This differed from the articles of confederation which gave every state, regardless of population, one vote in congress. Secondly, the New Jersey plan was proposed by William Patterson, and his idea had the support of the smaller states, since they had strongly objected the Virginia plan in fear of being overcome by the larger states. Consequently, supporters of the Virginia plan said that it was only fair that a state with more people would have more representatives. Similar to the Virginia plan, the New Jersey plan called for three branches but provided for a legislature that only had one house. Finally, the great compromise was proposed by Roger Sherman of Connecticut who hoped to satisfy both large and small states before the convention fell apart. His proposal called for a two house legislature with a house of representatives as the Lower house and the Senate as the upper. The House of Representatives would be elected by popular vote and the Senate would be chosen by the state
On May 25, 1787 in a State House in Philadelphia, fifty-five delegates from twelve out of the thirteen colonies re-united, in efforts to modify the ineffective Articles of Confederation. This meeting was called the Continental Convention of 1787. After the Articles of Confederation, it was clear that a unicameral legislature was not going to uphold the needs of all the states, to maintain and unify them. Many ideas arose to offer a solution for the controversial debate on how many representatives each state should have in the U.S. Congress. The ...
When the Framers were drafting the presidential selection procedure of the Constitution in 1787, they presented an artful compromise to the issue of direct election. With the new country spanning thousands of miles along the Atlantic coast and barely connected by transportation or communication, it was impractical if not impossible to distribute information widely enough for every citizen to make an informed choice (Kimberling). In a direct election, this lack of knowledge about candidates living in other states would inevitably result in citizens voting for the candidate they knew the most about. Because the larger states have considerable more voters, presidents would be elected not for their political beliefs, but for their place of residence. Given the inability to spread information extensively, the Framers compromised by adopting the idea of representation. The people up and down the country would vote for local delegates with whom they were familiar with. These electors would then elect a president “pre-eminent for ability and virtue” (Hamilton 333). By devising the Electoral College, the Framers ensured th...
Deciding how America's government would work during the creation of the constitution, also decided the future of America and its decisions. Our government derives from the creation of the American government after the revolutionary war in 1787. To get all of the state’s to agree on the constitution many compromises had to be made. The delegates from the thirteen states met to change America. Our government today is based on the solutions and compromises made at the constitutional convention. One of the biggest compromises that set the stage for the rest of the constitution's success was made from different parts proposed by different sections of America. The Great Compromise would not have been successful, if America was not willing to use different viewpoints, create small compromises in between large ones, and combine thoughts to form something that all states would be happy with.
Madison believed that having diverse representatives would lead to a federal government that would be better than any state government that was homogeneous. He went a step further by saying that representatives should be unlike the populous, meaning that the elected should be wiser, better, and not like the voters. Anti-Federalists predicted the populist Americans wouldn’t put up with these bold Federalist ideas. The Anti-Federalists would make their mark on the Constitution, but ultimately the Constitution would be closer to the Federalists’ bold
The Constitutional Convention, held in Philadelphia in the autumn of 1787, is a strong example of compromise during this time period. The Constitutional Convention created many noteworthy compromises such as the Connecticut Compromise, the Three-Fifths Compromise, the Commerce compromise, the Slave Trade Compromise, and the Compromise on Executive Elections (Roche). These compromises are highly notable due to their influence throughout the rest of American history. And whilst the men involved in the Constitutional Convention were highly motivated to further their own ideas, their willingness to compromise exemplified the desire to compromise for the benefit of the new nation during this time period. The idea of compromise continued on with the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Devised by Henry Clay, it was implemented to regulate slavery in the western territories and prohibit it north of the parallel 36°30′ (“Missouri Compromise of 1820”). The exception to this was the state of Missouri, which was admitted to the union as a slave state, despite being north of the line. The Missouri Compromise was influential as it lessened the tensions rising between the abolitionists in the northern states and the pro-slavery supporters in the southern states. Whilst the Missouri Compromise was effective for a number of years, it did not entirely quell the tensions surrounding
On June 12, 1776, the Continental Congress appointed a committee, consisting of one delegate from each of the thirteen states, for the purpose of setting up a cohesive Federal Government. Headed by John Dickinson, the committee presented a draft of the Articles of Confederation to Congress a month later. Though the Articles were not officially ratified until five years later, Congress began operating under them in 1777. The delay that occurred during the years from drafting to ratification was partially caused by the opening of a multi-faceted debate that encompassed the issues of representation for citizens, the balance of power within the country, and state sovereignty. Densely-populated states wanted a system of representation based on population, while the more sparsely-inhabited states disagreed. The Federalist Party wanted a small federal government, but common sense demanded a balance in size. Everyone wanted the question of state sovereignty answered. The Articles of Confederation attempted to answer these questions, but instead, only succeeded in creating an ineffectual, self-contradictory government that required reform. This reform came in the form of the Constitution of 1789.
