During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, several compromises were agreed to between the Northern and Southern States. Let’s focus on three specific compromises:
The Southern states wanted to count each slave as a whole person when it came to representation. The North didn’t want the South to be able to count slaves at all, since Southerners considered slaves to be property. In the Three-Fifths Compromise, the South was allowed to count each slave as 3/5 of a person, for purposes of representation, which resulted in how many representatives each state had in Congress.
Slave Trade Compromise
The North didn’t want a slave trade. The South did. The compromise was that the North got a ten-dollar tax per head on each slave, and the South was able to keep the slave trade and there would not be a vote on it for at least 20 years.
The North wanted to tax imports and exports. The South did not. The compromise was that imports would be taxed, and exports would not.
Step 1: First, write a response to the following prompt with at least eight substantial sentences, integrating concepts you learned from the reading and other materials (include links when necessary). Show that you can think critically on the topic by integrating your own thoughts, analysis, or experiences.
- Prompt: A compromise means that both sides get something out of it while making concessions to the other side. Do you think the North and South came out equally here, or did one side get the better end of the deal? Discuss.
Step 2: Respond in two separate posts to two classmates (in at least 75 words). Explicitly address their examples and try to extend, complicate, or redirect their points in a substantive, knowledge-demonstrating way. Be sure to cite relevant concepts and key terms from the reading.
Discussion Grading Rubric:
|Responds to prompt||Response is superficial, lacking in analysis or critique. Contributes few novel ideas, connections, or applications.||Provides an accurate response to the prompt, but the information delivered is limited or lacking in analysis.||Provides a thoughtful and clear response to the content or question asked. The response includes original thoughts and novel ideas.||__/4|
|Supporting Details||Includes vague or incomplete supporting evidence or fails to back opinion with facts.||Supports opinions with details, though connections may be unclear, not firmly established, or explicit.||Supports response with evidence; makes connections to the course content and/or other experiences. Cites evidence when appropriate.||__/2|
|Comments and participation||Provides brief responses or shows little effort to participate in the learning community.||Responds kindly and builds upon the comments from others, but may lack depth, detail, and/or explanation.||Kindly and thoroughly extend discussions already taking place or poses new possibilities or opinions not previously voiced. Response is substantive and constructive.||__/4|