Pros And Cons Of The Great Compromise

676 Words2 Pages

Smaller states like Delaware and New Jersey objected to the Virginia Plan saying that the large states would easily outvote them in Congress if the number of votes were based on population. After weeks of debate, William Patterson of New Jersey put forth a plan that called for three branches including a legislature with only one house where each state would have one vote. The New Jersey Plan with a single house legislature and equal representation was more like Congress under the Articles. The convention was deadlocked and appeared ready to fall apart when Roger Sherman proposed a compromise. Sherman�s proposal has come to be known as the Great Compromise. It called for a Congress with two houses (also known as "bicameralism") � the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate would give equal representation to all of the states. Each state would have two senators that would be chosen by the state legislature. This part of the plan satisfied the small states. The House of Representatives would base representation on a state�s population (one …show more content…

It is sometimes wrongly said that the compromise meant the founders considered slaves as only partial human beings. In fact, the compromise had nothing to do with the human worth of the individual slave. States with slaves wanted to count all of their slaves in the state�s population because that would yield more representatives in Congress. The opponents of slavery, noting that slaves had no rights of citizenship including the vote, argued that slaves should not be counted at all for purposes of representation. In the end, the compromise was to count three-fifths of the state�s slaves in the total population. In another words, for every five slaves, three of would be added to the population count used to determine representation in the House of

Open Document