---

Historical Background

ON May 30, by a vote of six (Delaware, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia) to one (Connecticut), with New York divided, the delegates resolved to proceed toward the establishment of a "national Government . . . consisting of a supreme Legislative, Executive, & Judiciary." Randolph had suggested this wording as a substitute for the first resolution of the Virginia Plan, which had stressed amendment of the Articles of Confederation. This action in effect represented a commitment almost from the beginning to scrap the Articles and focus attention on a totally new frame and form of government. Over the next 2 weeks, the committee of the whole debated the implications of this resolution and the various provisions of the Virginia Plan. Many disagreements arose over various points, but the deepest and most persistent was over the matter of representation in the proposed legislature. For obvious reasons, most of the delegates of States with large populations or wealth or those such as Georgia with sizable areas that might be expected to be populous in the future favored representation based upon those factors.

But many ardent nationalists from the small States—Paterson of New Jersey and Sherman of Connecticut for example—resented the loss of equal power they enjoyed under the Articles of Confederation and feared they would be dominated or even swallowed up by the large States. Some of these men felt their credentials did not authorize them to support such a proposal or that their States would not approve such an action. This group insisted that representation in at least one house should be by State as it was in the Continental Congress. At first, it appeared that the large States would prevail, but by mid-June it had become clear that the small ones would not budge and that some form of compromise was imperative.

On Wednesday, June 13, the initial debate ended, and the committee reported out 19 resolutions. The Virginia Plan had undergone some modifications. Madison's treasured "council of revision" had been thrown out. So had the authority of the national government to use force against intractable States. A 3-year term was specified for the lower house, and a 7-year term for the upper. The minimum age for both was 30. The central government, instead of the States, was to pay members of the two houses—an important step in making Congress responsible to the national rather than to the State governments. The executive, now defined as one person, was to be elected by the national legislature for a single 7-year term. To balance the executive's dependence upon the legislature, he was given the power to veto legislative acts unless overridden by two-thirds of both houses. Finally, the upper house would choose a "supreme Tribunal" of judges. Most other provisions were virtually identical with the original Virginia Plan.

A key element of that plan retained in the committee report was the principle of variable representation based upon the relative population and/or wealth of the States. Determination of the ratios involved was to be a major point in the continuing debate. Despite serious disagreements remaining among the delegates, it became clear that most of them sought a national government and that an increasing number favored granting some form of sovereignty to the people at large as well as the States. This contradicted classical political theory, which held that sovereignty could have only a single source and the body politic a single head.

First page of the Virginia Plan as amended by the committee of the whole and recorded on June 13, 1787. (National Archives)

IN mid-June, however, the sovereignty issue still needed to be settled. Several features of the revised Virginia Plan continued to alienate small-State delegates. They countered with their own plan. On June 14 Paterson asked for a day's delay so that he might submit a "purely federal" scheme as an alternative to the Virginia Plan. The fruit of his labor and that of Sherman and others was the New Jersey, or Paterson, Plan, introduced on June 15.

This proposal consisted of a set of nine resolutions designed to revise and strengthen the Articles of Confederation without abandoning them or changing their character as a league of States focused around the Continental Congress—all many of the delegates felt they were authorized to do. New and expanded powers were proposed for Congress, in which each State was still to hold one vote. Included were the raising of revenue through import duties, stamp taxes, and postage; power to regulate commerce among the States and with foreign nations; authority to force the States, when approved by an unspecified number of them, to support the government financially and militarily; and the right to use armed force to compel obedience to federal law by individuals as well as States.

Dividing the federal authority into legislative, executive, and judicial branches like the Virginia Plan, the New Jersey Plan proposed a plural executive, elected by Congress for a single term and subject to removal by a majority of the State executives. The executive would have authority to appoint a supreme court.

The New Jersey Plan was surely less radical than the nationalistic Virginia Plan, but it was not "purely federal." The sixth resolution clearly established the primacy of congressional acts and treaties—a provision hardly in keeping with the notion of a voluntary compact of 13 separate but equal States.

On June 16 and 19 the committee of the whole debated the New Jersey Plan. Arguing in its favor, Lansing of New York and Paterson of New Jersey asserted that the Virginia Plan must be rejected because the delegates lacked authority to create a government not based upon the existing Confederation and because the States and people would never approve such a plan. Wilson of Pennsylvania replied that the Convention was authorized to propose whatever it chose. South Carolina's Charles Pinckney tartly observed that if national representation were made equal by States, New Jersey would readily assent to the Virginia Plan. Randolph of Virginia claimed the national crisis was severe enough to warrant a departure from the Confederation system.

