The Great Compromise Was An Agreement Between

This agreement allowed discussions to continue and resulted in the three-fifths compromise, which further complicated the issue of popular representation in Parliament. On July 4, delegates developed a compromise plan that sidelined Franklin`s proposal. On 16 July, the Convention adopted the Great Compromise with a heartbreaking one-voice lead. As the celebrants of 1987 duly said, there probably would not have been a Constitution without that vote. Exactly 200 years ago, the authors of the U.S. Constitution gathered at Independence Hall reached an extremely important agreement. Their so-called “Great Compromise” (or Connecticut compromise in honor of its architects, S.G.S. MPs Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut) offered a dual system of congressional representation. 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 believe that this regulation is self-evident; in the summer of 1787 welk-hot, it was a new idea.

The Great Compromise of 1787, also known as the Sherman Compromise, was an agreement reached at the 1787 Constitutional Convention between delegates from states of large and small population, which defined the structure of Congress and the number of representatives each state would have in Congress in accordance with the Constitution of the United States. Under the agreement proposed by Connecticut Congressman Roger Sherman, Congress would be a “bicameral chamber” or a bicameral body, with each state receiving a certain number of representatives in the lower house (the House of Representatives) in proportion to its population and two representatives in the upper chamber (the Senate). Differences in views on representation threatened to derail ratification of the U.S. Constitution, with delegates on both sides pledging to reject the document if they did not get away with it. The solution took the form of a compromise proposed by statesmen Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut. In the decision on the question of representation, the debate focused on the slaves who exist in the population of a state and which led to the formation of the three-fifths compromise. Under this agreement, each state had to count three-fifths of its slaves out of its total population. Prior to this agreement, the slave states called for an increase in their representation in Congress by counting all slaves in the community.

On the other hand, opponents have argued that slaves are not citizens and therefore have no rights. It was not necessary to count them in the context of the population. “The founders could never imagine… the large population differences of the states that exist today ,” explains Edwards.¬†If they happen to live in a state of population, you will have a broader say in the U.S. government.¬†Before the 1787 Constitutional Convention, large states such as Virginia preferred representation of Congress based on the population of a state. On the other hand, small states wanted equal representation. Edmund Randolph and James Madison proposed the Virginia Plan on May 29, 1787. The plan called for the government to be made up of three branches of the legislative, executive and judicial branches.

The three branches would serve two-piece legislation. The public should elect members of the House of Commons and they would in turn elect representatives to the House of Lords. In other words, both houses had a proportional population. Madison also proposed that Congress have a veto over all state laws. The New Jersey plan, presented on June 15, 1787 by William Patterson, required equal representation of each state as in the system of articles of confederation, but tried to increase the power of Congress.

Comments are closed.