How do you feel about the Three-Fifths Compromise? Was it a wise decision by the framers of the constitution to keep the nation united, or was it an unacceptable compromise even at the cost of the nation breaking up over the issue of slavery (as happened later during the Civil War (1861–1865)? Write a two-to-three paragraph response supporting your stand.

I think the three-fifths compromise was a poor attempt to delay the inevitable. I think that it would have been better to address slavery sooner. I think it should have been adressed when the constituion and bill of rights were written. I understand that it would have been a divisive issue but if you claim that "All men are created equal" and then turn around and dehuminaze other people than it makes you a hypocrite becuase you cannot just pick and choose who is and who is not considered human.

The three-fifths compromise did not do anything for the rights of the slaves in fact it dehumanized them even more and caused the civil war to start even sooner. If they had at least counted everyone as a human not only would it have possibly delayed the war but there may have been a way to keep the plantation owerners happy by saying they would have to pay anyone who worked for them and could not abuse them. If the slaves were treated as an entire person then they would have gained the population needed for more representation. It would have also helped them get the freedom they desereved and possibly avoid the civil war. It would have also helped the southern economy to have a higher and eventually more educated population. One cause of the civil war was the signfict difference in the economies in the north versus the south.

Explanation:

no statements but ok.

the statement that best describes the idea of manifest destiny that was used in the 19th century would be that "it was fate that the united states would continue to  expand westward," since people thought the us was "destined" to do so.