At this point, on June 18, Hamilton of New York, who attended irregularly, gave one of his rare speeches—a long one. "Continental" in nature and monarchical in spirit, the supreme central government he proposed would make all the laws and appoint all State executives. The president would be responsible for executing laws enacted by the legislature and would enjoy veto power over their passage, as well as extensive appointment and treaty-making powers. Although the members of the lower house would be elected to 3-year terms by popular vote, the upper as well as the president would be chosen indirectly by electors and would hold office for life during good behavior. Not only would the power of the States be quashed, but also governmental control would be placed in the hands of the wealthy and participation of the populace at large minimized. The plan was clearly unacceptable to the majority of the delegates and they ignored it.

Part of the reason for Hamilton's surprisingly small role in the debates was his extreme nationalism, which put him out of step with his fellows. Another factor was undoubtedly the frustrating effect of his minority position vis-a-vis the two other New York delegates, Lansing and Yates, who usually outvoted him to cast the State's vote. For this reason, until they departed on July 10, he spent some time at home in New York City attending to his law practice; after they left, he had little more reason to participate because, as the sole delegate present from his State, he could not cast its vote.

The day after Hamilton presented his plan, the delegates finished discussion of the New Jersey Plan. Madison made an extended address on the weakness of the proposal and sought to appeal to the self-interest of the small States in forming a strong union. Then, by a vote of seven States (Connecticut, Georgia, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia) to three (Delaware, New Jersey, and New York), with Maryland divided, the framers accepted the Virginia Plan. It was clear, however, that the idea of proportional representation in both houses was continuing to be strongly opposed. The Convention adjourned the committee of the whole and went back into regular session to consider the resolutions that had been passed during the preceding weeks.

During the period June 20-27, when the resolutions on the amended Virginia Plan began to be considered, the debates touched on a variety of subjects: the nature of representation, corruption of legislatures, and the purposes and functions of the upper and lower houses. The nationalists yielded on certain minor points. Several compromises were struck. Madison, Randolph, and others in their camp agreed to drop the word "national" from the committee's first and third resolutions. That word had offended many.

Other changes included the approval of a 6-year term for members of the upper house, one-third of whom were to be elected every 2 years. Because this provision made no mention of the source of legislators' pay, it retreated from the controversial stipulation in the resolution that they were to be paid out of the national treasury. Agreement was also reached that members of the legislature would not be simultaneously eligible for State and National offices.

Luther Martin, Maryland delegate, who fought for the rights of the small States, vociferously opposed the nationalists. Frustrated, he departed before the end of the Convention. (Miniature, watercolor on ivory (ca. 1800), by Robert Field. John Work Garrett Library, Johns Hopkins University.)

BY this time, despite such temporary harmony, feeling had grown so intense on the issue of representation that the Convention seemed on the brink of dissolution. Some members began to talk about going home, but fortunately most were not willing to abandon hope of compromise. In a long and bitter speech on June 27-28, Luther Martin, a late arrival from Maryland who consistently opposed majority programs, took the floor and denounced Virginia, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania for seeking to control the other States. He upheld the principle of one vote for each State. In a forceful rebuttal, Madison stated that these three large States had not made common cause against the others under the Confederation. What the small States really had to fear, he insisted, was a continuation of the existing system, where they were really at the mercy of their large-State neighbors.

Franklin, apparently believing that passions needed to be cooled, proposed that the daily sessions be opened with prayers offered by a local clergyman. Sherman seconded the motion, but Hamilton opposed it. The latter feared the presence of a minister might cause the public to believe the Convention was torn with dissension. Others argued that reason—not heavenly help—was what was needed. In any case, Franklin's proposal died after Williamson raised the embarrassing question of where the money would be obtained to pay the clergyman.

AT this point, bitter debate began. It would last until mid-July. The subject was still representation in the national legislature. The result was the "Great" or "Connecticut" Compromise. The prolonged contention arose largely from the central position of the legislature in the proposed new scheme of government. Under the Virginia Plan, as revised, which the Convention had accepted, the legislature would be virtually supreme. Not only would it elect the executive and the judiciary and have authority to annul all State laws, but also its overall authority in national affairs was extremely broad.

On June 29 the Convention voted six (Georgia, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia) to four (Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, and New York), with Maryland divided, to base representation in the lower house upon some system different from that used in the Confederation; this was almost precisely the same vote as on the same issue in the committee of the whole nearly 3 weeks earlier. Succeeding days brought continued discussion of the question of representation—but in the upper house. Franklin even made a complicated proposal for variable voting depending on the type of legislation.

