The impasse over how enslaved individuals were to be represented in the new system of governance was solved through this plan, in which 60% of the enslaved population was to be counted for purposes of Congressional apportionment.

• A. Great Compromise
• B. Three-Fifths Compromise
• C. Commerce Compromise
• D. Northwest Ordinance

Answer: (B)

How enslaved people would be counted for representation in Congress was decided by a specific plan that counted three-fifths of the enslaved population for apportionment. This arrangement emerged from the Constitutional Convention as a compromise between Northern states, which argued enslaved people should not be counted for representation, and Southern states, which wanted enslaved people to count as part of their population to boost their political power. By counting three-fifths of the enslaved population, the plan gave Southern states more seats in the House than if enslaved people weren’t counted at all, but less than if they were counted in full. It addressed both representation and taxation concerns, because the same rule applied to determining a state's tax base as well.

Other options address different issues. The Great Compromise resolved how states would be represented between large and small states in the two houses, not specifically how enslaved people would be counted. The Commerce Compromise dealt with Congress’s power over trade and the pace of regulating enslaved labor, not population counting for representation. The Northwest Ordinance established governance for new territories and prohibited slavery there, but it did not set how enslaved people would be counted for congressional seats.