Agreement Reached under the Great Compromise

States with smaller populations did not like this idea because they believed that their voices would be drowned out by the most populous states. Moreover, some did not agree with the plan to abolish the articles of Confederation. Later that year William Paterson proposed the legislature of a single house with equal representation, independent of the population. This proposal would keep the Articles of Confederation largely intact, but would increase the power of Congress. After six weeks of unrest, North Carolina shifted its vote to equal representation per state, Massachusetts abstained, and a compromise was reached called the “Great Compromise.” In the “Grand Compromise,” each state received the same representation, formerly known as the New Jersey Plan, in one House of Congress and proportional representation, formerly known as the Virginia Plan, in the other. Because it was considered more sensitive to majority voting, the House of Representatives was given the power to pass all laws dealing with the federal budget and revenue/taxes under the origination clause. Because of the impasse, the matter was referred to a committee to reach a compromise. The committee presented a report that served as the basis for the “Grand Compromise.” The report recommended that each state receive an equal vote in the upper house. In the House of Commons, each state would get one representative for every 40,000 inhabitants, including slaves counted as three-fifths of a resident.

The Connecticut Compromise (also known as the Great Compromise of 1787 or Sherman Compromise) was an agreement reached by the large and small states at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which partially established the legislative structure and representation that each state would have under the United States Constitution. It retained the bicameral legislature, as proposed by Roger Sherman, as well as proportional representation of states in the lower house or house of representatives, but required that the upper house or Senate be weighted equally between states. Each state would have two representatives in the House of Lords. The Great Compromise of 1787, also known as the Sherman Compromise, was an agreement reached at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 between delegates from large and small states that determined the structure of Congress and the number of representatives each state would have in Congress under the United States Constitution. Under the agreement proposed by Connecticut Delegate Roger Sherman, Congress would be a “bicameral or bicameral body,” with each state receiving one number of representatives in the lower house (the House) in proportion to its population and two representatives in the upper house (the Senate). Exactly 200 years earlier, the framers of the U.S. Constitution, who met at Independence Hall, had reached an extremely important agreement. Their so-called Grand Compromise (or Connecticut Compromise in honor of its architects, Connecticut delegates Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth) offered a dual system of representation in Congress. In the House of Representatives, each state would be allocated a number of seats relative to its population. In the Senate, all states would have the same number of seats.

Today, we take this regulation for granted; in the heat and wilted summer of 1787, it was a new idea. The disagreement over representation threatened to derail ratification of the U.S. Constitution, with delegates on both sides of the dispute vowing to reject the document if they failed to get what they wanted. The solution took the form of a compromise proposed by Connecticut statesmen Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth. In 1787, this was an entirely new approach – one that succeeded in preventing the Constitutional Convention from collapsing that stifling summer, when for weeks it seemed that delegates could not reach agreement on the key issue of legislative representation. The vote on the Connecticut compromise on July 16 made the Senate look like the Confederate Congress. In the previous weeks of debate, James Madison of Virginia, Rufus King of New York and Governor Morris of Pennsylvania vigorously rejected the compromise for this reason. [7] For nationalists, the Convention`s vote in favour of compromise was a crushing defeat. On July 23, however, they found a way to salvage their vision of an elitist and independent Senate.

Just before most of the convention`s work was referred to the Detail Committee, Governor Morris and Rufus King asked state members to vote individually in the Senate instead of voting en bloc, as they had done in the Confederate Congress. Then Oliver Ellsworth, one of the main proponents of the Connecticut compromise, supported their motion, and the Convention reached the permanent compromise. [8] Since the Convention had approved early on the proposal in the Virginia plan that senators have a long term, the restoration of the vision of this plan of individually powerful senators prevented the Senate from becoming a strong protector of federalism. State governments have lost their right of direct scrutiny over congressional decisions to pass national laws. Since personally influential senators received a much longer term than the state legislators who elected them, they essentially became independent. The compromise continued to serve the special interests of the political leaders of the small States, who were guaranteed access to more seats in the Senate than they would otherwise have been able to obtain. [9] This agreement allowed the deliberations to continue and thus resulted in the three-fifths compromise, which further complicated the issue of the representation of the people in parliament. The Grand Compromise of 1787, or the Connecticut Compromise as it is also known, was an agreement reached at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. This agreement outlined the legislative structure and representation of each state under the U.S.

Constitution. Under this agreement, the bicameral legislature proposed by Roger Sherman was kept intact, which is why it is also known as the Sherman Compromise. The question of representation, however, threatened to destroy the seven-week-old convention. Delegates from major states believed that because their states contributed proportionately more to the nation`s financial and defensive resources, they should be proportionally more represented in the Senate and House of Representatives. Delegates from small States demanded with comparable intensity that all States be equally represented in both chambers. When Sherman proposed the compromise, Benjamin Franklin agreed that every state should have an equal voice in the Senate on all matters — except in terms of money. .

Posted in Uncategorized