On July 2 a deadlock occurred on a vote to allow each State an equal voice in the upper house. Five States (Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York) were in favor and five (Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia) were opposed; Georgia was divided. This key vote was determined partially by chance because one Maryland delegate was absent, which permitted Martin to cast the State's vote; and Baldwin changed his stand and divided Georgia's vote. The issue between the large and small States was joined. To break the impasse, a committee of one member from each of the 11 States present was appointed.

The main body adjourned on July 3-4 to celebrate independence and to allow time for the committee to deliberate. It consisted of Gerry of Massachusetts, Sherman of Connecticut (sitting in for Ellsworth), Yates of New York, Paterson of New Jersey, Franklin of Pennsylvania, Bedford of Delaware, Luther Martin of Maryland, Mason of Virginia, Davie of North Carolina, Rutledge of South Carolina, and Baldwin of Georgia.

The membership was notably weak in nationalists of the Madison and Wilson stripe, both of whom opposed establishment of the committee, and strong in States-rights men and moderate nationalists. The basic idea of a compromise had been suggested as early as June 2 by Dickinson, and reiterated later by several others, notably Sherman and Ellsworth. Thus, the decision of the committee came as no surprise. On July 5 Gerry brought in the report. It based representation in the lower house on the free population and three-fifths of the slaves; and in the upper by State. In neither case was an exact total specified, nor was distribution made by State in the lower house. As a concession to the large States, it was further proposed that the lower house should possess exclusive power to initiate money bills without changes or amendments by the upper house. In the lower, every 40,000 inhabitants were to be represented by one member; States having less population were each guaranteed one.

This compromise solution still did not please most of the delegates, many of whom remained angry over the bitter debates that had preceded appointment of the committee. Its recommendations, however, provided a basis for action and steered the Convention away from complete deadlock. On July 6 the portion of the committee report giving special powers to the lower house was approved.

Apart from their official duties, George Washington and the other delegates became involved in semiofficial activities. One of these was meeting with Sconstayah, a Cherokee emissary, who expressed his nation's concern over the encroachment of whites on its lands. (Pennsylvania Packet (Philadelphia), June 16, 1787. Library of Congress.)

That same day, another committee, dominated by large-State nationalists and made up of Gorham and King of Massachusetts, Randolph of Virginia, Rutledge of South Carolina, and Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, was created to iron out the numerical formula for State representation in the proposed lower house. The next day, the Convention approved equality of votes in the upper. Two days later, on July 9, Morris presented the committee's report. It recommended that the first assembly of the lower house consist of 56 seats. These had been hastily and subjectively broken down among the 13 States (ranging from one to nine each), mainly on the basis of population but also to some degree on wealth. Subsequently, the national legislature was to vary apportionment of the seats based upon future alterations in the same elements.

Yet an additional committee immediately came into being to prepare a more satisfactory distribution of seats in the lower house. The members were King, Sherman, Yates, Brearly, Gouverneur Morris, Read, Carroll, Madison, Williamson, Rutledge, and Houstoun. The next day, King delivered the report, which raised the number of seats to 65, an increase of one for most of the States. This undoubtedly was attractive to the small ones. Efforts by Madison to double the number and by Charles Cotesworth Pinckney to increase by one the seats for North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia were both defeated. Finally, the second committee's formula was approved.

The following day, July 11, was one of the most contentious of the summer. Debate focused on the role of slaves in the scheme of representation and the need for and mechanisms of a national census; the latter subject had first arisen the day before. Slavery was the second major controversial issue to arise during the representation conflict and to be compromised. Unlike the large-small State clash, which was to have but slight later impact, this one, which revealed not only the different economic interests of the North and South but also presented a moral dilemma, was to lead to disunion and civil war.

The crux of the problem was that most northern sentiment favored the counting of slaves in deciding each State's share of direct federal taxes, but not for representation. The bulk of the Southern-State emissaries wanted to exclude slaves from that computation, but desired to include them for the purpose of representation in the lower house, though they had no intention of permitting them to vote. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney and Butler of South Carolina proposed that slaves be counted equally with freemen, but the motion failed by a vote of seven States to three (Delaware, Georgia, and South Carolina).

Two strong nationalist delegates who did not sign the Constitution, Oliver Ellsworth (left) and Caleb Strong (right), left before the Convention ended, for unknown reasons and family illness, respectively. (Ellsworth, pastel (ca. 1796) attributed to James Sharples, Sr., Independence National Historical Park; Strong, oil (1813) by Gilbert Stuart, Frederick S. Moseley III, Boston.)

