CYBERLAND UNIVERSITY OF NORTH AMERICA
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
University President & Professor of Political Science
SECOND PAGE
NOTES ON THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1787
& THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
(Continued)
POLITICAL CONFLICT & CONTROVERSY AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION:
THE CENTRAL CONTROVERSY:
How the states were to be represented in the national
legislature:
Equal representation (as was the case in the
Confederation Congress)?
or
Representation according to population?
THE UNDERLYING CONFLICT OF INTERESTS:
THE BASIS OF THE DISAGREEMENT:
The rather sharp conflict of interests between
the LARGE STATES and the SMALL STATES.
THE LARGE STATES & THEIR INTERESTS:
These were states with large populations and
great wealth--Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York,
and Massachusetts.
Of the 13 states, there were only four large
states.
However, the combined population of the four
states was larger than the combined population
of the other nine states.
And the combined wealth of the four large
states was greater than the combined
wealth of the nine remaining states.
Naturally, the four large states wanted each
state's representation in the national legisla-
ture to be in proportion to its population or
taxable wealth.
This would, of course, give the large states
control of the national legislature, if the
four states could stick together as a cohesive
bloc in the national legislature.
This position of the large states on the ques-
tion of representation was simply a matter of
SELF-INTEREST.
THE SMALL STATES & THEIR INTERESTS:
The states with less wealth and small popula-
tions favored equal representation of the
states in the national legislature.
They wanted the states to have equal represen-
tation in either--
A unicameral national legislature;
or
At least one house of a bicameral nation-
al legislature.
In advocating this arrangement, the small
states were seeking to prevent the large states
from outvoting them and dominating the national
government.
The position of the small states on the issue
of legislative representation, like that of
the large states, was simply a matter of SELF-
INTEREST.
THE OPPOSING BLOCS OF DELEGATES:
The issue of legislative representation came to a
head when the Federal Convention began its considera-
tion of the VIRGINIA PLAN.
THE VIRGINIA PLAN:
Was introduced by Edmund Randolph, Governor of
Virginia and head of the Virginia delegation
at the Convention;
Called for a new central government with sweep-
ing powers;
Called for a bicameral national legislature:
In both chambers, a state would be repre-
sented according to its--
Total free population;
or
Tax contributions to the national
treasury.
The national legislature would--
Elect the national chief executive;
Appoint the judges on the U.S.
Courts.
Under the Virginia Plan, the four large states
would dominate--
Both houses of the national legislature;
The national executive;
The U.S. Courts.
[Or, so it seemed to the small states.]
The issue of legislative representation divided the
Convention into two opposing blocs of delegates:
(1) Delegates from and representing the inter-
ests of the large states;
(2) Delegates from and representing the inter-
ests of the small states.
Delegates from the small states supported an alterna-
tive plan for a new central government--the NEW JER-
SEY PLAN.
THE NEW JERSEY PLAN:
Was presented by William Patterson, one of the
delegates from New Jersey;
Called for a central government with a degree
of authority greater than that of the central
government under the Articles of Confederation;
[The proposed constitutional grant of
authority to the central government in-
cluded the powers to (1) tax and (2)
regulate interstate and foreign com-
merce.]
Called for a unicameral (single-chamber) na-
tional legislature in which each state would
cast only one vote in the legislature's deci-
sion on a given issue.
There would be equal representation of
the states in the national legislature.
WHY IT WAS SO IMPORTANT THAT THE CONFLICT OVER LEGISLATIVE
REPRESENTATION BE RESOLVED:
The conflict between the two blocs of states over
representation of the states in the national legisla-
ture deadlocked the Federal Convention and threatened
to break it up.
If the Convention was to continue meeting and delib-
erating and manage to draft and propose a new consti-
tution providing for a stronger central government,
the controversy over legislative representation had
to be resolved.
If the issue had not been resolved by the Federal
Convention, a proposed new constitution could not
have been obtained at the time.
THE CONNECTICUT COMPROMISE:
WHAT IT WAS:
The agreement that--
Was reached in the Federal Convention;
Resolved the controvery over representation
of the states in the national legislature.
The compromise was urged by three delegates from
Connecticut.
A special committee of the Convention examined the
proposed agreement and recommended that the Conven-
tion vote to approve the proposal.
The Convention approved the Connecticut Compromise by
a very slim majority.
By the skin of its teeth, the Constitutional
Convention averted a breakup.
KEY PROVISIONS:
A bicameral national legislature.
UPPER CHAMBER--THE U.S. SENATE:
The states would be REPRESENTED EQUALLY.
Each state would choose two members.
The state legislature would elect the
two members.
Each member of the Upper Chamber--
Would have one vote in any decision of
the chamber;
Would vote INDEPENDENTLY--i.e.. would not
be bound by instructions from the state
legislature that elected him.
LOWER CHAMBER--THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
The states would be REPRESENTED ACCORDING TO
POPULATION.
The larger the population of a state, the
more seats it would be entitled to fill
in the Lower Chamber.
Each member would have one vote in any
decision of the chamber.
Seats in the Lower Chamber would be filled by
DIRECT POPULAR ELECTION.
All bills for raising revenue--all tax bills--
would ORIGINATE in (be first introduced into)
the Lower House.
In the Upper House, action could not be
taken on a revenue bill until it was
first considered and passed by the Lower
Chamber.
However, the Upper House would have full
power of debate and amendment.
THE CONNECTICUT COMPROMISE & THE SMALL STATES:
Once the large-state delegates had conceded equal
representation of the states in the Upper Chamber
of the national legislature, most of the fears of
the small-state delegates vanished.
Since there were many more small states than there
were large states, equal representation in the Upper
House would allow the small states to predominate in
that chamber.
The small-state majority in the Upper House
could protect its interests against the popu-
lar numerical majority in the Lower House.
Acceptance of the Connecticut Compromise by the
Federal Convention made it possible for the small
states to agree to the establishment of a strong
national government.