The Three-Fifths Compromise was a significant agreement reached during the drafting of the United States Constitution in 1787. It dealt with the contentious issue of how enslaved individuals would be counted for the purpose of determining a state's population, which, in turn, would influence representation in the U.S. House of Representatives and the distribution of direct taxes among the states.

Here's what the Three-Fifths Compromise entailed:

1. Enslaved Individuals as Population: Some states, particularly Southern states, wanted to count their enslaved populations as part of their total population when determining the number of seats they would have in the House of Representatives. A larger population would mean more representatives and greater political influence.

2. Northern Opposition: Many Northern states opposed this idea. They argued that if enslaved individuals were counted as part of the population for representation, then they should also be subject to direct taxes levied by the federal government.

3. Compromise: The Three-Fifths Compromise, proposed by James Wilson and Roger Sherman, was a compromise between these positions. It stipulated that, for the purposes of representation and taxation, each enslaved individual would be counted as three-fifths of a person. In other words, every five enslaved individuals would count as three people when determining representation and taxation.

4. Consequences: The Three-Fifths Compromise had significant political and economic implications. It increased the representation of Southern states in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College, as they had larger enslaved populations. However, it also meant that the federal government would collect more in direct taxes from Southern states due to their higher population count.

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a deeply controversial and morally troubling aspect of the Constitution. It essentially treated enslaved individuals as property while simultaneously acknowledging their presence for political and economic purposes. This compromise helped bridge the gap between Northern and Southern states during the Constitutional Convention, but it did not resolve the underlying issue of slavery, which would continue to be a source of tension and conflict in the years leading up to the Civil War.