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.

I think the three-fifths compromise was a poor attempt to delay the inevitable. I think that it would have been better to address slavery sooner. I think it should have been adressed when the constituion and bill of rights were written. I understand that it would have been a divisive issue but if you claim that "All men are created equal" and then turn around and dehuminaze other people than it makes you a hypocrite becuase you cannot just pick and choose who is and who is not considered human.

The three-fifths compromise did not do anything for the rights of the slaves in fact it dehumanized them even more and caused the civil war to start even sooner. If they had at least counted everyone as a human not only would it have possibly delayed the war but there may have been a way to keep the plantation owerners happy by saying they would have to pay anyone who worked for them and could not abuse them. If the slaves were treated as an entire person then they would have gained the population needed for more representation. It would have also helped them get the freedom they desereved and possibly avoid the civil war. It would have also helped the southern economy to have a higher and eventually more educated population. One cause of the civil war was the signfict difference in the economies in the north versus the south.

Explanation:

they killed other men

explanation:

1- in bradbury's  fahrenheit 451, all books are banned and burned upon discovery. in the nazi germany, books considered to be subversive to the regime would be burned to keep the population from generating ideologies that could challenge nazism.

2- was bradbury correct in his literal interpretation of  “where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people.”? in some way, yes. when knowledge is not only limited, but also controlled, the people tied to it are led to their demise. just like in the novel, people in nazi germany who owned  subversive books were punished not only by the burning of their property, but also by the discrimination that followed after such a public form of consequence. if a person was seen being confiscated  subversive  books, they may be considered as an ally to the jews, which meant pretty much the same as being the enemy back then. because of the extreme exclusion and suffering that followed this punishment, it's almost like dying a slow death.

in this way, the phrase  “where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people.” is both literal and figurative.

explanation:

mark brainliest and have a great day!