The delegates of Congress gathered to ratify the new Constitution in 1787, had to agree in many compromises, two of the biggest ones were the Great Compromise and the Three-Fifth Compromise. The Great Compromise also called The Connecticut framed mainly by Sherman, resolved the debate between the Virginia plan supporters and the New Jersey plan supporters on the biggest issue of the debate centered on how many representative each state should have in the Congress. The Three-Fifth Compromise resolved the debates over slavery, taxation, and representation in the lower house, mostly between the southern states seeking more representation in the lower house and wanted the slaves to be counted, and northern states that wanted the slaves to be taxed
The tradeoff, however, is that the southern states would have a large number of representatives in the House of Representatives because the House apportionment was based on population. However, this would be unfair to the northern states because they did not have a large amount of slaves who could increase their representation in Congress. Additionally, counting slaves as a full person would illustrate an inequality in representation because representation would basically be a demonstration of how many slaves a state had, meaning representation would largely be based on how much money and wealth one state had compared to another, which would be undemocratic and against the principles of equality. Lastly, counting a slave as 3/5 of a person would ensure that states would “feel as little bias as possible to swell or reduce” their population for purposes of getting more representation in congress or less taxes (Madison 338). Madison’s discomfort with this compromise is palatable. He acknowledges that the constitution regards slaves as part property and part human being, and in explaining the reasoning behind the compromise, never refers to himself as having those sentiments. Instead, he
Sources A and D have slightly different opinions on how the United States should address the issue of slavery. Both sources are from the same year as the Compromise of 1850 was approved and started to work in the country. Other than that, both sources come from a speech directed towards the u.s senate by a credible southerner and northerner.
When discussing the makeup of Congress, one must first look to the intent of the framers around creating a bicameral legislature. This would take me to the first section of our class regarding the debates the founding fathers had about equal representation of the states in the Congress.
one of the major compromises that was addresses at the Constitutional Convention was how congress would be represented between the small states and big states. The small states wanted each state to have the same number of representatives in Congress. The big states wanted representation based on population. During the drafting of the Constitution James Madison suggested that instead of starting a new federal constitution that they just revise the original Articles of Confederation coming up with a proposal that would be one of the opening discussion. The proposal he prepared would put the Virginia Plan which called for the New Congress to be divided into two houses (pg. 191), and New Jersey Plan sought to keep the existing structure of equal
The six delegates there decided meet the next year in Philadelphia to revise the Articles of Confederation. Rather than making minor adjustments to the Articles, they decided to start fresh and create the constitution. A strong national government was the main purpose of creating the constitution. With three branches of government, (judicial, executive and legislative) the government would be protected from despotism by the people and the government itself. After the Connecticut Compromise last year in 1787, the ratification of the constitution seemed to be the clear choice. This great compromise will give us a house of representatives based on population, and a senate where each state will get two
The supporters of proportional representation (James Madison, James Wilson, and Rufus King) argued that the number of members in both houses should be based on the number of people that they would represent. Since government both acted and represented the people, they believe that the government should give equal voting power to an equal number of people. Madison argues that the states should not be represented as states in national gov. (each representative should serve a district and connect the people of that district to the national government). Others argued for equal representation of the states (as in Articles of Confederation). These delegates believe that U.S. was confederation of separate states, and the national government derived
For a document written in a mere one hundred and sixteen days, it is quite amazing that the United States Constitution still plays an integral role in the government. However, this document, like many important governing papers, has come with controversies and arguments since its establishment as a set of principles with which to govern states. The Constitution of the United States, created in 1787, arose from a need of a new document after the Articles of Confederation that could assert more control over the states. A product of the Constitutional convention, the Constitution laid out the framework for a popular government with checks and balances as well as a separation of powers. Since the Constitution is a relatively short document given