The Three-Fifths Compromise determined how enslaved people would be counted for representation and taxation. For this purpose, which option best describes its rule?

• A. For representation and taxation, enslaved people were counted as one full person
• B. For representation and taxation, enslaved people were counted as zero
• C. For representation and taxation, enslaved people were counted as five-fifths
• D. For representation and taxation, enslaved people were counted as three-fifths of a person

Answer: (D)

The key idea is how enslaved people were counted for representation and taxation under the Three-Fifths Compromise. The rule was that enslaved individuals would be counted as three-fifths of a person when determining a state's number of representatives in Congress and its share of taxes.

This compromise arose because northern and southern states disagreed over how to apportion political power and tax burdens. Counting enslaved people as full persons would give slaveholding states far more representation, while counting them as zero would deny them any political influence. Settling on three-fifths provided a middle ground: enslaved people contributed to both representation and taxation, but not to the same extent as free people.

So, the correct description is that enslaved people were counted as three-fifths of a person. The other options misstate the rule: zero would give no representation or tax base from enslaved people, full counting would be five-fifths, and five-fifths would give too much weight.