Northern states hoped that slavery would eventually prove unprofitable and wanted the Constitution to ban the (external) slave trade. This would not have banned slavery outright, merely banned the import of new slaves. The Constitution gave congress the power to ban the slave trade only 1808, presumably to give the southern economy time to 'adjust' or to determine how necessary the trade was to the economy in the future. Also, the North felt slaves should be counted for the purpose of taxation but not for representation, as slaves could not vote. Regarding population census of slaves and taxation, the most infamous compromise was arrived upon, namely that "delegates agreed to count slaves as 3/5ths of a person when apportioning representation and taxation" ("Constitutional Compromises," 2008, NY State Regents).
Economic tensions also existed between Southern and Northern states irrespective of slavery. Southerners, who then produced a wide array of exported cash crops like cotton, wanted free trade, the emerging Northern manufacturing industry wanted a more protectionist national policy, and thus the Constitution permitted taxation on imports but not exports ("Constitutional Compromises, 2008, NY State Regents).
The ideological tensions between more democratic and anti-democratic voices of the delegates also defined the convention. Some delegates stated that the "president should be elected directly by the people," while others believed that the common people "could...
Opponents of direct election offered a number of alternatives including election by state legislatures," and as Al Gore well knows, the compromise that was reached was that of the Electoral College, where the states elect electors pledged to vote for a particular candidate, and every state has a different number of electors, based on population size ("Constitutional Compromises," 2008, NY State Regents).
The compromise of the Electoral College, of course, remains contentious today, and many of the compromises, particularly those pertaining to slavery, are no longer relevant, or are deemed foolish with hindsight. Regardless, when contemplating the reform of our institutions of government, it is important to have a clear understanding of why we have such institutions that seem to invite, rather than stifle controversy, and why slavery lasted so long within the written government of a nation that declared itself "of the people."
Works Cited
Constitutional Compromises." NY State Regents. Retrieved 12 Apr 2008. http://www.icsd.k12.ny.us/highschool/pjordan/ushonors/Regents%20Review/Review%20Lessons/Compromises.html
Kelly, Martin. "What was the great compromise?" About.com. Retrieved 12 Apr 2008. http://americanhistory.about.com/od/usconstitution/f/greatcompromise.htm
Stern, Jeffrey. "Federalists." American Foreign Relations. Retrieved 12 Apr 2008. http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/En-Fl/Federalists.html
