The creation of the United States Constitution was a process fraught with debates and compromises, particularly on the issue of representation in Congress. The larger states favored proportionate representation, while smaller states pushed for equal representation. This division among the states could have prolonged the debate indefinitely, but a resolution emerged thanks to the intervention of Roger Sherman, who proposed a bicameral legislature that would satisfy both parties.
The Great Compromise
The impasse over state representation in the new government was resolved through what is now known as the Great Compromise, or the Connecticut Compromise. Roger Sherman, a delegate from Connecticut, played a pivotal role in formulating this agreement. He suggested a dual system of representation: proportional representation in the House of Representatives based on state population, and equal representation in the Senate, where each state would have two senators regardless of its size. This compromise was crucial in moving forward with the creation of the Constitution, as it balanced the interests of both large and small states and allowed them to come together in agreement.
Three-Fifths Compromise
Another contentious issue was how slaves would be counted when determining a state’s population for both taxation and representation. Northern states, where slavery was less prevalent, argued that slaves should be included in the calculation of taxes but not in representation. Southern states, heavily reliant on slave labor, wanted slaves to count towards representation in the House of Representatives to increase their political power. The Three-Fifths Compromise was a solution to this disagreement, wherein five slaves would be counted as three individuals for purposes of both taxation and representation. This compromise, though deeply flawed from a modern perspective, was accepted with little dissent at the time as a way to move forward with the drafting of the Constitution.
Differing Views on Popular Sovereignty
The debate over the role of the people in the new government also elicited strong opinions. Some delegates, such as Roger Sherman and Elbridge Gerry, believed that the general populace did not possess the wisdom necessary to govern and therefore opposed direct election of the federal government by the people. They feared that a direct democracy could lead to mob rule. In contrast, others argued for a government with a broad popular base, advocating for more direct involvement of citizens in their government. This divide highlighted the varying levels of trust in the common citizenry’s ability to make informed decisions about their government.
Inclusion of the West
The question of whether to allow the Western territories the opportunity for statehood was another point of contention. Some delegates wished to limit the expansion of the country by excluding these territories from becoming states, fearing that it would dilute the power of the existing states. However, others referred to the equality principle established in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which had set the precedent for the creation of new states out of the Western territories. The advocates for Western statehood believed in the potential for growth and prosperity that these new states could bring to the nation.
Questions for UPSC
1. How did the Great Compromise balance the interests of large and small states, and what were the long-term implications of this balance on the federal structure of the United States?
2. In light of the Three-Fifths Compromise, how did the framers of the Constitution reconcile the paradoxical issues of slavery and representation, and what were the consequences of this compromise on the political and social fabric of the nation?
3. Considering the differing views on popular sovereignty during the Constitutional Convention, what were the implications of these views on the development of democratic principles and practices in the early United States?