what weaknesses were there in the argument against the three fifths compromise
1. The argument against the Three-Fifths Compromise failed to address the political reality of the time. The compromise was a necessary compromise between Northern and Southern states to get the Constitution ratified and create a functioning government.
2. The argument did not offer a viable alternative solution to address the issue of representation for slaves in the new government. The Three-Fifths Compromise, while flawed, was a practical solution given the political climate and the need for unity among the states.
3. The argument lacked historical context and understanding of the complexities of the time. It failed to acknowledge that the compromise was a necessary evil to prevent the collapse of the Constitutional Convention and the failure to establish a new government.
4. The argument didn't consider the fact that the Three-Fifths Compromise was later repealed by the 14th Amendment, which granted full citizenship and representation to all individuals, regardless of race.
5. The argument against the compromise focused solely on the negative impact on slaves and failed to recognize the larger historical context and complexities of the issue. It did not take into account the broader implications of the compromise in preserving and uniting the newly formed United States.