxation purposes.
The Three-Fifths Compromise established that each enslaved person would be counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of representation in Congress and taxation, balancing the interests of slaveholding and non-slaveholding states.
A) The Great Compromise
The Great Compromise primarily dealt with the structure of Congress, creating a bicameral legislature with proportional representation in the House and equal representation in the Senate. While it was crucial for resolving disputes over representation, it did not address the specific issue of how enslaved people were counted.
B) The Missouri Compromise
The Missouri Compromise was an agreement made in 1820 that dealt with the regulation of slavery in the western territories, particularly regarding the admission of Missouri as a slave state. It does not pertain to the counting of enslaved people for representation and taxation purposes during the Constitutional Convention.
C) The Commerce Compromise
The Commerce Compromise focused on the regulation of commerce and trade, particularly between the northern and southern states, and included concessions regarding tariffs and the slave trade. However, it did not specifically address how enslaved individuals were counted in terms of representation and taxation.
D) The Three-Fifths Compromise
The Three-Fifths Compromise explicitly addressed the contentious issue of how enslaved people would be counted for the purposes of representation and taxation, allowing states to count three-fifths of their enslaved population. This compromise was crucial for maintaining a balance of power between northern and southern states.
Conclusion
The Three-Fifths Compromise is definitively the correct answer as it directly pertains to how enslaved individuals were counted for representation and taxation during the Constitutional Convention. In contrast, the other options either dealt with different aspects of governance or slavery that did not relate to the counting of enslaved people, making them incorrect in this context.