Final answer:
The Constitutional Convention saw arguments for the slave trade based on economic benefits and the need for political representation, and against it due to moral concerns and the desire to limit southern states' power. The compromise reached counted enslaved individuals as three-fifths for representation and taxation, allowing the trade to continue but also planting the seeds for future conflicts.
Step-by-step explanation:
The arguments for and against the slave trade during the Constitutional Convention were complex and rooted in both economic realities and moral considerations. On one hand, the southern states argued for the economic benefits of slavery, which they claimed as an essential part of their agricultural economy. They believed that the slaves should be counted for purposes of political representation, which would in turn give them more power in the federal government. On the other hand, many northerners opposed the slave trade on moral grounds, viewing it as violent and immoral. They also resisted counting slaves as part of the population because it would grant disproportionate political power to slave-holding states. The eventual compromise was counting each enslaved individual as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of representation and taxation.The debate was heavily influenced by differing perspectives on what the American Revolution represented in terms of liberty. Each side wanted to protect their perceived political and economic liberties as guaranteed by the Constitution. The agreement known as the 'dirty compromise' allowed the slave trade to continue for twenty years in exchange for Southern support of commercial legislation.In conclusion, the debate over the slave trade at the Constitutional Convention was a struggle to balance economic interests against moral concerns, and the result was a compromised position that allowed the slave trade to persist until it was eventually outlawed in 1808.