Questions: Question 40 (1.32 points) A key part of the Great Compromise (Plan), the 3 / 5 ths Compromise . . . Claimed that one African American person was only worth 3/5th's of one White person. Claimed that 3 / 5 th's of a state's enslaved population should be counted, but only for purposes of assessing representation in the House of Representatives. Claimed that 3/5th's of a state's enslaved population should be counted, except when assessing representation in the House of Representatives. Claimed that African American persons could only remain in 3/5th's of the states.

Question 40 (1.32 points) A key part of the Great Compromise (Plan), the 3 / 5 ths Compromise . . . Claimed that one African American person was only worth 3/5th's of one White person. Claimed that 3 / 5 th's of a state's enslaved population should be counted, but only for purposes of assessing representation in the House of Representatives. Claimed that 3/5th's of a state's enslaved population should be counted, except when assessing representation in the House of Representatives. Claimed that African American persons could only remain in 3/5th's of the states.

Transcript text: Question 40 (1.32 points) A key part of the Great Compromise (Plan), the $3 / 5$ ths Compromise . . . Claimed that one African American person was only worth 3/5th's of one White person. Claimed that $3 / 5$ th's of a state's enslaved population should be counted, but only for purposes of assessing representation in the House of Representatives. Claimed that 3/5th's of a state's enslaved population should be counted, except when assessing representation in the House of Representatives. Claimed that African American persons could only remain in 3/5th's of the states.

Solution

Answer

The answer is: Claimed that $3 / 5$ th's of a state's enslaved population should be counted, but only for purposes of assessing representation in the House of Representatives.

Explanation

Option 1: Claimed that one African American person was only worth 3/5th's of one White person.

This option is misleading. The 3/5ths Compromise did not directly state the worth of an individual but rather how they would be counted for representation purposes.

Option 2: Claimed that $3 / 5$ th's of a state's enslaved population should be counted, but only for purposes of assessing representation in the House of Representatives.

This is the correct interpretation. The 3/5ths Compromise was an agreement during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that determined that three-fifths of the enslaved population would be counted for determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxation.

Option 3: Claimed that 3/5th's of a state's enslaved population should be counted, except when assessing representation in the House of Representatives.

This option is incorrect because the 3/5ths Compromise specifically applied to representation in the House of Representatives.

Option 4: Claimed that African American persons could only remain in 3/5th's of the states.

This option is incorrect and does not reflect any historical fact related to the 3/5ths Compromise.

Was this solution helpful?