Final answer:
The South's insistence on the Three-Fifths Compromise was politically justified in the context of wanting greater representation. However, the compromise was morally controversial as it implicitly recognized slavery, which is widely considered unethical today.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a political agreement reached during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention that partially recognized a state's enslaved population in its total population count. Proponents from the Southern states argued for the full counting of enslaved persons, which would provide the South with a greater number of seats in the House of Representatives and more votes in the Electoral College. Opponents from the Northern states, who had fewer enslaved persons, fundamentally disagreed on moral grounds and because it would minimize their own political power.
From a political standpoint, the South was justified in its insistence on the Three-Fifths Compromise as it sought to achieve greater political representation. However, morally, the compromise was deeply controversial as it implicitly recognized slavery as a legitimate institution, and considered enslaved people as less than full people. Thus, assigning a moral value to such a historical event largely rests on individual perspective and value judgement.
Learn more about Three-Fifths Compromise