New York was not registered on this or any subsequent tallies during the Convention because the majority of its delegates, Yates and Lansing, had headed home after the previous day's session. Followers of States-rights advocate Gov. George Clinton and at odds with their colleague, Hamilton, by this time they were probably sure that ultimately the Convention would advocate a highly centralized type of government. They also had pressing legal and judicial business in New York. Apparently at the end of August they decided not to return to Philadelphia. After they left, Hamilton's status was reduced to an unofficial one, and only 10 States voted until July 23, when New Hampshire's representatives finally arrived.

Later on July 11, six States to four voted in favor of taking a census of free inhabitants to determine representation. By the same numerical margin, a proposal was rejected to count three-fifths of the slaves, a formula that the Continental Congress had frequently utilized in making requisitions on the States and that had been discussed earlier in the Convention. At the close of the session, the resolution on the census was annulled and the decision was made to adjourn. There was hope of progress on the morrow.

That session began with a resolution by Gouverneur Morris to correlate representation, based on wealth and population, with taxation. After discussion and amendment to "direct" taxation, the measure passed unanimously. A separate motion, as amended, provided that a census was to be taken within 6 years of the adoption of the new government and thereafter once every decade (decennially) to determine the respective wealth and population of the States. As for the matter of slaves, representation and taxation were both to be computed by counting five of them as equal to three free inhabitants. A concession by the Northern States, this assured southerners that all slaves would not be taxed as such and that their region would also gain some representational advantage. Some southern delegates once more tried to amend the motion to count slaves equally with free inhabitants, but the motion met defeat by a vote of eight States to two. A divisive issue had been bridged and the way to the Great Compromise lay open.

The most significant action on Friday, July 13, was a vote to eliminate wealth as a basis for representation in the lower house of the national legislature. Wilson and Randolph brought nine States with them in this tally, despite the vigorous protests of Gouverneur Morris. Population was thus established as the sole criterion for the apportionment of representation. When new States were admitted, representation of the old would be adjusted at the time of the succeeding census.

The next day, Saturday July 14, the large-State nationalists again tried to improve their position. Charles Pinckney proposed a specific apportionment scheme for the upper house, based generally upon population. Despite the support of Wilson and Madison, the resolution fell six States to four. The compromise was holding.

Secretary Jackson recorded the Great Compromise of July 16, 1787, on two pages of the official Convention Journal. This is the first page. (National Archives.)

On Monday, the 16th, the body reconvened to consider the Great Compromise as a whole in its final form. The vote was close: five States (Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and North Carolina) in favor, four (Georgia, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia) opposed, and Massachusetts split.

That night, July 16—not convinced by the slim 5-4-1 vote of the need or the desirability of surrender—representatives of the large States met informally at the Indian Queen Tavern to consider the situation. The next morning, before the Convention proceedings resumed, they caucused formally. Had the large States surrendered too much to the small? Should they continue to attend the Convention? Should they continue to oppose the Great Compromise? After much discussion, they could not agree. This irresolution did not satisfy the diehards among them, but it cleared the way for continuation of the business of writing the new constitution because the large-State delegates no longer presented a united front.

The most controversial issue was now essentially resolved, but much remained to be done. Many details were still vague and undefined. A document incorporating the decisions of the Convention to that point still needed to be written. But the principal obstacle sharply dividing men who agreed that the Articles of Confederation needed a complete overhaul had been overcome. In the lower house of the proposed national legislature, representation would be adjusted in relation to population, as revealed by a decennial census, and three-fifths of the slaves would be counted. In the upper house, each State would enjoy equal representation.

The Indian Queen Tavern as it appeared about 1883. (Watercolor (1887) by Benjamin R. Evans, after a drawing (1833) by Gen. [Alfred?] Sully. Historical Society of Pennsylvania.)

The Great Compromise, by correlating representation with population in the lower house and providing for equality by State in the upper, confirmed the existence of the States and gave Congress both federal and national attributes. The fears of many small-State delegates that the large States would control the Union, if not put totally to rest, were measurably assuaged. On the whole, the compromise was a victory for the small States, though on other matters their delegates tended to follow the Virginia Plan, which provided for a strong central government. Although Madison and other large-State delegates had opposed the compromise right up to the last, they recognized it was the price they had to pay for a consolidated Union. The small States, by yielding on equal representation in the lower house, had abandoned their hopes for a mere league of States like that provided for by the Articles of Confederation. The large States, by accepting equality of voting power in the Senate, signaled the end of their attempts to dominate the government.

On the other hand, from this point on the small States, recognizing they would have a greater share of power in the central government than their population or wealth warranted, were no less desirous of strengthening the central government than the large ones.