Answer:
The two compromises established a delicate balance between the North and the South.
Explanation:
The Great Compromise of 1787, also known as the Connecticut Compromise, was a political agreement during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that defined the structure of the legislature of the United States. Under the Compromise, the legislature would be divided in two chambers: the Senate, as the upper house, where every state would have equal representation, and the Congress, the lower house, where seats would be allocated to states proportionally, according to their population. The Three-Fifths Compromise, on the other hand, was the other great compromise agreed during the Constitutional Convention. According to this compromise, three out of every five slaves would be counted as part of the population of each slave state when allocating seats for the Congress.
The political significance of these two compromises was that they established a delicate balance between the North and the South. For the northern states, which were generally smaller than the southern ones, the Great Compromise meant that they would be considered as equals. For the southern states, the Three-Fifths Compromise meant that they were overrepresented. If slaves had not been counted, they'd have been a minority in Congress. However, this balance was very fragile, and the disagreements between the North and South erupted into the Civil War of 1861-65,
The Great Compromise proposed a bicameral congress to achieve political balance between small and large states, and the Three-Fifths Compromise counted three-fifths of enslaved persons for federal representation and taxation, giving extra political power to slave states. Both compromises significantly shaped the U.S. political landscape.
The Great Compromise and the Three-Fifths Compromise had significant political implications for the formation and structure of the United States government. The Great Compromise, also known as the Connecticut Compromise, proposed a bicameral congress. It assuaged the fears of both small and large states by allowing for variable representation: equal representation for each state in the Senate and proportional representation in the House of Representatives, based on state population.
The Three-Fifths Compromise, on the other hand, pertained to the issue of slavery and representation. Under this compromise, three-fifths of the enslaved population would be counted when determining a state's representation in the House of Representatives and its federal tax bill. This compromise effectively gave extra political power to slave states and had a profound impact on the political balance between the North and South. However, it also entrenched racial prejudice in the Constitution by implying that enslaved people were less than fully human.
Both compromises played a crucial role in shaping the U.S. political landscape. They determined how states were represented in the federal government and managed contentious issues like slavery, ensuring the preservation of the Union.
#SPJ3
When people have been enslaved for many generations, and there are many people in the world who've had that experience, and are still having that experience, it's very traumatic. It does a lot of psychological damage that can take many generations to reverse, and if that process is botched it can just linger on indefinitely. Naturally, people have very strong feelings about something that influences their lives so intimately and negatively.
For example, a form of slavery, feudalism, was rampant throughout Europe. People who'd been entrapped in it for centuries fled to America. There they found a civilization where the former 'nobles' (slave masters) in the Old World considered them equal human beings! And all they had to do to achieve that equality was point their fingers at Black Americans and call them the inferiors (slaves).
Unfortunately, this was not a legitimate form of emancipation and it did not heal any of their problems. It's all been festering now for two, three hundred years and they haven't made any progress at all on what ails them. The only hope they've found has been the progress Black people have made in emancipating themselves in a legitimate way. Many whites have found some degree of recovery. You'll find them identifying themselves as 'anti-racist. ' That's generally coincidental with people into 'personal growth.'
Their less fortunate, disadvantaged white brethren who still ascribe to the delusional form of so-called equality and freedom are rarely ever the achievers of any kind of personal growth. So, you see, the post traumatic stress disorders from their unfortunate experience in Europe have remained intact to this very day, and impact their lives strongly, hence their strong feelings about slavery, that, if they're still in a state of denial about these oppression issues, have become quite twisted.
b. 1920s
c. 1930s
d. 1940s
Answer:
Chinese historians have spent well over a thousand years trying to understand why the Han Dynasty collapsed. Over time they developed three main theories: 1) bad rulers; 2) the influence of empresses and court eunuchs over child emperors too young to rule by themselves; and 3) the Yellow Turban Revolt.