Which Agreement Solved The Disagreement Over

This compromise was between the northern and southern states. The South wanted the slaves to be counted as a whole, the people, so that they would have a larger population, which would lead to more representatives in the house. The three-fifths compromise means that three-fifths of a state`s slave population would be blamed on their total population if they decided how many representatives a state would have in the House of Representatives. The South wanted slaves to be counted as “whole” people so that they would have a larger population, which would lead to more representatives in the house. However, the North did not want them to have more representation and argued that if they wanted to treat slaves as if they were cattle, they should count for the same thing for the people – which is not. In 1787, the debts of the Revolutionary War piled up and many states lag behind in paying their debts. States would impose tariffs on each other and fight across borders. Britain was furious because no debt had been paid before the war, and it refused to respect the treaty that had ended the war (the Treaty of Paris of 1783). Acknowledging that things did not go well, Congress declared on February 21, 1787 that “there are flaws in the present confederation” and decided that in Philadelphia a convention “for the sole and explicit purpose of revising the articles of Confederation” . and to make the Federal Constitution responsive to the needs of the government and to the maintenance of the Union.¬†However, the North did not want them to have more representation and argued that if they wanted to treat slaves as if they were cattle, they should count for the same thing for the people – which is not. If one party has a love of thought and the other has a sense of direction towards decision-making, there will likely be differences of opinion on the use of compromises as a means of resolving the dispute. The person with the preference of thought may try to use the facts and logic to imply their points that the other person is wrong. The “probe” can be powered by their values and emotional energy, which leads them to become defensive and “cling to their weapons” instead of accepting a compromise.

It will be helpful for a mediator to encourage the thinking party to “listen” to the other party`s concerns and feelings to show a sense of understanding and fairness. Subsequently, a presentation of facts and data indicating a compromise might be more acceptable, especially if a compromise decision involves taking into account the impact that the result will have on others. They quickly decided that the executive should have the power to veto laws that are subject to a two-thirds majority in both houses of the legislature. But they could not agree so easily on how to elect the executive.