Final answer:
The Three-Fifths Compromise addressed the counting of enslaved people for representation and taxation, while the Slave Trade Clause pertained to the continuation of the trans-Atlantic slave trade until 1808. Both were key issues in the drafting of the United States Constitution, reflecting the contentious views on slavery.
Step-by-step explanation:
Difference Between the Three-Fifths Compromise and the Slave Trade Clause
The primary difference between the Three-Fifths Compromise and the Slave Trade Clause lies in the nature of the issues each addressed during the formation of the United States Constitution. The Three-Fifths Compromise was a solution to the disagreement over how enslaved people should be counted for determining both representation in the House of Representatives and taxation. It was agreed that each enslaved person would count as three-fifths of a free person.
In contrast, the Slave Trade Clause was a compromise regarding the trans-Atlantic slave trade. This compromise allowed the trade to continue until 1808, after which it could potentially be abolished. It was also agreed that the term 'slave' would not be used in the Constitution, instead referring to 'free persons' and 'all other persons' to imply those who were enslaved.
Both agreements were highly controversial, reflecting the sectional tensions between Northern and Southern states and the wide-ranging views on slavery and trade at the time. The Three-Fifths Compromise directly influenced the political power balance between the states, while the Slave Trade Clause addressed the legality and morality of the slave trade itself.