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.

The way I feel about the Three-Fifths Compromise is that it was the correct decision by the framers of the constitution under the difficult conditions in which negotiations were handled.

We conclude that during the Constitutional Convention held in the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1787, the delegates met to discuss the kind of government needed for the new United States.

Learn more about this topic here:

link

I feel that the Three-Fifths Compromise was an unacceptable compromise even at the cost of the nation breaking up over the issue of slavery.

Explanation:

As slaves were still not allowed to vote, the Three Fifths Compromise gave the slave owners a clear political advantage as they constituted the majority of the population of the young union. The consequence of the agreement was that in 1793 the slave states had 47 seats in the House of Representatives, where they would have only had 33 if the seats had been based solely on free citizens. In 1812 the slave states had 76 seats instead of the 59 they would otherwise had; and in 1833 they had 98 seats instead of 73. In the period from George Washington was elected president until the Compromise of 1850, the slave owners disputed the presidency for 50 out of the 62 years.

It constituted a clear injustice, since the slaves were mistreated and used as merchandise, but at the same time, required for political purposes.

this is true

mark other guy brainliest